• Can and should bodily functions be displayed as artwork?
• Does the creator have to be human for a work to be considered art? Is the bird actually the one who created the work through defecating, or is it the human who decided to frame it?
• How can media effect the reception of an artwork? Should media be a consideration when deciding if something is in fact art?
• Ornithologists have been studying bird dejecta for years, focusing on many of the same aspects as artists do, i.e. color, consistency, texture, etc. What is the difference between sample plates of bird dejecta in a lab, and sample plates of bird dejecta in a gallery? Can the re-contextualization of a science make it an art?

 

Appropriation and Reprinting… Separated at Birth?
Cortney Colbert

Sherrie Levine, After Edward Weston, 1981

In 1977, the Witkin Gallery in New York bought original Edward Weston photographic negatives from his son Neil Weston. They then commissioned artist/photographer George A. Tice to make new prints from some of those negatives for a collection that the gallery was going to show/publish. Tice was already a well-established artist at the time and had many pieces of his work in permanent collections throughout the country. He went ahead and reprinted the negatives and had this to say about the process; "I’m not in business as a printer. I take an image and I make it an art object. I memorize it. It becomes mine." It is important to note that a lot goes into reprinting negatives beyond simply skill in photographic printing. A person reprinting photographs has the opportunity to embellish and interpret the negative in any way they please. In this way, Tice was able to do things in the printing process that might not have been done in the same fashion (or done at all for that matter) had Edward Weston done the printing himself. The Witkin Gallery had a series of large posters made to promote the publication and featured six of the reprinted negatives. An artist named Sherrie Levine rephotographed the prints featured in the poster and placed them in a show under the idea that they were her photographs… her art. The ideas inherent in most acts of appropriation in art fall along the lines of challenging originality within art. Levine made sure to emphasize this by giving the work the title, "After Edward Weston." This act of appropriation brought a lot of attention to Levine and her work. In fact, George Tice attacked Levine under the charges that he was a victim of copyright infringement and that Levine should be shunned for her "forgeries." The prints Levine made were not identical to the ones printed by Tice. Her reproductions of the photographs from the poster were changed subtlety in size and clarity (due to the fact that they were photographed from a mass produced poster).

• What differences, if any, are there between reprinting an artist’s work and appropriating it?
• Can the work of either of these artists (Tice, Levine) be considered art? Under what circumstances?
• Edward Weston made the original decision on which negatives he printed and which he left untouched. Under what conditions might it be acceptable for an artist/reprinter, like Tice, to print original negatives and classify them as art?
• Who should decide what is printed and what is not?
• Who do you think should be credited as the artist for Tice’s reprinted Weston negatives (Tice or Weston)? How about for Levine’s appropriated work? For what reasons?
• Is work created from an appropriation art? How so? How might this challenge the idea of originality in art?
• Does it matter who originally created a piece when looking at artistic value?

• Could Jenny Holzer be considered an artist or an author of social commentary?  How would you justify text as art if you do consider her an artist?  In what way could social commentary be considered art? (Nature of Art)
• Because Holzer’s work isn’t considered conventional art, is it still artwork to you? Why? (Nature of Art)
• What constitutes beautiful art? Can words be aesthetically beautiful? How? (Nature of Beauty)
• Even if you don’t understand the meaning of the text, can you appreciate her work? Does understanding the message make it art? Why? (Nature of Art)
• Does the impermanence of Holtz’s work mean that her projections are not true forms of art?  Do they continue to be art after the projection is taken down?  Do the documentations of the projections become the art? Why or why not? (Nature of Art)
• Does a work have to be tangible to be considered art? Explain your answer. (Nature of Art)
• Can an aesthetic experience related to a work of art make it beautiful/aesthetically pleasing, even if you considered it ugly prior to your experience? (Nature of Beauty)

The Albany Bulb
Jon Merriman

Located within sight of the Golden Gate Bridge and the city of San Francisco is a 31 acre spit of land called the Albany Bulb. From 1963 to 1983 the Bulb was an official landfill site for the city of Albany, California, and is now overgrown with natural grasses, wildflowers and art. Long ignored by the city of Albany, who owns the property, the site was discovered by a group of artists calling themselves "Sniff," who began creating and installing artworks constructed out of trash and driftwood washed up along its shore. Recently the city of Albany evicted 70 homeless who lived on the landfill. A film, "Bum’s Paradise," chronicles the artwork on the site and the eviction. Environmentalists fought and briefly won the right for the Bulb to remain as is, however the owners of Golden Gate Fields recently announced their intention to build a conference center and hotel close to the site. The city of Albany is considering adding the Bulb to a list of other areas as part of the 30 million dollar California East Shore State Park system. Long popular with artists and hikers from the Bay Area, the artwork on the Bulb may soon be removed to make room for more conventional park amenities such as trails and benches.

• How and by whom should public art be defined?
• What conditions define a place as art?
• It was always illegal for art to be installed at the Albany Bulb without permission from the city. Could the artworks be considered "legitimate" if placed in an approved park or gallery? Why?
  

Beauty

Is Beauty a Crime?
Marissa Bell

"Bansky" is a pseudonym that has been assumed by a London artist to protect himself from being persecuted for his art. Pseudonyms were often taken by women and minorities to keep the majority from stopping their creative processes. In this case, however, Bansky fits the profile of the majority: Caucasian and male. Still Bansky creates subversive art that upsets the white male majority holding positions of power in his country of Britain and its ally the United States. One of Bansky’s trademarks is forging artworks that appear antique and authentic, but in reality contain a hidden message and agenda that is revealed upon closer inspection. He is well known for taking these artworks, sneaking into well known and exclusive museums, the Metropolitan Museum of Art as seen above, and displaying them on the walls himself. All it takes for him to commit his "art terrorism" without being caught is a prosthetic nose, a beard and some good tape. He feels his politically charged works need to be seen by the masses and is willing to break laws to make sure that happens. His grafitti art has London police especially hot under the collar; he explains that his work gives voice to the voiceless against those who dominate supposedly public domains. He justifies it all in the end by noting "it’s always easier to get forgiveness than permission".

• Who has the right to decide what art is worthy of being displayed in museums
• Is Bansky’s art less valid than the other works hanging in the art museums because it was not selected to suit the aesthetic of the small minority who control the institutions?
  
  If a person disagrees with the message Bansky is communicating can they still appreciate the formal qualities of his work and find it beautiful?
• Can a work of art be dissected into components (content, form, artist’s intent) and be observed in regards to only one or some but not all of its parts?
• If an artist breaks the law, like Bansky has, and his identity is taken away, can he still take credit for his art?
• If someone knows Bansky’s work has been deemed unlawful and still finds it beautiful are they also breaking the law? Why or why not?
• Bansky has a small cult following: if he didn’t have an audience to appreciate his art, would it still be valid or would that render it useless?
• Bansky’s art is displayed in what should be public domains, on street corners and in musuems, if these places are for the public why is the public not more involved in selecting what artworks are shown?

Izima Kaoru’s Landscapes with a Corpse: The Nature, or Horror, of Beauty
Justine Pechuzal

The world of fashion photography stalks beauty. On a typical shoot, photographers work obsessively with a team of stylists, make-up artists and models for hours, sometimes days or weeks, sculpting an image of 2-D perfection. Japanese fashion photographer Izima Kaoru is familiar with this routine, yet chose to push the envelope further with a body of work that adds another element to the beauty composition: death. In his series "Landscapes with a Corpse," Kaoru poses impeccably made-up models and actresses dressed in high fashion costumes in various death scenes, both urban and in nature, with the cause of death only mysteriously hinted upon. For example, one gloomy, yet striking photo depicts a body draped in a Christian Dior dress suspended from tree branches, alone in a misty grey field. Another immortalizes a woman dressed in gold heels, pearls, and fur sprawled gracefully on the cold tile floor of a man’s bathroom, a small line of blood spilled from the corner of her mouth, pink pearls or pills scattered.

Technically, the photographs are pristine. Subjectively, the combination of horror, mystery, and emotion, juxtaposing evocative beauty with death, is unsettling. Izima claims he makes the images as an exploration of morality. "I'm not trying to show that death is beautiful, just that it's something people need not be afraid of. And I think the models know this too." Is beauty only skin-dip? Or paper deep? One the one hand, Kaoru’s images are visually stunning, beautiful and compelling, yet on the other, the images depict scenes of violence and death that most people find repelling.

Questions:

• Can death be beautiful? Why or why not?
  
• How does beauty depicted in death change the meaning of beauty when compared to beauty in regular fashion photography?
  
• Would Kaoru’s "Landscape of a Corpse" photographs be as beautiful if the models were men? How does gender affect our sense of beauty?
  
• How does horror affect our sense of beauty?
  
• How might a victim of violent crime interpret beauty in these photographs?

Beauty and Propaganda

Soon after graduating as an art educator, a friend of mine went in for an interview at an elementary school. She was excited, for she had not had much luck getting a job in her field and the summer was almost over. The interview went great. The principal gave her a little tour of the school and the art classroom. When they were walking back to the office they talked about art, and the principal strongly emphasized her views on art. "Art has to be beautiful, none of the emotional, angry, dull and dark propaganda is art," said the principal. My friend felt shocked and disappointed. A simple and brief "oh" was her answer. The principal continued to say how art should be "pretty" and make people "happy." My friend and the principal did not share the same views on the definition or purpose of art. The school’s principal was very proud of her views about what art was, and wanted the children at her school to make "beautiful art" too. "Landscapes, waterfalls, flowers, and pleasant things like that," she said were to be anticipated from her young ones.

• What does "pleasant" mean? How does it compare to "ugly"?
  
• What is propaganda? Is it art? And is it "unpleasant" art? When?
  
• What is the difference between propaganda and art? Which is "prettier"?
  
• What makes art beautiful, and what makes it ugly?
  
• Must everyone agree with these definitions? Why/Why not?
  
• How can you tell the difference between beautiful and ugly art?

Aesthetic Experience

Texas Canyon: An Aesthetic Experience or Just an Appreciation for All Art?
Lauren Stead Alleln

 

Four years ago my husband took me on my first trip to New Mexico. The trip is a 3 hour and 45 minute drive to Hatch from Tucson. About an hour and a half outside of Tucson, we came across an incredible landscape of enormous boulders remarkably stacked one on top of the other. I was absolutely amazed. I asked my then boyfriend what this place was called and he said, "Texas Canyon." We pulled over and took lots of photos and had a discussion about how amazing this 3-4 mile stretch of desert was, and how much it reminded us of Salvador Dali’s work. (Dali is and has always been one of our all time favorite artists and surrealist painters, and I know that if he ever had a chance he would have loved our little "Dali spot".) Ever since that first time, we always make a point to stop at Texas Canyon on our trips and sometimes we even drive out there just for the boulders.

Aesthetic Experience Questions:

• Can any experience be an aesthetic experience? Explain.
  
• Do aesthetic experiences have more meaning if the participator has a background in art? And if so is the aesthetic experience caused by art appreciation rather than the experience itself?
  
• When is the aesthetic response between nature and art different?
  
• When would the aesthetic experience of natural beauty change? Or does it?
  
• Does artist intent provide more meaning than an aesthetic nature experience? Is it still valid? Or is there even a difference between naturally occurring phenomenon and art?
  
• Would the effect of the boulders be the same if an artist had placed them rather than nature? Why or why not?
  
• Would this place still be an aesthetic experience even if my husband and I didn’t both share it? What if others who drive through it do not have an aesthetic experience? Is it still valid as an aesthetic experience or is it just an experience? Is there a difference in this case or any other?
  
• Could this have been an aesthetic experience even if my husband and I had not made an instant connection to art? Does the art connection to Dali’s style of painting surreal dreamscapes make it more important or valid?
  
• Do aesthetic experiences have to involve ecstasy? Why or why not?

• Is the viewer’s interpretation of an artwork wrong if it differs from the artist’s intent? Explain your answer.
• What constitutes a right or wrong interpretation?
• Is it possible for an artwork to have an absolute "true" interpretation? Why or why not?
• Who determines what the "true" interpretation of an artwork is?
• What role does the medium in a piece play, in terms of meaning and interpretation?

• In what ways could Goldsworthy’s underlying intent affect the way the viewer reflects on his work? (Interpretation and Meaning)
• If you were to view Goldsworthy’s work without any background information would you understand that he intended them to be a statement on environmental preservation? (Interpretation and Meaning) If so, why? Why not?
• Does experiencing his sculpture through photography, therefore removed from the work take away from the aesthetic experience often provoked by his work? (Aesthetic Experience)
• Could knowing the artists intent combined with looking at the work make the experience of viewing it more enjoyable? (Interpretation and Meaning, Aesthetic Experience)
• Could there be other interpretations for Goldsworthy’s sculptures? How? What are they? (Interpretation and Meaning). Does this change Goldsworthy’s sculpture?
• Can an interpretation of a piece without knowing the artists intent be valid? (Interpretation and Meaning)
• How can one have an aesthetic experience about sculpture when viewing the work through photography? (Aesthetic Experience) If they can is this valid? Why or why not?

She Had Arms for Legs
Marissa Bell

Andrew Wyeth grew up in a house filled with art, but did not show any artistic promise early in his life. His father was a famous illustrator who seemed more interested in grooming Wyeth’s sisters to follow in his footsteps than Wyeth. Wyeth was the youngest child, the runt of the litter, who was sickly and frail. For him art became an escape; something to document the moments when he was off by himself. It was his self taught beginnings that would shape his art; Wyeth is an artist known for the emotion he evokes through his paintings. One of Wyeth’s most poignant and well known works is Christina’s World. At first glance it seems like a well rendered landscape seen through a rose colored lense. The figure, a women resting in the grass, seems to be admiring the farmhouse in the distance. Upon closer inspection however, you notice the women seems to be supporting herself with her arms and the farmhouse suddenly seems impossibly far off in the distance. Christina Olson was a woman Wyeth knew and admired. She had recovered from polio as a child, but was crippled as a result. Rather than the tragic figure to be expected, she was a figure full of power, grace who forged on in the face of adversity. But most viewers who will view Christina’s World know nothing of the woman she was they only see her in terms of her diminished physical capacity. The end result is a misinterpretation of a painting that should be empowering, but instead seems depressing.

• Does Wyeth’s interpretation of his painting dictate how the viewer should interpret Christina’s World? Why or why not?
• Can two interpretations that conflict with each other both be correct? Why or why not?
• If Wyeth had been formally trained rather than self taught would his interpretations be more valid? Why or why not?
• Wyeth was working in a time when the New York School was the buzz of the art world, however his work was not liked by them and they considered him to be more of an illustrator than a painter.
• If in artist is not part of an art movement are they and their work invalidated?
• Does knowing Wyeth’s personal connection with the painting influence the viewer’s interpretation?
• If a viewer knows nothing about a work of art or the artist can their interpretation be considered "pure"?
• Should a painting to be contextualized or is the viewer’s snap judgment a more apt interpretation of an artwork?
• If Christina Olson had been crippled as a result of a nondescript accident rather than a social phenomenon that defined a generation such as polio, would it change the relevance of the painting?
• Does there need to be a story and a meaning behind a painting or can it just be a beautiful piece of decoration and still have value?

like a charismatic salesman… Chicago has attracted , goaded, and inspired hundreds of adherents. They claim she’s changed their lives. Somehow she’s persuaded hundreds of women, many of them housewives, to view themselves as artists. Somehow she has forced large segments of the public to consider parts of women’s bodies and parts of women’s lives, that the public would rather not confront. Chicago’s fans adore her. Her polemic, insistent, disturbing, and unsubtleness is less successful than her cult.

• How much should an artist tell us about an artwork?
• And if she or he does tell us a lot about a complicated work, how faithful must we remain to what the artist says?
• In interpreting a work of art, how much should we be influenced by what others say?
  

• If a politically inspired art work inspires additional political controversy unrelated to the artist’s original intent, should this controversy become part of our understanding of the work ? Why or Why not ?
  

• Should the print and film media be held responsible for providing a good interpretation of an artwork in addition to reporting a controversy surrounding it?

Tickling the Ivory Box
Justine Pechuzal

 

Most art objects are just that: objects. A plank of wood, smear of pigment, or woven fibers. Yet these art objects come to symbolize many things to many people. Some objects take on an importance so great that individuals or institutions are willing to pay large amounts of money for them, and develop elaborate schemes to steal or protect them, when in fact, the object’s utilitarian value is slight. The Pamplona casket, a small ivory box carved in 1004 in Spain, is an example of such a prized art object. Used as both a possible spice box and reliquary, the casket was functional in Muslim and Christian traditions and symbolizes the diverse cultural history of Medieval Spain, as well as the complex ways that humans use and interpret art.

In 711, Arab and Muslim Berbers invaded Spain, introducing a radically different culture and rich artistic tradition to the Christian inhabitants of the Iberian Penninsula. One of the prized trades imported North by the Muslims was ivory work. Skilled artisans carved highly decorated and intricate ivory panels, used to make boxes for prescious goods such as spices and jewels. The labor-intensive boxes indicated prestige, as the main recipients were court officials and members of the caliphal household. The Pamplona casket, carved in 1004, is believed to commemorate chamberlain Abd al-Malik’s victory in Leon over the Christians. Both the images and inscriptions evoke power: the inscription around the lid of the box calls Abd al-Malik "sword of the state" and a medallion on the front right of the casket shows a figure seated on a lion throne and flanked by two attendants, one of whom holds a perfume sprinkler and a woven fan, the other a fly-wisk. Yet the Pamplona casket did not remain a symbol of Muslim power in Muslim hands for long; Cordoba was sacked in 1010 by Christians, and the ivory box was taken from its palatial beginnings to a Benedictine monastery in the Pyrenees. There in the mountains, a box covered with inscriptions elevating a Muslim ruler became the reliquary for the bones of two Christian martyrs who died defying Islam. Most likely, many Christian pilgrims visited the reliquary as part of a holy pilgrimage. Today the box is kept in the Pamplona cathedral treasury in Spain. Many art historians have written about the box, and other boxes with similar histories, debating the boundaries of artistic and cultural appropriation, assimilation, and exchange. From its humble beginnings as an elephant tusk, one can only wonder at what this ivory represents now.

Questions:

• Why do you think people value and/or collect art objects that are unusual or exotic?
  
• How important is historical context when interpreting an object like the Pamplona casket? How about interpreting any object?
  
• How does an object’s meaning change if it is characterized as ‘war booty’ versus ‘cultural exchange’?
  
• What might happen to the meaning of the Pamplona box if it was currently displayed in a mosque as opposed to a cathedral?
  
• How the ethnic background of the interpreter affect how they might understand the Pamplona casket? Why?
  
• In what ways could the interpretation of historical art objects reify the construction of race, gender, and power categories?
  
• Why do art objects have meaning?
  

• What is the role of the curator? And what should it be?
• What would your reaction, as an artist, be if a curator made all the decisions about how and where to display your work?
  
• It could be said that the meaning of the photographs was ‘designed’ by Steichen’s placement in the exhibition. Who should decide on the meaning of the image? Why?

• How can you justify enjoying a work of art that objectifies a race/gender in a demeaning way? (Ethical and Moral Values)
  
• How can art that is seen as pornographic still be judged as art (whether it is good or bad)? (Critical Judgment)
  
• Should artworks be judged on their own merits? Or should they be taken in context? Why? (Ethical and Moral Values)
  
• Can you enjoy art that you find morally wrong? Explain. (Ethical and Moral Values)
  
• Based on moral and ethical grounds, should museums display things that are seen as morally unethical by the public? (Ethical and Moral Values)
  
• Should artists take responsibility for their art if it proves unethical to the public? (Ethical and Moral Values)

Egon Schiele: Art and Moral Character
Lauren Stead Allen

Egon Schiele was regarded by many of his contemporaries in Vienna, from 1906- 1911, as the predestined successor to Gustav Klimt, but died before he could fulfill his promise. His fascinating but not wholly admirable character is accounted for, at least in part, by his family background and upbringing. His father Adolf got sick and eventually died a madman in Egon’s teens. Afterwards Egon took a major dislike for his mother whom he felt never properly mourned his father or provided Egon with the attention that he craved. In his late teens Egon had an incestuous relationship with his sister, who was four years younger than he. On numerous occasions throughout their childhood and adolescence, Egon's father had caught the two of them and had punished them for their incestuous indiscretions. This eventually led to Egon’s obsession with sexuality, women and masturbation that is seen through much of his work (Kallir p.27). In addition to pornographic imagery of adult models and self portraits, Egon also had a strong inclination towards prepubescent children. In April 1912 Egon was arrested for displaying pornographic images in an area accessible to children and subsequently spent 24 days in prison. This incident though isolated, is a testament to the artist going too far even during a time when soft-porn images were considered beautiful and even elite as can be seen with Klimt’s work depicting upper class women. Which leads to the question was Egon Schiele a revolutionary or just a narcissistic and perverted deviant who happened to express his desires through art? Or should this even matter when we look at his work?

Moral and Ethical Questions:

• Should Egon Schiele’s character, morals and lifestyle be taken into account when viewing his work?
  
• When is it ethical to support the work of an artist who depicts and participates in sexual deviancy?
  
• Could this work be considered immoral because it is pornographic in nature?
  
• Does the fact that some of this work depicts naked children change the moral/immoral quality of the work? Explain.
  
• If this work did not offend anyone, would it still be unethical by the nature of the subject matter?
  
• Should an artwork be moral or ethical? Can it still be enjoyed for its aesthetic qualities regardless of values?
  

Images and Info From:
Kallir, Jane. (2003). Egon Schiele: Life and Work.Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Pp.27, 70, 74, 76, 78, 110.

Anatomy Art: Gunther Von Hagens' Plastinates
Kim Hermes

Professor Gunther Von Hagens' Bodyworlds exhibition (or in German, Korperwelten), features over 20 dead bodies, some that have been donated by friends and others that have been donated to science. These bodies have been coined by Von Hagens as Plastinates. This process is one that Von Hagens invented himself and involves replacing the natural body fluids with a solid plastic which in turn both preserves the tissues and gives them rigidity, enabling the corpse and organs to be displayed in any conceivable position. For the exhibit, one body is posed dribbling a basketball, another is of a man riding atop a horse; both are skinned with their inner organs exposed. Another body of a young woman has been selected by Von Hagens. Her body is positioned reclining on her side, her organs are also exposed, including her heart, and an eight month old fetus in her womb.In what way could Von Hagens' work be considered art and not scientific
display?

Questions:

• Do you think that bodies should be used in art even with permission from a donor? Why or why not?
  
• Are there any reasons why it could be important for us to see our bodies displayed in this way? If yes, why?
  
• What could we learn from Von Hagens' displays that we couldn't from an anatomy book?

Challenging the Immoral
(in a good way…)
Cortney Colbert

Klansman Imperial Wizard III
Hombre del Klan, Mago Imperial III, 1990
Cibachrome. 156 x 128 cm. Edición AP
Colección del Artísta

Throughout the history of art, artists have been challenging the viewer with artwork/images that might be seen as immoral. Their works have created controversy and, most recently (late 1980’s and early 1990’s), led in part to the diminishing of the National Endowment for the Arts. One artist known for his controversial work is Andres Serrano. In a series of work done in 1990 titled Klansmen, Serrano created larger-than-life photographs (5’x4’) of members of the Ku Klux Klan. He convinced the Imperial Wizard to don his hooded costume and pose for portraits along with other high-ranked persons in the Klan in Georgia. Serrano received a great amount of hate mail and death-threats as well as lost some of his grants once the series Klansmen began to show around the country. Many see the images as a glorification of the Ku Klux Klan because of the beauty that is inherent in Serrano’s use of the medium of photography.

• Is it morally wrong for someone to enjoy this particular set of photographs? In what ways?
• If I told you that because of the controversy surrounding this group of work, prices for Serrano’s work skyrocketed, how would that change your thoughts on the previous question?
  
• In what ways might this work be unethical/immoral? How might it not be?
  
• Can these photographs be seen in a context that disconnects the beauty from the content? In what ways?
  
• Andres Serrano’s ethnic background is half Afro-Cuban and half Honduran. How does this information (assuming that you didn’t know before) change your outlook on the values explored in this body of work? Does it?
  
• By the end of the time Serrano spent photographing the Klan, some of the members began to see him as intelligent and respectful, an all-around likeable person. Does this information change any moral/ethical problems with the work? How might it do so? How not?
• In an interview Serrano stated: "If I had just been a white photographer taking pictures of the Klan it wouldn't have been very interesting for me." What is ethnicity’s role in explaining what might bee seen as ethical/moral and unethical/unmoral?