I went to Highpoint Center (a place more for printmaking) on Friday, September 11th to an art opening as well as a magazine preview party (with Chandra and Kevin). After being lost in Minneapolis for about an hour, we finally (by chance) came across the street which the gallery resided at. Ironically, we made it on time at 7:00pm. But of course, we were unfashionably early and no one was there... above is one of the main pieces in the show.
Anyway..
Post-Modernism:
(This chapter was hell to understand, but what the heck..)
"This is pornography..." by Pink Porcupine
This is an ink drawing by a very talented artist who goes by the name Pink Porcupine. She drew what seems like a an older woman harvesting the insides of a (hairy) man and showing a younger siamese boy(s). Bugs flock the grasped organs as well as birds feasting at them. It has a very motherly feel, yet it is grotesque and shocking at the same time. Not something you witness or hear about everyday.
As far as I am aware, the artist does her artwork as a self-therapy and responses to certain things. This particular piece was done in response to her art being banned from an art website, by the reasons of the admins saying it was pornography (whereas she did not believe it was, and I agree). Knowing this, I get the feeling of anger and satire.
So is this art? I personally believe it is. Some scholars believe there is no real art in this "post-modern" era. I have no personal opinion about labeling what time period an art piece was made in, but if someone is claiming something is not art (especially art made in the present times), then I'm offended. Yes, I do have the mindset that practically anything can/is art because I was born in the "post-modern" era. It all depends on the interpretation of the artist though, not only the viewer.
Views on art is all personal opinion. Scholars don't do shit but label everything. End of story.
/end assignment.
Here's another piece by the same artist:
"Two Roosters Fighting"
I think her use of medium, menstrual blood, is very unique. Here's a similar artist being creative with his medium: http://www.jordanmckenzie.co.uk/spent.htm
Have fun!
-J
I am glad you guys made it to the Highpoint exhibit/magazine release party.
ReplyDeleteYour description of the work you have chosen to discuss here is evocative and well written, though I don't feel there is much analysis of it from a postmodern viewpoint.
I find it ironic that you chafe at the idea of things being labeled, yet feel so attached to the label of "art" that you are offended by the very idea of something not being given that particular label. I should clarify that, while scholars like Arthur Danto have declared the end of "Art," they do not mean at all that no more art will be made, or that objects will no longer be art. Rather, he means that in a pluralistic post-modern era there is no specific definition of what art *has* to be or look like, opening up the possibilities of artistic practice beyond the linear historical progression of modernism. (A linear progression which, as we discussed in class, was about investigating more and more what were the necessary and "pure" elements of art, and through a series of historical erasures ending up with pure abstraction, or "non-objective" art).
As a side note: I am pretty shocked that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly be shocked by this sort of image, much less consider it "pornography." Frankly, it looks a lot like some prints by Aubrey Beardsley from the 1900s, or some of Max Ernst's collages from the early 20th century. It makes me wonder what kind of uptight conservative website she was submitting to, and highlights a good point: galleries and websites have points of view and agendas and one should try to get shown by people whose point of view is appropriate to one's art. No one has a responsibility to show or support all art.
How could I change it to be a more post-modern standpoint? I was a little confused on how to do so.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to sound like I was rejecting the idea of labeling, I just [personally] don't think it was much importance. I meant more in a time-period/movement manner, rather than art itself. Such example is Breton labeling Frida Kahlo as a surrealist, when she considered herself a realist (portraying what is real to her). Shouldn't the artist label themselves, with sensible reasoning, if they even wanted to?
The piece I used wasn't the one rejected. It WAS more suggestive but she did not interpret it as so. The piece I chose was a reaction to having the work banned.
I agree with the Beardsley prints, I actually forgot about him until you mentioned. Though, I didn't think it looked like Max Ernst's collages as much (do you know why he's more famous than Carrington or Varos? Is it because he's male?).
I don understand that this piece was a response to the rejection, not the rejected piece. Still, after shows like Jeff Koons "Made in Heaven," for example, I find it hard to believe that some legitimate art world website or gallery would turn down a drawing for being "pornographic." One way or the other, I would still say it is a good idea to know the tastes and ideals of a gallery one submits to.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of movements and so on, I would agree that it doesn't matter to the artist themselves. However, once a work of art leaves the artist's studio what they think about it matters a lot less than what viewers and the culture at large think, and even intended meanings can get lost and changed through discourse. Frankly, though, one of the differences between the postmodern era and the modern era is the relative lack of "movements." The very refusal to think in terms of movements is itself somewhat postmodern. (Bear in mind "postmodernism" is not a movement in the sense that Surrealism was. In the case of Surrealism and many other modern movements it actually was the artists themselves producing manifestoes and labeling their own production, though not always).
As far as Max Ernst's relative fame, I would say that, yes, some of it was almost certainly due to being a man in what was a much more sexist time. He also lived in the art centers of Europe and was more likely to get publicity than someone like Leonora Carrington, an English woman living in Mexico. In a mild and ironic twist on the assumed sexism behind his relative fame, though, part of it came from the fact that he was married to Peggy Guggenheim, one of the most famous and wealthy collectors in the world, who ran a gallery in Paris as well as starting the Peggy Guggenheim Collection museum in Venice. In many ways she was more famous and important to the art world than he was, and it could be argued that his fame rides on her coat-tails.
My, I forgot that he was married to Guggenheim. That's a very interesting fact... So then, why did Dali become the icon of the Surrealism movement?
ReplyDeleteDali was a better businessman and salesman, and he understood in a proto-Warhol way how the artist/celebrity becomes kind of a performance art schtick. Ernst was more all-over-the-map stylistically, and I am sure the fact that he remained somewhat enigmatic prevented him becoming such a celebrity.
ReplyDeleteThat's incredibly interesting. I'm glad I can ask you about these things and get answers.
ReplyDelete