Paper Demo

Let me know what you guys think.

Myungwon.

José A Ortiz Pagan "In Process"

Hi to everyone, so finally here is my video (at least part of it). This is a project I discussed with Gerard about doing a project that goes from some kind of digital portfolio to a documentation of different processes I'm working on. This is the first step to what is going to be a more complicated video. Hope you like it and critics are welcome.

Also wanted to thank you all again for this year, I'm missing Philly and you guys, hope to see you all soon, José.

Artists writing

Glass artist Judith Schaechter has never been afraid to speak her mind. Thank heaven. A few days ago, she posted her notes from a lecture on beauty on her blog, and i thought I'd share it with you. Not because it's the most brilliant thing ever, but because it shows how she's making sense of one of the large issues in the art world, and also putting to use the work she does preparing for a talk or presentation through another media channel. Enjoy.

Potluck

View Larger Map

We're at 9 N. 9th Street (enter on 9th between Arch and Filbert) and looking forward to seeing you on Thursday, May 6, at 5:30pm. Just come in the front door, take the elevator to the 2nd floor, walk past the gym and around to the left - ours is apartment 203.

As far as parking - our building has a pretty vigilant towing company looking after its lot, so I'd avoid it. Best to look for a metered space on Filbert between 8th and 9th.

Look forward to seeing you! ~ gerard

Congratulations to everyone!!!!!

Now we know now it's done. Finally Louis Pierre and Myungwon Kim showed to everyone the result of two years of hard work and researching. Thankfully the aftermath of these two developments were satisfactory.

First Louis Pierre (who by now is on his way to Montreal), show us something that at the beginning made us ask us what was going on. But at last the surprise factor (As always accompanied Louis trough his research and performances), made and acted as one of the main characters for the development of a great collective performance aiming by that to a great balance between the gallery element and the performing aspect of this work "100 heads". This finally and personally I think put the work in great context. Also good to mention is the projection outside of the gallery, which established a great dialogue for the people to understand way more the complete aspect of this work, once again congratulations Louis Pierre.

In other hand we got Mrs. Myungwon Kim, and her great show as part of the MFA show this time in the Tyler Gallery. Great work and personally I think and agree with other people that was the best show in the gallery, and also the more serious proposal. Very good goals acknowledge by this pieces, that develop a great sense of physicality trough an aesthetic language, not only practice but also even in the appropriate size and installation, so once again to you also congratulations.

Finally I will like to thank you all, Louis, Myungwon, Leslie, Gerard and other faculty that reads on this blog thank you, I feel I had more true friends on all of you and I'm personally very glad to shared all this year with you guys, I know opportunities like this and people like you are hard to fins these days. I'm hoping to keep in touch with all of you for long time, and also to find next years peers like you (know is going to be hard), blessings to all of you see you next week.

Another take on the notion of 'discipline'

We've been talking about academic disciplines, about the space between them, about how they might be constructively merged or usefully kept separate. But there are other ways to conceive of a discipline, as Lewis Hyde does in his book, Trickster Makes this World. I want to quote him at length:

Popular conceptions of [John] Cage tend not to see that for him chance operations were a spiritual practice, a discipline. One kind of courting of chance is exactly the opposite of discipline, of course - the young person putting herself at risk, the gambler on a spree, the speculator playing with a relative's money. Cage was a playful man, but these are not his uses of chance, as he himself struggled to make clear. In recommending non-intention, he once explained, "I'm not saying, 'Do  whatever you like,' and that's precisely what some people now think I'm saying...The freedoms I've given in [a musical score] have not been given to permit just anything that one wants to do, but have been invitations for people to free themselves from their likes and dislikes, and to discipline themselves."

In many ways, the discipline Cage recommended was as stringent as that of any monk on a month-long meditation retreat. He asked that intention be thwarted rigorously, not occasionally or whimsically. he worked hard at chance. He would literally spend months tossing coins and working with the I Ching to construct a score. It took so much time, he would toss coins as he rode on the New York subway to see friends. One famous piece lasted less than five minutes but it took him four years to write. And when the piece was finished, it was not meant to be an occasion for improvisation; it was meant to be played within the constraints chance had determined. "The highest discipline is the discipline of chance operations...The person is being disciplined, not the work." The person is being disciplined away from ego's habitual attitudes and toward a fundamental change of consciousness. This is Cage's version of Duchamp's "forgetting the hand" (142-43).

So perhaps another thing that interdisciplinarity does is diminish the power a discipline holds over us. It maybe our constant want to be free that ("to do whatever you like") that drives us toward interdisciplinarity, and our reluctance to "be disciplined" that drives us from our aesthetic or technical homes.

The non-show!

Is this a show or an event? Do an event can be a show or a show an event? What ever it was my little conclusion of an entire year of work in my studio. Lets not forget that the street became my studio for the second half of the year! I have to admit that I struggled a lot with this idea of bringing back into 4 white walls the information provided by my outdoor studio. After setting-up an arrangement in the gallery space for the review, I realized that the DISPLAY had noting to do with the actual work!

Why do I have to present something for my these show? The show will be NO SHOW! That was my reflexion when I moved to Philadelphia in august. I finally considered my thought of the time, and the non show became a new intervention. I decided to act the exact same way I act when I go out with the heads: arriving on-site without telling the assistance that this will append!

I would also like to share with you guys my conversation with Sean Stoops, an independent curator, introduced by Gerard - thank you Gerard - I basically talked about my work, my process and my non expectation every time I go out with the heads! I did not try to talked differently then when I talk to someone in the street, but be specific in my approach of the street and my interpretation of it. I am curious to hear what Sean as to say about my reflexion and the way I have been expressing it to him.

Hope you enjoyed the NON-SHOW! I really appreciated your participation to all of you and every time I go out with the heads - IN in this case - I get new information in order to create something more sophisticated in the future.

Louis-Pierre's non-show becomes a show...

Gabriel started referring to the lights inside Louis' heads as 'brains' ("Daddy, ths one lost his brain!")

Gabe and Leslie went for height, but heads tended to roll, not stack...

Louis-Pierre was the consummate host - eager to hear any interpretations of the work...

Adults seemed to prefer to participate by documenting. Dan was very involved in this task.

Last class discussion made me think a lot. After talking about Menand's Interdisciplinarity and Anxiety made me re think about my question about interdisciplinary in an Institution. Through our my 2 years in Tyler, I have been thinking about where I stand as an artist. Going to classes upstairs at the painting department and having many many studio visits, I didn't understand why people were asking me to identify who I was as an artist.

I felt a lot of overlaps in my work that was about printmaking and painting. The dialogues between the two departments were complicity different. I knew I had a stronger connection with printmaking but I wasn't making any "prints" in my work and the painter had a strong connection with my painterly work. I enjoyed the classes and continued taking classes upstairs but really didn't know why or where I stand. That is when I started to think about interdisciplinary. Why do we divide departments when the contemporary art dialogues doesn't necessary require which departments we had our degrees on.

I have been asking myself this semester "why am I doing what I am doing?". I have certain habits in my practice and never questioned them. I simply just made work. My thought for right now is that I have been avoiding the most basic stuff in my work. Meaning I wasn't covering my basic elements. I narrowed down a lot of elements. After our last class and the discussion about Menand's Interdisciplinarity and Anxiety made me realize that I need to redefine how my disciplines exist in my practice. Going to Tamarind Institute was to learn and master the medium of lithography and coming to graduate school afterward, I didn't need question about the medium anymore. Therefore I didn't need to go over any basic learning of the material that I was interested in. My attention was to develop my practice in graduate school and making more work related to the meduim helped me develop my creative thinking. I slowly recognized my habits of making. The process of physically engaging myself, using the same surface and materials was the main overlaps that I never questioned but never ignored.
The work that I have been making recently allowed me to recognize some fetishes of printmaking practice.
Krauss's Sculpture in the Expanded Field made me rethink about my relationship between printmaking. It allowed me to accept where I am coming from and how I should take printmaking in to a positive practice.Learning the discipline is very important (at least in my art practice) because I took me to where I am right now. Last class made me think about where I can go with my work.

Interdisciplinary

Big discussion Friday around the subject of interdisciplinary in the context of the institution. What can bring or not an open program in a school of art ratter then a set-up like Tyler where we can find specific departments? I was explaining in class the way the educational system works in France: you come with an idea and they guide you in the good department in order to realize it.
That sound to me like the best way to create, but I am aware that it could be very difficult in an institution like Tyler to manage this kind of system. It could be hard to financially plan a system that allowed students to flip from department to department, but more creative!
I would like to thanks Gerard for this discussion, it opened my mind to another position that I didn't thought before. I don't know if I am an artist, a painter or a print maker, but I am me, so far!

Sculpture In The Expanded Field

This weekend my parents visited me for the first time since I started the MFA program. Both had been to Philadelphia before, but neither of them had spent so much time on the fringes of the academic art world.

The weekend started out with a visit to the Tyler Grad Thesis Shows at the Tower Gallery. I was excited that so many of my peers would be in one space at one time so my parents could meet them. That is where they were encountered by their first few instances of obstacles of understanding. Asking people what department they were in and then what there work was proved confusing. "I am in the photography department, but my work is sculptural." "I am a painter, but I am mostly making installation." "I am in the fiber department, but I mostly do soft sculpture." If everyone was doing sculpture, you can imagine their surprise to see that the sculpture MFA candidate in the exhibition showed two videos.

We talked to another sculpture grad about this at length. Vanessa said, "Yeah, the only one in our department who is really making traditional sculpture is Tim." It sounded like the rest of them were focusing on video.

Back at school when I guided my parents on a pretty good tour of the facilities, there were even more examples of the kind of art that Mr. and Mrs. Shealey just could not have expected. And upon finding the Wolgin bust, my stepfather said with some relief, "Now, this is sculpture."

True. My parents are NOT members of the art world, but they do not live underneath rocks, either. I think what they questioned is completely valid and one that we, in the middle of the ebb and flow of art discourse forget: why call something sculpture that is something else? Why not just call it video. (For example).

In the essay "Sculpture In the Expanded Field," Rosalind Krauss discusses how sculpture has morphed in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. She uses diagrams to show how maybe sculpture should be freed from certain other artforms and they should have their own name: marked sites, site construction, and axiomatic structures. Including sculpture, these artforms are varying degrees of landscape and "not landscapes" and architecture and "not architecture." To be honest, these designations seem a bit dated to me and, if it is helpful, I am happy to have them included as viable alternatives to calling everything sculpture. But I don't think that they get to the heart of the issue--the heart that is still very much beating today.

Krauss, in the beginning of her essay, writes of the broadening definition of sculpture in 1979, "We had thought to use a universal category to authenticate a group of particulars, but the category has now been forced to cover such a heterogeneity that it is, itself, in danger of collapsing." I believe that renaming facets of art and various trends within art (like site constructions) do not solve the problem of this collapsing. And perhaps the collapsing is not the problem, but the inevitable sign of things to come.

Interdisciplinarity is what most contemporary artists want for themselves. One should not forget that the context of my story began in an art school environment where people have to apply to specific departments. But, once they are out in the world, away from the academy, they are not necessarily going to say "I am a photographer" if in fact they are mostly making sculpture.

That said, these words begin to lose some meaning over time if we allow the boundaries between disciplines to be so malleable. My suggestion is, however, that the art should trump our concern for vocabulary and ability to discuss these things. Like Krauss says towards the end of her essay, our art lexicon is "organized instead through the universe of terms that are felt to be in opposition within a cultural situation" and that specific mediums do not matter so much. It is when we challenge the structure (in this case definitions) that we make the most interesting and progressive work. When you ask a Tyler grad, for example, what their deparment is and what there work is like, they are giving you answers that have to do with what is going on with their art practice right then, in that moment in time. They can use mediums to describe the situation, but ultimately, if they are like the majority of us, they cannot be defined even that rigidly longterm. They might be making sculptural altars today and will be painting tomorrow. Or maybe not painting.

It might make for more confusion with artists' parents, but I think they can handle it. And I think, by the end of the weekend with my parents, they were enjoying the play they could have in talking about art.

My Presentation to Foundations

I wanted to tell you about my presentation to Katie Murkin's foundation class before I completely forget everything.

Katie's class was finishing up a unit on color theory and when I asked her if there was a way I could gear my presentation to what the class was studying, she asked if I would create a presentation about how I use color in my work. The challenge seemed initially easy: my work is colorful, therefore there MUST be a lot to talk about.But the truth is I really hadn't talked about the color in my work before. Color had always been what I considered a self-indulgence--I printed the color combinations I liked. Of course there was room to talk about this in my presentation, but I knew there had to be more to it than that.I asked some of my students in my silk-screen course what I should talk about. They said that after an intensive color theory unit, they are almost afraid to approach color. Thus, my goal was to inspire the Foundations students to have fun with color.

Basically, I organized my presentation around three areas: color inspiration, historical or contextual reference, and emotional utility. First, like I said, I use the colors I do because I am attracted to them. When I see other artwork, and there is an amazing color combination, I remember it and try to apply it to my work. This is what I called color inspiration.

Second, I talked about my academic and personal interest in the civil rights/peace/anti-war movements of the 1960s and 70s and the art that came out of that time. Like protest art, my work is attempting to be socially conscious. I talked about my reverence of Sister Corita Kent. She used some methods that the class would be familiar with: complimentary colors make something POP and get the attention of the viewer, even if the image is one that might make people want to avoid, like this one depicting a Newsweek cover. Or with regard to her poster that has a Camus quote in red white and blue. Kent is using a common color combination to make an association for the viewer. It says, "Apply this quote to you and your feelings about the United States." But it is her other posters, with their bright, cheerful color combinations that really inspire me. These pallets unify and welcome the viewer. They do not push him or her away.

Additionally, I come from a rock n' roll poster background. I showed posters of the artists from Providence that have inspired me: Pete Cardoso, Darren Johnson, Xander Marro, and Brian Chipendale. Each artist uses his or her own style, but the bright, unorthodox color pallet continues in there. So, in this way I showed how protest posters and rock n' roll posters and their color pallets influence my work because they are part of my background.

And the lastly, I talked about how I came to realize that the pallet I loved aesthetically and the pallet that was rooted in the political movements I find so inspiring was also very effective in transmitting my artistic agenda. I came to realize I could use these unabashedly wild colors with my political messages and people were more likely to engage with my work BECAUSE the colors made the topics more accessible and less serious. Wild, playful colors softened the seriousness of the message. They introduced a certain amount of humor, especially when they were used in the context of a serious environmental or social problem. In this way, I started to see that color was a tool I employed.I believe the presentations went well. Katie was surprised how on topic it was with what she was teaching. Students seemed interested (although shy) and everyone seemed to follow along with what I was saying. But more than anything, the exercise of thinking about how color plays a part in my work helped me to better understand myself as an artist.

Intelligent life at other graduate schools

 (NOTE: I received this announcement from Ricard Torchia this morning; if you are free I hope you can attend)

The Graduate Student Association of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts is pleased to announce the Second Annual FOURTH WALL PANEL REVIEW, a unique public event designed to shed light on the professional contemporary art world.

The panel brings together a distinguished critic, artist, and curator to publicly review and discuss digital images and written statements submitted anonymously by the MFA thesis students from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Art's Graduate Program. The afternoon concludes with the selection of three artists the panel determines are most competitive for residencies, exhibitions and other professional opportunities. The event provides its audience with an unprecedented opportunity to gain a better understanding of the criteria and selection processes for grants, residencies, and teaching positions that usually occur behind closed doors.

Encouraged by the resounding, standing-room only response to last year’s inaugural event, this 2010 version will present three new, world renown jurors to help carry this developing Academy tradition forward. Join us as we collapse the fourth wall between artists and the people who are able to help their careers develop.

Panelists:

• Carol Diehl, Artist and Critic
• James Hyde, Artist
• Robert Cozzolino, Curator of Modern Art at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts


April 20, 2010
1:00 to 4:00 PM
Hamilton Auditorium
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Art
Broad and Cherry Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Housekeeping

Dates for next two class meetings:

Friday, April 23, 12:30pm to see and discuss Louis-Pierre's show
Thursday, April 29, after 3:30 pm to see and discuss Myungwon's show
please confirm that these times work for you!

Next, for Leslie's benefit, I would appreciate it if you'd post a few sentences each in response to the readings we discussed. Since Jose and Myungwon didn't read the "Sculpture in the Expanded Field," I would like to post your reactions to the conversation around it. And since Louis-Pierre was new to "Interdisciplinarity and Anxiety", please post a wrap-up on that.

Next, we talked about having an end-of-the semester dinner at my place. I'm floating Thursday night May 6. How does that sound? Myungwon's suggestion that this be a potluck was very generous and could make it more fun.

Finally, I wanted to thank you for a fascinating conversation yesterday and for the very interesting posts that have popped up on the blog in the last week (and especially for the pictures that accompany them!). I will post comments on each post this weekend, so take a look when you get a minute...

Thanks! - g

I've been posting about how printmaking for me had been a TOOL in order to disseminate my message or dialogue in older posts. I can even tell that my message had change trough years or even better, it had been sophisticated, but at last in it root is mainly the same. In order to deliver this dialogue I've done some graffiti, music etc. Printmaking I had found by now its the medium that describe and contribute more to the context of my work and even farther I understand it also develop the dialogue to the contemporary social status. And this is rooted in all the discussion we had on all the specific tools printmaking bring to the artist, replication, low cost production etc. So at last it does not only contribute my work aesthetically but conceptually.

I preferred to be called artist it this answers one of the first questions.

Art by itself do not have attached any subject or concept in it "natural" essence. In other words art is a neutral system with the opportunity to develop its own codex trough an individual experience. One its the subject who molds the medium through cognitive process.

I've done some sculpture, ceramic, painting, performance, digital media, etc. Like I said printmaking at certain point answered to my reality.

Also right now I'm in the moment of asking myself how my subject can be stringer with other medium in specific circumstances? Well it started to change to a more 3dimensional state.

So at the end my stance its whenever my work and a medium fit and share the context of its subject. So now I'm an artist and who knows if other discipline at last brings something to my personal subject I''l take my chances and make another jump, at last art is the tool I'm using right now but the times may change maybe may the tools.

Louis's heads in the park

Louis' heads at Norris Park .

What if printmaking.......

..was not existent anymore? I would feel OK with that but I would find a way to multiply. The multiple is a key component of my work and this, probably because of printmaking. No, so far I have never been interested in the way prints were made but by the result they bring to the work. Like Leslie mentioned in her post, we use silkscreen to print on walls and litho to obtain multiples values, but if we invert those techniques and find a solution to print on the wall with a litho stone? The work would become something else and this is what I am looking for in my work .

Also by extending the surface to a 3 dimensional one, I need to be aware of the kind of material I'm using. What I am realizing is that several print makers will focus on a technique and incorporate it to all their subjects. Do the work become more about the technique or the actual subject? If the gesture is your main goal, like the action painting in the 50's, then do the subject painted is really important or if the action is the subject? I think the action is the subject and today, with sculpture and mix media, we need to be aware of the material we use and if we print, what is the imagery we are using. We are no longer in the 50's and people outside the art world as references about everything!

I feel that the challenge is bigger, but also animate my creativity by questioning, not just the subject, but the support and the technique I am using to express my idea.

If Printmaking were outlawed tomorrow.... than....

If Printmaking were outlawed tomorrow, what about your own practice? Would you be able to continue in another medium?

I think I mention last week at the PMA that I don't consider myself as a print-maker. I have been thinking about this question about myself being considered as a print-maker or as an artist throughout 2 years of graduate school.I fell in love with printmaking when I was in undergraduate and the story goes on very cheesy(which doesn't need be written).
Anyways, I slowly realized that I was drawn in the the process of making an image. Lithography was the tool for me at the time and therefore I made my decision to move to ABQ, NM to learn more about the medium. Going to Tamarind was one of the best experience that I had in America.
Coming from Tamarind, I had a lot of questions for myself in my art practice.
Tyler made me think about why am i doing what i am doing. I don't have my final answer for the question but I do know that I am a very process oriented person. I am not only very attracted to the lithographic images but also the making(process) of image. However, I realized I wasn't really interesting the idea of reproduction and multiples. It was about the making and printmaking was the tool for me to make the making. I wouldn't be where I am if it wasn't for printmaking. The way of thinking about the materials and surfaces and the idea of physically engaging myself through the process of making are the overlaps that I have in printmaking and my current works.
The physicality of the black pigment (Xerox toner) and how it creates an image on a plastic surface (Myler) are the things that I am working with. I don't make prints for my own art practice, however, printmaking will be very very very missed if it were outlawed tomorrow.

Readings for Friday, April 16

Sorry that it took me a couple of days to scan the readings, but they are now online at the Readings page of the class site...Remember, we agreed that Leslie and Louis-Pierre would cover the Krauss and that Myungwon and Jose would cover the Menand.

Also recall that the Krauss was written 30 years ago about the way sculpture was changing to incorporate media and processes not ordinarily associated with it. When you read it, you might subconcisously slip in the word printmaking when ever you see sculpture. You may want to try to find analogies for the

Lastly, recall that Menand is writing about trends in higher education in general. He uses an art analogy on p. 112, but, for the most part, he is writing about the relations between a desire for academic expansiveness and a responsibility to perpetuate one's area of study into the next generation. Again, you need to focus what he says on what we're discussing.

So what's your job?

Each pair will summarize the article for the other pair, connecting it to the topic of the seminar. You may want to illustrate your summary with images that clarify the connections you draw.

In summarizing, you will pose and address questions about the articles. Your questions might run along the lines of Krauss observes specific other disciplines being annexed by sculpture, what other disciplines are being annexed by printmaking and how? or The "expanded field" of sculpture allows us to recognize some fetishes of sculpture practice that had been overlooked (the base, for instance) - what are the unexamined fetishes of our practices? or Menand's analysis of academic disciplines leans heavily on the role of outside certifying bodies to perpetual disciplinary traditions...do such things exist in our practice and how are they supported? or Do Menand's assumptions about the training of professors apply in our field of study?

If printmaking were abolished...

Gerard proposed a little mental exercise for us in Print Seminar. He asked, "If printmaking were abolished--if it were outlawed tomorrow--what would you take from the medium as you make other things?"

The question reminded me that Gerard had recently given me the personal challenge of making something that is not at all printed. Because printmaking is so process driven, and because, as young grad students, we all tend to make everything start to finish, when I am working on one project, I am thinking about the next. Given that I am usually printing and watching the effects of the prints, I have ideas that are print-based. But I liked the challenge and I had wanted to make a mold and create multiple three dimensional versions of my circumcised kosher dills. So, one thing I think will always pop into my mind is multiples. Multiples are closely related to prints because they rely on the idea that there is power in the mass. While I think there is something exciting in multiples, and while I imagine I would experiment with molds and making multiples if printmaking were abolished, I don't think I would spend my time trying to transform other mediums into printmaking.

The reason why? Printmaking, in particular when you think about which printmaking technique you want to/have to use, is a group of processes that give you certain effects when utilized to their fullest potential. You want continuous tone? Lithography. You want to print on the wall? Silkscreen, etc.

What I would take from printmaking is the desire to learn a process and apply the strengths of that process to my work. Perhaps that means I would spend my time in the craft world, learning sewing techniques, glass blowing and flame work, or how to cast something out of clay. And all the while, learning these techniques, I would be thinking about how I could apply them to my greater artistic point of view. What can I say with glass that is not said quite as well in any other medium?

I think above all, printmaking, with its emphasis on technique, has made me someone who desires to master a process and then apply it to her artmaking. Then again, maybe that is who I am to begin with and it is the reason I fell so in love with printmaking. Whatever the answer, one thing is true for me as an artist--I enjoy knowing a process, I enjoying learning and doing. As an artist, I am both a point of view and a maker.

Initiated vs realized

We know the names of people who initiated the works in this show, but seldom those who realized them.

Seeing Pepon's work and questioning the way his piece was made and through which company or technician doesn't distort my perception or the meaning of this piece. I would ratter see a achieved piece created by the artist and crafts by a professional than the artist trying to be technician of multitask. Than I question the essence of the work: did the artist enjoyed more the process of fabrication than the subject matter?
I can compare this position as a car company who as THE designer of X model, but not the one who put the pieces all together. Is he still the creator of the vehicle? I would definitely say yes and I think that in my practice, if I could afford having a specialist helping me to realized a piece, I would go directly with this option. I had an EXPERIENCE during the break with the framing of my prints. I wanted to save money and build my own frames, but I ended up paying more because I was unable to do a job as good as a specialist in framing.

I think that I need to understand my limits, and accept that certain things cant be crafts by my hands. If a specific subject need a specific type of material that I cant manipulate, I would ratter find someone realizing it for me than changing the material of it to a type that I can manipulate. It changes the entire meaning of the piece.

Here is the best example I can give you so far about my personal practice, by putting the heads outside and asking people to display them the way they perceive the work, they realize something I cant do!

I would like to share the images with you guys, but I do not know who to post them, next week if you can help me I will share.

Week 12 Question

Today we visited the Philadelphia Museum of Art and looked at work that emphasized conceptual strategies over technical processes. Or did it?

What I want to hear from you this week is about the importance of non-medium specific, conceptual information in your own work. If printmaking were outlawed tomorrow, what about your own practice would you be able to continue in another medium?

As a reminder - next week we'll talk about some readings about interdisciplinarity. I will email you when they are available on the website. Have a great weekend.

Check this out

Jose Roca posted on Philagrafika's blog, and I thought you might be interested. Here's a blip...

I am writing this post in relation to Roberta Fallon's article calling for the establishment of a Philadelphia Biennial. I must say that I agree with Roberta in most of what she says. But I also think that Philagrafika 2010 is exactly what she is calling for.
Philagrafika is an international Biennial-type event (in our case, Triennial), that brings together local, national and international artists. As other events of this type, it showcases the local scene (artists, curators and institutions) to the large public that visits the event, and prompts collaboration with the international artists that come and work here. It is a proven fact that in those cities which have a recurring international art event the local artistic community thrives, because of the exposure to new and challenging art, and by the relationships and working partnerships that usually make part of the implementation of large shows.

Virtuosity, contributing or not?

Personally I understand, that the point where virtuosity and subject matter intersect is where we can say each one of these two elements contributed one to the other. Of course the subject matter must be addressing contemporary question at the time in order to establish a successful dialogue.

I’m going to start with the artist Christiane Baumgartner and her large format woodcuts, at the PAFA exhibition. I personally like the work. The inclusion of a singular type of carving that open the door for a quick allusion to any kind of communication media (specially television), make a contribution in a way so precise and specific, that is hard for the message to get lost between the work and the spectator. Woodcut, which is a medium with a lot of political history and content, and also because of it own process. This at the same time making an intersection onto the new ways of looking and understanding visual images, television. Even when the image the artist used is not completely contemporary, the reading one can do from it still is, still commenting about the warfare status in which we are sink.

The main fact; the artist is able to do this without using a woodcut just by a simple manipulation in some graphic design software and then printing it from a plotter. But the medium ads certain historic aspects, or maybe talks more about the reality or situation of the artist, and all that is understandable trough the process exposed. But definitely this two aspects virtuosity and subject matter helped each other in the conversation of this work.

Would this exhibit be worth $30 dollars?

Would this exhibit be worth $30 dollars to show a friend? If so, what justifies the price of admission and if not, what would make it worth that?


I thought PAFA show was put together well and lot of works were exhibited combining the 1st and 2nd floor. But was it worth paying 15 dollars per person to go see the work? As much I like the exhibition I do think it's over priced.

I consider myself as a reasonable person. I support the "arts" and when it comes to paying for admission at a show I think about who is the money for and where does the money actually go? In this case at PAFA, I am not that comfortable paying 15 dollars to enter the show.

First off, I thought it was strange that the other Graphic Unconscious Shows didn't ask for admissions and PAFA is the only one so far. Than where is the money going?
I'm not that familiar with PAFA as an Institution but from what saw from the tags on the work and of course the show, it seems like PAFA is a very conservative institute. Like what Leslie said the show was traditional comparing to the other shows and the way that they labeled the artist's work, we can tell that PAFA likes to keep it within their own family.
How do I feel about this as an outsider to the Institution and am I willing to pay and support this? Personally, after seeing the museum next door and looking around the school I have doubts about how the admissions are used.

Also, the propose for Philagrafika was to give people opportunities to rethink about the propose of printmaking. Even though, PAFA had the most traditional approach to printmaking, the works were still showing and pushing the limits of a what printmaking can be. No longer confined to drawers, no longer an absolute isolated technical specialty. Being a part of Philagrafika, PAFA should have lowered the admissions to less than 5 dollars or donation based admission(pay what you want). It's a very sensitive matter when it comes to money and attracting people to come see a show. Considering the propose of the Philadgrfika show, PAFA is defiantly having their own stand on being the "Golden Getto".

So than is the show really worth 15 dollars? As much as I enjoyed the show I don't think it was worth 15 dollars. MOMA general admission is 20dollars (students-$16) and it is still a lot to ask from a museum. However, MOMA has a lot more to offer to the audiences than PAFA. Meaning that there are more artwork and knowledge of creativity that you can get out of (most of the time). Also, the money might go for advertisement to invite people to be a part of the art world. What I'm trying to say is that MOMA has more propose where the money goes.

How would the 15 dollars would make it worth it? Giving more opportunities to the people that has no connection to the institution. Personal connection, touch, and opportunity to the "others".An artist's talk and have a printmaker come and explain the process to the visitors.

What do you gain and what do you lose?

Gerard asked: Whether you like it or not, by virtue of your graduate degree, your practice is at least partially situated in printmaking. What do you gain by that and what do you lose?

On the heels of the annual Southern Graphics Conference, I feel attached to the printmaking world in a way I might not feel as intently otherwise. We are a small bunch of nerds who, if there were costumes, might gladly show up to the convention dressed up as cans of ink and rollers. That said, when I walk into the PAFA Graphic Unconscious Show, I feel a little less a part of something.

I think this feeling is part of the answer to what you gain and what you lose by situating yourself in the printmaking world. On the one hand, the printmaking world is one which addresses aptly "concepts like accessibility, democratization, dissemination, and transience" in such a way as to "inform diverse contemporary art practices while expanding the realm of printmaking itself," as the PAFA gallery guide states about the show. The thing is, I am not quite certain the show at PAFA does that very well. With some exceptions, the whole thing felt a little dry.

When comparing the PAFA show to three of the other Graphic Unconscious Shows (Moore, Temple, and the Print Center), the PAFA one is the most traditional. Yes, the Christiane Baumgartner woodcuts are enormous and impressive in their perfect replication of photographs through handcutting means. And yes, the exhibition did feature artists from three different continents, so there is something to be said for diversity in the show. But unlike its Graphic Unconscious counterparts, most of the works were traditional wall hangings. Very few exhibited a modicum of color. And while print mastery was at its peak, innovation was not.


The biggest exception to this observation was the Pepon Osorio piece. Printed in an unconventional way (enormous ink jet? In pieces? We were mystified), with a more sculptural presentation, on the floor, Osorio sincerely approached the "transience" spoken about in the brochure while expanding "the realm of the printmaking" in contemporary art. The piece made us ponder not only what it meant and how we were supposed to feel, but also how the piece was fabricated and what its implications were for printmaking as it was included in the show. It was the only digital print AND that printmaking was most likely accomplished by another printer (both HP and the human component). But unlike Osorio's piece, the others were less curious.So back to the question: I think that my foundation in printmaking is mostly a positive thing. I feel a kinship with other printmakers and I think the department does lend itself to addressing political and social issues (as is MY interest) because of the qualities and characteristics inherent to printmaking. But I am personally interested in pursuing a career as a contemporary artist. Could printmaking be a hindrance?

The answer is YES IT CAN. If printmaking is not seen as a tool, but rather an insular world, then printmakers will not be seen as artists first, but as craftsmen. I do not mean to diminish the importance of craft. I believe actually being able to MAKE things to be of the utmost importance. That said, an artist is more than just a maker. An artist is also a spokesperson. An artist is a statement maker.

Philagrafika has the opportunity to really highlight this point: printmaking is a part of the contemporary art world, not separate from it. The other shows exemplify the various ways printmaking is pushing its own boundaries. They take what we KNOW to be true of printmaking and they smash it, magnify it, tear it up, and/or re-purpose it.

But we need a reference point. And we need to fit Kiki Smith in there somewhere, right? Someone had to have the stiffer, more traditional show. It might as well have been PAFA.

Instruct, clarify, gloss, comment, disseminate?

Anyone here had ever though how many times we find that things we though were complicated are not. They are simple but with language or terms complications? Had you ever ask yourself why? Personally I think that information in general is devaluated and this is a real popular problem. Quantified information in any ways you want to look at it, is power. This is how we get trouble in only few steps. Why news channel like CNN are so criticized all around the world; well I guess and everyone agree, is because how they use a huge system like that to misinform the popular masses. The aftermath of this situation let us know how power is manipulated by media and how big is the power information comprehend itself.

It was 1999, I will like to know whom of you know what is the WTO, and what happened with it that year. World Trade Organization had one of their most important conference in Seattle. At the same time in the same city one of the biggest protest I've personally had seen was taking place, all against the unfair commercials trade planning being proposed there. Thousands of people protesting. All media announced trough their stations that only few dozens of young kids where protesting in the outside. I saw the real videos.

The reason why I bring this it because my question, and not only mine but every question we got, goes around the same matter. The managing of information.

Printmaking since the beginning helped the whole world to start a revolution against illiteration. It made possible for everyone to read to go beyond, it broke the social hierarchies in education, it opened the door it gave the same opportunities to everyone.

So knowing this we got to understand that the more information you got the big your responsibility is. But we got also to understand how illiteration know had take over again, misinformation is it new shape. That is why when we want to disseminate information in a social political context we need to deconstruct that illiteration we got to simplify again the simple (that has been complicated to made it unreachable), in order to deliver a real message or to literate in some way. We live in a visual society (for grace or disgrace), and with visual art (specially with printmaking and its democratic possibilities), we have the opportunity to develop a very specific way or to construct a particular message, in other words we can develop our own kind of dialect to communicate. At the same time this give us a notion of the power we can acquire trough art in a specific context.

And now that you had mention Lady Gaga, this is why people like her just represent a social failure that depoliticized real problems of our society, they help to dissinformate by naturalizing the social contemporary problems with the power she had been able to acquired. She is not addressing anything else than a reflection of a colliding society. I will close this writing recommending a book for the ones of you that have not read it, "The Prince", by Niccolo Machiavelli (1513).

Where are we meeting tomorrow?

Friday, April 2: Catch up and de-brief.

This means that we are meeting at the seminar room at 3:40pm tomorrow?

Just wanted to make sure....

Thanks.

Does Popularization necessarily entail simplification?

Does Popularization necessarily entail simplification? I automatically think about Pop Art and minimalism. Pop art is instantly recognizable because of its simplification of the image as well as the innovations and adaptations. Bright colors like pink, red and yellow contrasted with darker colors. The images became increasingly standardized and process of drawings are simplifying. We see an enormous range of decorative styles, shapes, and sizes in the images. Simple iconic representation visual images have been created in Pop Art. I don’t think the standardization has been diminished the creative impulse but it did establish a whole different language/communication in the visual world.

To address the question, I don’t think that popularization necessarily entails simplifications. It makes sense that it could because of our mass production culture. However, in the eastern Asian traditional paintings or calligraphy is characterized/composes of just a number of strokes. Meaning the complexity is on the progress of setting the paintbrush under the emotional control but the results are very simple. On the other hand, western artist would firstly focus on the structure of the matter and re-work the image a lot. The eastern painters are neither concerned about the appearance of a matter nor express their desire of matter ideally. Of course I am referring to the traditional method.

My understanding of the simplifications is obviously the visual aspect of the image. We as in Western culture applies that if the image is simple, maybe graphic, it becomes very attractive and easy to recognize and therefore very popular. I believe that there are a lot of images that are simple but the ideas are be very complex and it not really related to the popular.

For whose benefit is a work 'popularized"?

I have been reflecting on the question for several days, and I am not quite sure if I have the good answer or if there is a good answer. I think that we have to see it has two distinct parts: the artist and the viewer. By mentioning 2 distinct parts, I wondered if they cannot become one. This is where my work takes place - precision, where I would like to see my work taking place.

I am trying to obtain a maximum of audience for my work by putting it outdoor and reaching a new public, a public that has not been alerted. Does it mean that I become beneficiary of this action? Probably I am but it also help me resolving questions around the work and the position I take. On the other hand, I think that the viewer also benefit from this kind of interventions where he doesn't have to change is routine in order to see the work. I mean by that, he doesn't have to go to the museum or any other specific places to see a piece of art.

I guess I do not know exactly if the work become popularized, or if the artist take the credit or if there's no popularization. Talking recently with Jose about Lady GAGA, I think that she is the best example of who can we popularized a product, because of course I see her as a product! Here's a great article on her and her carrier. http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/65127/

After reading this article I questioned if what is she doing is for the public, for her or for both? It seems that everyone takes advantage of it, but in order to consume it who far do we need to commercialized the work. This is like saying that some artists do not have their place in museums, but they are presented in those museums. Is there a matter of connexion, of talent, of chance?

I definitely think that I need to promote my work more in order to get a bigger audience. 2 weeks ago I was on South street, the crazy FLASH MOB night, with 50 heads and I felt that the work really took place in a popular culture. I loved it, does it mean that the work becomes popularized. Probably, and its maybe what I am looking for!

Link to some thinking about the SGC Conference

On my own blog, I have some thoughts about Saturday's panel from the SGC conference. I would greatly appreciate your comments on it...

Thanks - g

Does the Low Need the High More Than the High Needs the Low?

I think, in order to answer this question, it is important to define roughly what low and high mean to me. When I think of high art, I think of the kinds of master works you see in museums--large scale paintings and sculptures, refined pieces, pieces that fall into (however loosely) art movements that are known by a greater number of people. So what is its opposite? Low art is harder to define. Are we talking about the consumables? Package design, posters, ephemera? Graphic and industrial design? Album covers? Crafts? Or are we talking about outsider art? Pieces made with found or cheap, unconventional material? Messy and coarse art? Art that is never shown in museums and in few galleries aside from those niche galleries that show the work of their own kind? While I believe the question in the title of this article refers to the former idea, the more streamlined consumable art, I believe it is important to address this question of outsider art, too, because we often treat it as "lower" even if we claim to appreciate it.

While Pop Art clearly referenced the impact of consumer society in its Tomato Soup Cans and comic book halftone dots, the connection between high and low art is not always so obvious. High art, on one hand, often demonstrates the sentiments of the "higher" society of that time--the intellectuals, nobility, bourgeois, what have you. Low art, be it consumables or crafts, were much more attainable by the everyday person. Whether it was something they made or bought, these pieces, too, reflected the people.

I would guess that there was a switch at some time. Before the avant-garde, high art basically served to promote a certain type of lifestyle--a goal--for which people could aspire. Paintings of people dressed smartly, acting appropriately, were the norm. Since the dada, surealism, etc., high art has focused more on the criticism of people--what is wrong with society. Low art (meaning consumer goods or craft) continued to be goal-oriented.

Outsider art, however, is generally a combination of both. With the example of the Space1026 collaborative piece in the Print Center's Philagrafika show, you can see how the artists are referencing recognizable (yet other worldly) space--a yurt as seen in Turkey or Mongolia--but are marking it with colors and textures that are their own. It is not necessarily saying you should live here, but rather, what is it about living that is truly important? There are recognizable things in this yurt that you have in your home, and there are things that are not. Question your surroundings. Question what is important to you. In this way, in making a statement about life and goals, the yurt is an example of how outsider art can approximate hihg art. But a yurt, pillows, chairs, the interiors in general, are referencing craft (or low art) more than they are high. So, in this case, outsider art is referencing low art. Low art needs low art as a lexicon.

If collaborative works were given the credence of works made by the lone artist, if Space1026 had a piece bought by the MoMa, if the stars aligned in such a way that their work BECAME high art (simply by virtue of getting this level of recognition by the system), then it would go from being considered low art to high. Thing is, it won't.

People who are not from my generation may walk into the Print Center, and whether they like the Yurt or not, they will say something to the effect of "Wow, how unique!? How original?" As a Rhode Islander tapped into the print culture of Providence and Pawtucket, I looked at the Yurt and wondered if it had been made by Xander Maro. The connection between Space1026 and the remnants of Fort Thunder, the Dirt Palace, and other Olneyville, Providence enclaves, and the work coming out of other meccas of the hip (Detriot, Brooklyn, San Francisco), all have a "look." As Gerard pointed out, the outsider art of this kind of demographic, a mostly white, anglo-protestant, college-educated, skateboarding, noise rock listening subculture is different from the aesthetic of Self Help Graphics, whose posters happened to be situated right next to the Yurt.

Self Help is a group composed more of first or second generation latino americans, often the first in the family to go to college if. And these are but two of the kinds of "outsider" collaborations that exist. My point is not that Space1026 or Self Help do not make unique, innovative works. My point is outsider art lies in this weird inbetween spot, neither a blip on the radar nor the next wing of the modern art museums.

To compound the issue, national chain stores, like Urban Outfitters, coop the aesthetic of collaborations like Space1026 (either by hiring them to make window displays or products or outright stealing the fashion they wear and selling it to the masses). This connection between a slightly higher art and low art keeps outsider art from ever attaining the status of the true high art. It is never given the chance to shine because its pervasiveness in our pop culture pushes into the camp of cliche too early.

I feel like this sounds like I am anti-Space1026 and that couldn't be farther from the truth. There gallery openings are always on the top of my agenda and I, dare I say it, wish I were one of them. I think the spirit within Space1026 and collaboration is what will be the vanguard of the next art revolution. And I think it is unfortunate to say this, especially considering how I felt in the yurt (cozy and also stimulated to the nth degree), that Space1026 needs to modify (or completely overhaul) their aesthetic in order to divorce itself from the Urban Outfitters low art association.

In short, high and low art are so interrelated and overlapping, it is hard to distinguish one from the other. But because consumable low art is not taken seriously, in order to make a strong social commentary, outsider art needs to remain separate from consumable art, whether or not outsider art wants to be low or high.

La Resistencia

I consider that the Medium Resistance show got a simple objective which for me was easy to read. Art that meets and needs a craft process within.

This also makes us things about the new questions being made of that craft process and how that phenomenon is meeting with the new technologies or new historic junctures. New crafts? New mediums? and trough that new dialogues? Which sometimes one can tell how them fails. For me not all the works in the show meet as well as others. For example, I can understand the potential of the "projector boxes", but personally I can tell that they do not work and I feel they were out of context (place, theme, object, technology), they poorly connects and after all trying to look at the projected image can be frustrating.

Otherwise, other work were great not in the way they were crafted only but because of the subject matter for example the Radical Cartography for me is an amazing social deconstruction and the way craft approach to the project was super well managed. In other way, Piper Shepard's work was a great example on how to see a regular beautiful craftsmanship, easy to enjoy and gorgeous, the fact I personally did not like was her work in the middle with the pins. I thinks that was a curatorial mistake (the placing was to central and that tends to make more weight in the single artist).

Anyways at the end I felt that having a show like this between Philagraphika was a necessity. At the end there should be a space for new definitions and new questions every time you visit the subject of the contemporary art as this festival did.

Medium |resistance

Desire of beauty or desire of process? First think that came to my mind after seeing the show and comparing it to Moore College. In those 2 exhibitions I can completely feel the role of the curator(s) when its time to combine different artists in the same space. Which one is more intellectual, I'm not quite sure, and does it really matters? Again we are constantly between 2 phenomenons, art and craft, or art and design, or,... or,... or...!





Do Jeff Koon is a creator who hires craftsmans? Do his work is consider craft or creation? What is the step between the moment we call something art and craft? When I was in France, this concept was really present in our discussions. That's why french artists do not create any material art these days. The creation as to take place in their heads and when it becomes material, they talk about craft! Should we stop doing material art? It seems like people still enjoy to see figurative art more then anything else. Surveys can tell!





I would like to leave you on this youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbF54CBzDcU&feature=related



There is 3 parts, and the reason why I'm interested in this specific video his because I am curious to hear what is your opinion on the role of beauty. Alexander McQueen is, was the designer of Lady Gaga and committed suicide last month! I looked at the 3 parts several times and I am still looking for the beauty in the show. Models refused to walked for him because they were terrified! What is fashion today? Beauty or......

Teresa Jaynes lecture at Tyler

It didn't escape my notice that when she was talking about the logistics of planning Philagrafika's sprawling exhibit offerings, Teresa Jaynes (the artist who is their Executive Director) mentioned a blog the curatorial team kept to share and exchange ideas and images they scouted out work for the shows.

I really expect participants in this seminar to comment on one another's posts and to make observations about the shows you've seen and the issues they bring up. We've not heard much about the Medium Resistance Exhibit yet, for example.

This month, we're talking about popularization and through prints. Friday we'll be at the Print Center, and I will also want to talk about the Pablo Helguera videos (you can watch them all on YouTube, after you look at the series intro above). I know it's a busy time, but let's not lose sight of what we're talking about in seminar!

Curating and Risk

I had hoped to see some of you at the Curating and Risk symposium on March 13. Given the dissolved lines between artist and curator, the event had a lot to say to people in both areas of the field. Here are some impressions, and I have notes I can discuss in detail when I see you later this week.

Remember, I asked you to comment on a classmate's post before we meet on March 19.

We will meet at the Print Center on that day.

I would like to conduct class a little early that afternoon, if everyone is amenable. I'll contact you via email to set up a time.

Hope everyone enjoyed a productive break - now one more push to the end of the year...

A talk, related to Medium Resistance Topic

JULIA BRYAN-WILSON
Associate Professor, Department of Art History
University of California, Irvine
 
Craft Matters

Monday, March 15 @ 5 pm
Jaffe History of Art Building, Room 113
University of Pennsylvania

Many contemporary artists have taken up conventional textile techniques, not as a nostalgic return to the mark of the artist's hand, but to make diverse and timely political statements about wartime labor, process, and gendered production. This talk examines how artists in the last several decades use knitting, sewing, crocheting, and weaving to propose alternative economic and aesthetic models of making in the sweatshop era.

Community, Beauty and Pleasure

First of all I wanted to apologize for the delay in my contribution to the Printseminar Blog.

When I think about the relationship between art and community work, the first word that comes to my mind is "tool". The reason is very simple. The word "TOOL" might sound weird but is the best description to attach to the fact of one particular person using art as the medium to approach specific social issue and even further to contribute with a new constructive opinion. In other words for some individuals art is the tool trough they can approach to any kind of social change or social contribution (is the word sound better). My thinking on something as tool is so general because at the end the cause turn out to be more important than the medium and for this same reason I personally can admire a lot the things a group as Superflex does (even if I do not consider them art).

It might sound hard that art at this point can be positioned as second, but the emergency of the problems of our society now are worth it. Of course with this I'm not telling that every work of Pepon is doing this or any kind of social artwork aims correctly to the issue. Also I don't want anyone to be confused, I am not devaluating art that do not focus on social issues, that is a very personal decision. In the same way I can tell from a lots of works that had been done with a "social consciousness" that addresses more to a "HIP" kind of culture.

I personally can tell, before being on any kind of art school or college, I got the same preoccupation's and issues running trough my mind, first for me music was the tool, now is art. Other example; Doctor Vargas, Vidot, the guy made it and got his Medical Doctor degree. That in any place in the world can be a very socially accepted position. He can have a nice office, good secretary, etc. He decided to left that aside and help homeless persons and drug addicts for his living. Medicine was his tool.

So in few words life quality can be affected in some many ways and art is also part of it. And you can focus that approach in very different ways, economically, socially, psychologically. Back in Puerto Rico as a part of a collective effort, we occupied (with the owner permission, 90 years old lady), the oldest house of a slum near the university, and we transformed the abandoned house (with very limited funding), and part of the street.

-In more than ten years the lady and her son did not talked to anyone in the whole street (that day happened).

-Adding to the pasting and painting project of the house across the street we made a permanent installation (including a concrete bench that also work as a hand sculpture.)

-Economically the space worth rise up.

-Culturally the the cultural exchange in the place is much better.

Actually the visual pleasure of the experience of the street before and after is amazing. Just in the same corner there is a family owned bar cafeteria, were students gathered and were some other artist had made other artistic approaches leaving actually more profits to the owner of the place.

Personally in my work that is were beauty takes place. Not only by being in my studio enjoying the process of my work, but also having that other experience outside that enhanced the quality of life for me and for the witness. Is the possibility in some ways to simplified the message of the work or enhancing the aesthetics of that process in order to establish a conversation with any kind of spectator (even when I know everyone is going to have a different level of reading), but even that I want them to at some point address some single aspect of the issue I'm working with. I understand that the beauty of my work.

Sorry for any typos or bad spelling, but I'm getting better with time like wine, thanks guys for reading.

Jose Antonio Ortiz Pagan "O.T.S."

Curating Risk

 

Details on the Curating Risk symposium are available from this link. 

Though this is not a requirement of the seminar (it's spring break...I can't require it), it's a good idea to go if you're in town