http://www.radarredux.net/
Jack Livingston of RADAR contacted me about the show. I've invited him to post some questions.
There is a section off of the RADAR redux website on the show.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Baltimore Sun: Best of this week
IN ART
THE RACE SHOW // By appointment. The Whole Gallery, 405 W. Franklin St. 3rd. Floor. Free. Contact briana.bainbridge@gmail.com or go to theraceshow.blogspot.com.
What happens when you ask 13 artists, many of them graduates of the Maryland Institute College of Art, to create an artwork from the point of view of a person of another race? Curator Lu Zhang asked a group of art school chums to take on the project, and the results say a lot about how race plays out as an issue in Baltimore's art world.
The Whole Gallery is an underground venue not widely known to the public, and it could be an ideal hatchery for young talent. The show is well worth a look just for the questions it raises about how notions of race and reality.
[GLENN MCNATT]
THE RACE SHOW // By appointment. The Whole Gallery, 405 W. Franklin St. 3rd. Floor. Free. Contact briana.bainbridge@gmail.com or go to theraceshow.blogspot.com.
What happens when you ask 13 artists, many of them graduates of the Maryland Institute College of Art, to create an artwork from the point of view of a person of another race? Curator Lu Zhang asked a group of art school chums to take on the project, and the results say a lot about how race plays out as an issue in Baltimore's art world.
The Whole Gallery is an underground venue not widely known to the public, and it could be an ideal hatchery for young talent. The show is well worth a look just for the questions it raises about how notions of race and reality.
[GLENN MCNATT]
Sunday, November 11, 2007
comment from Lu
I personally find it difficult to separate politics, morality/values, art, life, etc. etc. My personal politics and belief system shape every decision I make, whether this be in regards to art making or toilet using. I do think that some decisions are more “politically” loaded than others but this is specific to each individual. For some people, using a more efficient toilet may be a political statement. For others, the art they make may be a political statement. Then the question is, where is the line that work would be better described as propaganda, rather than art?
comment from ivanny
although i agree with what lu said
"There are things we value more than money or even the respect from society that certain other jobs can bring."
i again have to make the point that art can be inspired by politics but a political statement cannot be the end result.
brilliant cultural thinkers like coco fusco make the mistake of calling what they do art. So at the end of the day what they have made is a poigniant political statement but is either terrible art or something that isnt art at all.
one can make the argument that the decision to be an artist is a luxury that only economically stable countries can support. in that sense choosing to be an artist is in no way more of a politically notable decision nor is it morally superior to any other profession (let alone any thought or action) a human being can make.
example:
i have a five gallon toilet in my bathroom. many people in this country and around the world can consider this an excessive luxury, not to mention environmentally irresponsible, also the use of one can be insensitive to those without plumbing or shelter. that said, is my morning routine a political statement?
i agree with eli that
"A person’s choice to be an artist is not any more or less laden with value choices than anyone else’s choice in how to pursue their life."
concerning the second point eli made. perhaps i was not so clear. what i meant by
"...no moral or ethical obligation beyond displaying artwork to the satisfaction of other artists..."
was that as a curator, i am responsible for displaying the work of the other artists in the exhibition to a quality satisfactory to the artist's original vision.
it is an ethical obligation because otherwise i would be defacing/ damaging/ or misrepresenting the work and the artists in addition.
i in no way meant that i have separate concerns for artists then from non artists.
-ivanny
"There are things we value more than money or even the respect from society that certain other jobs can bring."
i again have to make the point that art can be inspired by politics but a political statement cannot be the end result.
brilliant cultural thinkers like coco fusco make the mistake of calling what they do art. So at the end of the day what they have made is a poigniant political statement but is either terrible art or something that isnt art at all.
one can make the argument that the decision to be an artist is a luxury that only economically stable countries can support. in that sense choosing to be an artist is in no way more of a politically notable decision nor is it morally superior to any other profession (let alone any thought or action) a human being can make.
example:
i have a five gallon toilet in my bathroom. many people in this country and around the world can consider this an excessive luxury, not to mention environmentally irresponsible, also the use of one can be insensitive to those without plumbing or shelter. that said, is my morning routine a political statement?
i agree with eli that
"A person’s choice to be an artist is not any more or less laden with value choices than anyone else’s choice in how to pursue their life."
concerning the second point eli made. perhaps i was not so clear. what i meant by
"...no moral or ethical obligation beyond displaying artwork to the satisfaction of other artists..."
was that as a curator, i am responsible for displaying the work of the other artists in the exhibition to a quality satisfactory to the artist's original vision.
it is an ethical obligation because otherwise i would be defacing/ damaging/ or misrepresenting the work and the artists in addition.
i in no way meant that i have separate concerns for artists then from non artists.
-ivanny
Saturday, November 10, 2007
comment from Eli
I don’t think that art is necessarily political because, as Lu said, artists decide to pursue a certain discipline (although all art might necessarily be political because art will always reflect to some degree the value choices of the particular artist). A person’s choice to be an artist is not any more or less laden with value choices than anyone else’s choice in how to pursue their life. Some people become lawyers and doctors because their values lead them to pursue professions that allow them to advocate or assist those who are less fortunate in our society (and, yes, others become lawyers and doctors because they want to make money). There is nothing inherent in becoming a lawyer or a doctor that symbolizes certain values. Values do not separate professional artists (or musicians or writers) from other people -- there is nothing inherent to being an artist that makes you concerned with poverty or repression. So, if values do not distinguish a professional artist from other disciplines, what is it? It is that the artist creates. And the art that the artist creates engages all of us and opens our eyes (and thus art plays a fundamental role in society). But while we note that the professional artist creates for a living, we should not seek to distinguish professional artists from other people. As Joesph Beuys said we should “get beyond the concept [of that is what artists do and that is what engineers do]” and move to a concept “that everyone is an artist, and that every person has a creative core.”
This leads me to Ivanny’s statement that he has no moral or ethical obligation beyond displaying artwork to the satisfaction of other artists. First, why do you, as an artist or a curator, have a moral or ethical obligation to do this? You might have a professional obligation, but why do you elevate it to a moral obligation? Also, why do you distinguish between “artists” and non-artists? Unless what you mean is that you only have an obligation to those who seek to be creatively engaged in your art as opposed to people who only are interested in it politically (e.g. people who want you to include a black artist in your show to be politically correct). If what you are saying is that as an artist you have no obligation to politics or to be politically correct, I completely agree.
This leads me to Ivanny’s statement that he has no moral or ethical obligation beyond displaying artwork to the satisfaction of other artists. First, why do you, as an artist or a curator, have a moral or ethical obligation to do this? You might have a professional obligation, but why do you elevate it to a moral obligation? Also, why do you distinguish between “artists” and non-artists? Unless what you mean is that you only have an obligation to those who seek to be creatively engaged in your art as opposed to people who only are interested in it politically (e.g. people who want you to include a black artist in your show to be politically correct). If what you are saying is that as an artist you have no obligation to politics or to be politically correct, I completely agree.
Friday, November 9, 2007
lu's response to Ivanny's comment
"true art is not political"
i think all art is political. (to varying degrees) I remember after 9-11 the huge controversy about the painting that read "terrorist". or even recently, the painting that depicts Jesus Christ as Bin Laden. (from one angle you see christ, from another you see Bin Laden in similar pose with a similar expression) These examples are more overtly political. But I think making art is still a political act. This becomes less and less true in America and Europe as art integrates with capitalism. Though, becoming an artist is still a choice that invites criticism and says to an extent, my values are different than yours. In my personal experience, my parents were very upset when I decided to go to art school. They were hoping that I would go to med school or law school. For my parents, who grew up during the cultural revolution in China, the best way to happiness is to have a reliable source of income. The higher the better. i think this is the view of many immigrant families who have come to the US from impoverished backgrounds elsewhere. I think being an artist then does become political, because artists choose a way of life that will probably not sustain us economically much less make us rich. There are things we value more than money or even the respect from society that certain other jobs can bring. This value shift separates artists/musicians/ etc. etc. from other people. It says, no matter how naively, here is beauty. There is war, famine, racism, environmental issues, etc. etc. here is something beautiful.
But art is not necessarily politically correct.
i think all art is political. (to varying degrees) I remember after 9-11 the huge controversy about the painting that read "terrorist". or even recently, the painting that depicts Jesus Christ as Bin Laden. (from one angle you see christ, from another you see Bin Laden in similar pose with a similar expression) These examples are more overtly political. But I think making art is still a political act. This becomes less and less true in America and Europe as art integrates with capitalism. Though, becoming an artist is still a choice that invites criticism and says to an extent, my values are different than yours. In my personal experience, my parents were very upset when I decided to go to art school. They were hoping that I would go to med school or law school. For my parents, who grew up during the cultural revolution in China, the best way to happiness is to have a reliable source of income. The higher the better. i think this is the view of many immigrant families who have come to the US from impoverished backgrounds elsewhere. I think being an artist then does become political, because artists choose a way of life that will probably not sustain us economically much less make us rich. There are things we value more than money or even the respect from society that certain other jobs can bring. This value shift separates artists/musicians/ etc. etc. from other people. It says, no matter how naively, here is beauty. There is war, famine, racism, environmental issues, etc. etc. here is something beautiful.
But art is not necessarily politically correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
