Chapter 5:
page 114-- "Yet the fact remains that the capacity to view the local relationships of power. . . . which meant that he was left to understand the local relationships through a distanced lens."
reaction: this passage verbalizes the importance of getting to know the environment and understanding its inhabitants before doing anything drastic. This reminded me of Greenpeace and their vandalism for the historic Nazca lines. Before any type of protesting or activism can be done, immersion into the local community of wherever this activism takes place has to be done before hand. Research is crucial.
page 117-- "In shaking the skeletons from the closets, institutional critique made it clear that ignoring the political economy behind the forms of cultural production was, in fact, problematic."
reaction: I think this reigns true for a lot of businesses, organizations, and consumer goods. We can choose not to buy from Urban outfitters for the myriad of offensive and inappropriate merchandise they have tried to sell such as a shirt containing Kurt Cobain's suicide note, tapestry reminiscent of Holocaust uniforms, a faux-bloodstained Kent State Sweatshirt and edgy "Navajo" fashion; but if we just focus on Urban Outfitters and not other stores that do this or accept the notion that these are unacceptable, then we are merely sidestepping the hard part of a problem and offering a band-aid solution.
Chapter 6:
page 131 and 133-- "The idea of becoming allows us to think of ourselves . . . . conservative teleology under which we were brought up." "They put art on the walls, make cards to promote shows. . . . Then what do you do?"
reaction: These two quotes are interconnected and remind me of Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" (who is also my chosen artist in the conversation of power, and social and cultural capital.) Even in the art world, advertising and monetization of art is ever present. Both brilliant and absurd, Duchamp's "Fountain" changed the way art was viewed. The fountain was simply a urinal he signed with "R. Mutt" and with which he submitted into a gallery and which was rejected. The Society of Independent Artist's in New York claimed that they would accept any artwork as long as the artist paid for the application fee. It presented a question of what is considered to be art then in this context if anything can just be submitted for a set entry fee? This absurd statement was equally met with the absurd urinal "art".
No comments:
Post a Comment