Splitting and Doubling

Q1: Wagner's article explains talks about the emotions that are brought by the result of Gordon Matta-Clark's pieces. She says that "the result remade buildings as bodily-objects through which could be enacted conflicting impulses whether desires or fears." What does she mean by this sentence which she mentions later in the article as well. Is she saying the buildings can be experienced in fear or desire?

Q2: Matta-Clark has many explantions for he difference between architecture and sculpture such as that on is livable and one isn't. He explains that the difference between architecture and sculpture is 'whether there is plumbing or not'. What does this mean when he compares these two types of art to plumbing? I don't think I'm catching on to what she is trying to say.

Gordon Matta-Clark

Anne Wagner talks about sculptures in the 1970’s, and how to redefine the conscious and bodily experiences of sculpture and bring it into new spatial play. A nice quote she uses to summarize this is “to manifest consciousness outside of the mind, in front of the eyes.” Wagner argues that this may happen via architecture, by making architecture sculptural art. Two examples she gives in the reading are Alice Aycock’s Maze and Mary Miss’s Perimeter/ Pavilions/ Decoys. Wagner says that these works creates a kind of spatial imaginary and experience because of social knowledge and the perceptions viewers make. My question is what is this consciousness that she is talking about? And what is the significance? Could is consciousness not be manifest if someone is looking at a photograph or a painting?

In the second reading, Matta-Clark’s architectural sculpture is described as a “monument” this is profoundly pessimistic because it will be quickly demolished and that it accepts its fate to be remembered only as a text or photo. Reading this reminded me of The Gates or the Surrounded Islands by Christo. Christo’s artworks take years to months to plan and construct, however, is only on display for two weeks. Would the author of this article think that Christo’s artwork as pessimistic? I don’t think Matta-Clark’s works should be viewed as pessimistic if the artwork was intended to be demolished. Especially in the case of Splitting, if the work was not demolished then the house would have experience weathering of the insides, this I would think would lead people to interpret the artwork much differently.

Gordon Matta-Clark

Q1: In the past couple of weeks, we've studied performance artists who prefer to keep their works relatively undocumented (i.e. Chris Burden). There are many reasons for this, such as wanting their works to be particular to a certain one-time event, kind of like site-specific works are meant for a particular site, as a way of preserving the work conceptually rather than physically. Why, then, does Matta-Clark make a point to document Splitting in so many mediums? Is there some significance to the different perspectives one gathers from each medium?

Q2: Wagner states that the "psychic alterations" as a result of Matta-Clark's dizzying reconstruction of the house interior actually "'preserve and enhance' the essence and meaning of the house," rather than destroying it. Why do both Wagner and Matta-Clark say this, and how is it possible to preserve something by destroying it? If the house is meant to represent domesticity (among other things), what is Matta-Clark trying to say?

Anne Wagner & Dan Graham

1. In Anne Wagner's article, she claims that Matta- Clark's Splitting construction is a physical site, a house. My question is that since we as the viewers can only see full architecture through photos (documentation), is Matta-Clark creating such work as a spectacle or as a physical sculpture architectural project due to its documentary characteristic?

2. According to Graham, architecture has both the aesthetic and economic values. However, Splitting seems to be an exception because you can only see the inside of the building from photographs. Under such condition, can Clark's Splitting be considered as architecture based on Graham's definition?

Matta-Clark

Question 1: In Anne Wagner’s article on Matta-Clark’s Splitting, she mentioned that Matta-Clark cut off four corners of the house. According to the author, this shows that Splitting “concerns rather more than its signature slice.” She went on to say that this “speaks directly, if belated, to minimalist sculpture and does so in the context of the gallery.” Does this mean that Splitting is a critique of minimalism? Why is it “belated”? What is the meaning of “Instead of a cube, a corner; instead of one corner, the minimally requisite four.”? What is the reference here to the minimalist cube? (37)

Question 2: Dan Graham wrote that Matta-Clark’s work is a kind of “anti-monument”. It is “profoundly pessimistic”, “will be quickly demolished” and “is something of a useless gesture”. He claimed that Splitting “defies permanent symbolic form”. Yet many site specific artworks we’ve seen in the class are temporary, lasting for a few weeks. Are those works “anti-monument” also, since they are too “quickly demolished”? (199) Also, I don’t quite understand the idea of an “instant ruin”.

Run GMC

Question 1: The author talks about how GMC's work fragments architecture, tears it apart, and exposes "all levels of reminiscense. And of course, once you get into reminiscence, an infinite number of associations emerge" What does he mean here? I understand the role of GMC's work in connecting different spectrums of time, but, to me at least, "reminiscense" is a very personal word, specific to individuals. His works are definitely interesting, but I don't feel any personal connection to them. Even if it were, say a house down Durant in Berkeley that was sawed in half, I still don't see that much of a personal aspect to it, not enough that I would use the word reminisce to describe the experience.

Question 2: I think it is very cool how GMC's works connect past, present, and future and are at the same time a critique on capitalism and the Westernized vision of 'progress' -amazing perspective. However, the author opens the article by talking about how artists of the 70's tried to defy and deny the museum and its institution, yet still always came back to relying on it in order to display and publicize their works. With GMC's type of work, yes, he is able to avoid the museum entirely, but doesn't he still rely on popular cultural institutions? His work is not as meaningful and recognized unless it is done in a well-known area, with in relation to famous architectural pieces, which in themselves are a part of mass culture and institutions.

Splitting and Doubling

1.) My first questions revolves around the basic concept of the integration of bodily experiences and sculpture. Wagner states that sculptures are different from architectural functions based upon the fact that architectural functions hold some substantive purpose for humans (i.e. bathrooms), and sculptures do not. She then goes on to state "the body still haunts Matta-Clark's sculpture..not only does it hover there as repression or memory, but it is also summoned by the range of behaviours and optics..." (pg.561) How are these bodily associations able to depict a sculpture? What specific bodily functions? Are the basic or something more complex/metaphorical?

2.) Wagner states that "sculpture is a kind of relay or interchange between vision and association" (pg.565). This quote is stating that a sculpture meaning is based upon the interpretation and experience of the audience. The experience that the audience had encountered in relation to that sculpture or the place it is located is vital, for that is the factor that will allow the audience to realize the purpose of the sculpture. My question is that, no audience member will have the same memory or experience of a particular space or object, thus how does the artist control the interpretation of the sculpture? Also, could the lack of control of the direction of interpretation distort the artists vision for the piece?

Q1: Wagner discusses that Miss' creations involve interactions between the viewer and the artwork. Each viewer has their own experience in viewing and interpreting the art, impacted by each person's individual thoughts, fears, moods, and physical size and body. Without a perceptual axis, the viewer is to find a new way to interpret and experience the art for oneself. "(the artwork) expands along multiple lines of sight, as viewers are hidden, risk emergence, or stand and survey" (563). In this way, could Miss' creation be considered a form of performance art in that the audience has a unique interaction and experience with the art; no two people are guaranteed the same experience?

Q2:Does Matta- Clark's Splitting construct the art in documentation or in the actual physical house? The house serves as a physical site, a site of influence, and the physical materials for the project. Is the same impact achieved when one views the photos versus when one experiences the actual Splitting? Does the documentation of the work occur solely for money or for recognition? In this way, is the artist creating the work as a spectacle or as a physical sculptural archectural project?

GMC

Q1: According to Matta-Clark, plumbing is what separates sculpture and architecture, and he is interested in doing sculpture, or anarchitecture, not architecture. He is also against doing functional things in his sculpture. Why is he against functionality?

Q2: Many of the artists/movements we've looked at have been expressing a reaction against an establishment, usually an art establishment, such as the gallery structure or the Academy in France. Anne Wagner suggests (p. 580) that Matta-Clark's work "doesn't generalize the art gallery as the site of a repressive architecture, identified with the Establishment, but now links itself to the urban environment on an experienced political/architectural/historical basis that includes its relation to itself as a memory of archetypal architectural form." What does she mean by this? Furthermore, if M-C's sculptures aren't a reaction against galleries or an Establishment, what is his "motivation?"

anarchitecture

My first question relates to how the artist is constructing teh sculptures. It seems that by stripping away the function of a house, object, or anything, one can simply transform it into a sculpture. It reminds me of Duchamp,s urinal, an the fact that he turned it into a sculpture called the fountain. Thus, my first question is what is this artist that is actually intensely different then that. The combination of sculpture and architecture do not seem like entirely new ideas to me, and i've always some what seen them a going together hand and hand?

My second question is concerned with the statement that that artists sculptures are different because they have a lived bodily experienced via temporal and spacial structures, but after studying site-specificity as well as minimalist forms it seems that most sculpture go through that. OS once again, what is this artist doing that is new or distinct form older forms of sculpture?

Splitting and Doubling/ Gordon Matta-Clark

Q1. Wagner discusses the ways in which Splitting, "that when cut, the identity of the building as a place is strongly preserved, enhanced" (570). I found this statement contradicting because when something is preserved, it usually implies keeping it in tact, not cutting it in half, so can the building really be considered "preserved" if it is cut in two?

Q2. According to Graham, architecture enhances a city both aesthetically and economically. Most architecture you can interact with and explore but visiting Splitting, you can do neither of the two because the only visual of the inside comes from photographs. This comes to the question, can Clark's Splitting even be considered architecture?

Television

I thought that it was interesting that Stanley Cavell made the observation that television is expressed by the massive repetitiveness of its formats for talk, and the amount of talk. He talks about how television is repetitious such as the different talk shows with its hosts and guests or broadcasts of sports events. Then he asks the question “is this excitement and education sufficient to account for the willingness to tune them in endlessly, for the pleasure taken endlessly in them?” I obvious answer to me when I read this question was yes. Not as much in the recent year, but I used to spend hours watching TV a day, because TV offered me something much more interesting and entertaining than other things available for me to do at the time. I reason I watch less TV now is because things on TV are very repetitious, to me every talk show such as Rachael Rays or Oprah’s talk shows, or the “reality shows” they have on MTV or VH1. However, from time to time, I do catch myself still watching these different reality shows no matter how similar the show, the drama, is to last seasons. My question is would people spend less time on TV if there wasn’t such a large variety of all these “similar shows?” Or would we adapt to it, and still watch and spend just as much time on TV because it is still the best source of entertainment.
After reading the entire article, I found myself confused about what Cavell was trying to say. I was especially lost when he started talking about the genres-as- cycle and medium. What does he mean when he talks about the different genres as cycles and at one point he describes them as characterized as evanescent? And he makes a lot of references to shows and movies that I've never seen before, i guess that further made the reading more confusing.

Between the medium of film and video

I still don’t comprehend Cavell’s argument on improvisation. He argues that people miss television for what it used to be during its inception: live. But I doubt it ever was truly live, whether it was a TV show or a news broadcast, there must have existed some form of script. Broadcasting is expensive and live television, not to be confused with reality TV, was rare. Then he goes to associate serialization with improvisation to claim, essentially, that within a genre of TV programs, improvisation was lost to the public expectation of a plotline. But who is to say that serialization didn’t exist before improvisation? Furthermore, how might Cavell classify reality TV, as a serialization of improvisation or as neither?

Then, towards the conclusion of his article, Cavell underlines the difference between television and film. He argues that by viewing a film at a cinema, in principle, the spectator is subjected to the film, whereas viewing that same film on a television set provides the viewer with a greater sense of control. Along those lines, is television becoming merely a tool for experiencing art or, inversely, is it a work of art for providing such experiences? Also, with regards to the concept of moviola, is the television limited to reproducing original pieces? How would the “comprehensibility” of news broadcastings, commercials, game shows, etc. be affected were they to be viewed in theaters much like films are?

Video Culture

Stanley Cavell's article was difficult for me to read. He spent so much time on scrutinizing terminologies and so I feel as if I didn't get too much out of his article.

Q1: Cavell explains that the TV as a medium is of boredom and poverty. He says poverty is defined as "our failure [...] to grasp what the meduym is for, what constitutes its powers and its treasures" (194). I understand his definition of poverty, but what does he mean when he says that TV programs "can appear to be their poverty" (194)? Are programs the treasures and powers that we need to understand?

Q2: In this article, Cavell states that movies are grouped into genres and TV is grouped into serials and episodes. Is he trying to prove why this is or how that is relevant in that we are not as interested in the medium of movies compared to the of TV? What is important about these groupings?

On the Screen

1) Cavell talks about how he believes television has not come of age yet aesthetically but that movies have because they have been treasured in instances when they run only annually, and are only viewable only in certain places at certain times (196) There are two things that seem misleading here. Is he completely disregarding the fact that classic movies are in fact watched over and over with the ability to rent movies or stream them online? This hardly seems to support his evidence of a movie being evanescent. On that note, is television really all that different then? We can watch them when we want, and the classic ones are usually played the most, often times being the older series that have come of age in the sense that they have won the audience over time. Don't we have this term for 'classic' movies as well as 'classic' television shows that constitutes the same thing?

2) I am somewhat confused about Cavell's definitions of genre on the top of page 200. What does he mean when he says that "the genre undergoes continuous definition or redefinition as new members introduce new points of compensationg"? What is this compensation and who is doing it? Cavell makes it seem like members in the production must diverge in order to be considered any type of genre because it requires this "compensation." Aren't there movies or shows that don't necessarily have conflict in them? To Cavell would these not be considered in a genre? Also, what about movies that we call mixed-genre films or shows? I think the relationship is much more complicated, but it seems that Cavell believes there is a simple definition.

The Fact of Television

Question 1: I didn't really enjoy this article... Cavell seems sort of pretentious here and has a writing style that is (for me) hard to follow and seems to be directed at a narrow audience. Anyways, that being said, I am confused on his concepts of "genre as medium" and "genre as cycle". I understand the gist of his argument that television works as a serial-episode are more objective, have a projected sequence, and are not as monumental as movies, theater, and traditional works of art. However, I don't quite understand how a genre can be a medium... (the opposite seems more logical to me), and if that is so, what genre is the medium of television portraying? I also thought of television as covering a multitude of different genres and types of classifications.

Question 2: Cavell's idea of the spontaneity (or at least, the possibility of spontaneity) of "old" television is interesting and seems in some sense contradictory... This allure to improvisation does not translate to the same attraction and admiration for traditional forms of film and art -those forms do not have much improvisation in them. Is the spontaneity of television just a form of cheap entertainment and amusement (i.e. trashy reality tv)? Does having improvisation in an artistic medium shift who can be named the artist of the work? (i.e. actor vs. writer vs. directors?)

Carvell

Question 1: Cavell breaks down the material basis of a television. He describes it "as a current of simultaneous event reception" (205). Viewing, as he defines, is the mode of perception called upon by the film's material basis, while the connection to the stream is monitoring (205). However in this description of the material basis of the TV and how it provides a means for watching an event unfold in realtime, I come to wonder what Cavell means when he says that he does not feel that transmisssion of the video is essential to the TV. "(he) is not regarding broadcasting as essential to the work" (205). I wonder how this can be possible, because that is TV's main purpose: to be able to allow people to watch it. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of making video footage to be broadcasted? In this case, does the use value not play any role in the material basis?

Question 2: I find it interesting when Carvell discusses the introduction of contestants and hosts on various forms of talk shows. He sees it odd that viewers are introduced to contestants in the formal way of real introductions and beginning to get to know them through conversation. He says this process "is repeated endlessly, and without the scary anticipation of consequences in presenting the self that meeting in reality exact" (207). He claims that TV hosts are famous for "Being visible and surviving new encounters" (207). Yet, I would prefer to argue that the TV hosts are the ones that jump between the realms of TV and reality. They are the ones that get the viewer to keep coming back, watching, and being reintroduced to new contestants. They become a part of viewers' lives and those sitting at home begin to believe they are actually close firends with the hosts they watch everyday on TV. Aren't the talk show hosts just being introduced, judged, and related to just as the contestants are?

Television

Question 1: On page 194, Cavell wrote that “certainly I have been among those who have felt that television cannot have come of age, that the medium must have more in it than what has so far been shown.” But two paragraphs later, he said “the acceptance of television as a mature medium of art further specifies what I mean in calling my subject here the fact of television.” So is television a mature medium? Is there more to be discovered about television as a medium?

Question 2: Later on in the article, Cavell talked about the discontinuities that exist in the medium of television, such as commercials and also the idea of improvisation. He said that “the diminished role of improvisation on television is an instance of a familiar process in certain phases of the history of performance” (203) But he went on to argue that “room remains for the improvisatory in television’s formats”, and that “connection of serialization with improvisation that links serialization with the idea or the fact of the popular.” This makes me wonder how the reality television shows greatly popular now fit into Cavell’s ideas of serialization and improvisation?

Cavell on Television

Question 1 – Reading Cavell’s “The Fact of Television” was like reading endless definitions of “television” and “genre”. Cavell seemed more interested in defining how he attempted to use each word as oppose to just making the argument, then defining his terms. Hence my first question dismisses Cavell and his definitions and instead focuses on individual responses. While growing up what were you parents’ attitude towards television? Was it a positive or negative view of television?

Question 2 – Cavell states, “My claim about the aesthetic medium of television can now be put this way: its successful formats are to be understood as revelations (acknowledgments) of the conditions of monitoring, and by means of a serial episode procedure of composition, which is to say, by means of an aesthetic procedure in which the basis of a medium is acknowledged primarily by the format rather than primarily by its instantiations.” Now with all the crazy new television episodes, such as “From G’s to Gents” or “I Love Money 2”, how would Cavell define these episodes? What genre would these episodes be a part of? In saying that these episodes are real, does this imply that they are also live? What format would these TV episodes take, if any?

The Fact of Television

Question 1: I was wondering about the category of the event. It was said that "the characteristic feature of these programs is that they are presented as events, that is to say, as something unique, as occasions, something out of the ordinary" (551). This reminds me of how art is not as significant when repeated because its uniqueness is taken away, but in both cases, I wonder where these forms of "art" or "television" fit.

Question 2: I am a bit confused about serialization and genre as a medium. "The genre undergoes continuous definition or redefinition as new members introduce new points of compensation"The article also talked about compensation in terms of serialization. Also "genre-as-cycle or of serial-episode construction" (547). If we could discuss this more in class, that would be very helpful (what they are, how they are/can be connected, etc...).

The Fate of Television

1. Cavell claims that television is more objective since it works in serial, while movie is more personal. A movie can stand by itself; one can relate one's own experience with the movie. As for television, it is about the ideas behind it, and Canvell believes that the characters in the TV show make a program valuable. However, to me, I feel there are movies that are more about ideas, and TV shows that are more personal. Is there a clear distinguish line?

2. Similar to my last question, Cavell also mentions the aesthetic values of television. Such issue is very subjective, everyone's opinion of what should be considered as aesthetic is different. In this case, how could Cavell decides what is aesthetically pleasing? I feel the whole reading is kind of a blur since everything he talks about is pretty subjective.

Video Culture

Stanley Cavell's The Fact of Television began with such promise. I was expecting something like Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. Unfortunately the article became mired in nit-picky definitions and terminology and an over-eagerness to categorize and subcategorize. He may have been aware of this, as he asks on page 202: What difference does any of this make?

Q1: The author is "over qualified." I don't mean that he has too many advanced degrees, but that he has qualified his writing in a handful of ways. He is very present in the writing. There are a lot of instances of "I" and such. He acknowledges in places that he is taking a "perhaps unjustified" leap of faith. On page 195 he says that everything he has to say in the article depends on what "seems" (his quotes) to be so to him actually being so. He claims that the relevant writings he has read "far too unsystematically." There are plenty more. What is he up to with this type of approach?

Q2: Cavell is, apparently, rather fond of his own writing. Not only does he cite his previous works numerous times, he does so with a narrative writerliness. For example, he writes about his own response to a colleague, "what surprised me was to find myself going on to object: but in live television..." etc. (205) This is a circuitous and suspiciously calculated way of saying something simple. This is not the sole example. Again, what is he up to with this literary maneuver?

The Fact of Television

Q1: Cavell's article was very confusing to me, especially when he started discussing the "theory of genre," how the notion of genre has thus far been used and how it should be defined. I understand what he calls "genre-as-cycle," but what is the difference between this and the "Hollywood comedy of remarraige" or "genre-as-medium"? What does "genre-as-medium" even mean?

Q2: The comparison between television and film was interesting. While movies can be criticizable, treasurable, but often forgotten after seen once, television is remembered not for the individual work, but the program as a whole. At one point, Cavell brings up the tendency for film to "greedily" reinterpret events such as a ballet or opera, whereas television supposedly shows more "respect" toward these events through its format. Is it true that television does not impose a bias on events in the way that film does? Could one argue that it is in fact the opposite, that television is more prone to reinterpret things than film?

The Fact of Television

Q1: Cavell states that television is addictive and some parents strictly limit the amount of television that their children watch. He compares television to using marijuana and says that "no adult worried about its effects would make it available to their children, even on a strictly limited basis." If television were posed to be more of a habit than an addiction (for instance, having the habit of watching a movie before bed or the habit of watching tv for six hours on Saturdays) would watching small/limited amounts be as harmful as Cavell makes it out to be?

Q2: Cavell discusses that showing a film on television after the full public screening is like a reproduction and/or reduction of the film. The reasons he states are because the television is smaller, the room is not otherwise dark and the image is less gripping. However, nowadays there are many distractions at the movie theaters with cell phones and rude teenagers which makes a film "less gripping." My family has a movie theatre style TV room down stairs at our house where black curtains keep the light out even during the middle of the day and a large TV takes up nearly half of the wall. If my family, as the audience, were to watch a movie showed on TV down in this room would it compare to a public screening or would it be considered as a reduced or reproduced version?

television

first of all, i love the writing in this paper, it was not only interesting but it made me laugh

My first question relates to his conversation before he gets into describing the aesthetic appreciation of the format and genres created by television. In the very first sentence of the paper he names "facts" about television that exist, but then asks about teh fact of television and its very existance. My first question is, does it not to be aesthetic in any way? He talks about television coming of age and i feel that since its existence it has turned in so many directions that one must understand it at different levels and degrees. For instance, when television was first created, it was probably considered aesthetic and the broadcastign was at well. But now we have reality television, but alongside that, there are shows that have interesting acting and ask important questions. the show the wire discusses inequalities as well as gang life in america that raises important social and political issues. What about reality tv though?

I feel like art and television must be seperated. Sure, some shows can be artistic and interesting, but television is not just a format of shows. News is on television, weather, commercials, political commentary. Television was liek the first internet. It is a form of communication. I think this article does a good job in discussing the aesthetic aspects created by the format of television shows. the cliffhangers and the need for commercial is interesting. Also, the format of reality television seems to be an interesting phenomenon. Television gives hundreds of people jobs. How is one to realte the aesthetic format of television and that of news or infomercials? television is so conquering because it enters every facet of life, and the addictin is not just to television but information as well as what people in the world think about the information being produced.

Video Culture

Q1. This reading was very confusing to me. It was very hard to follow. One of my main confusions was his discussion of serialization as it applies to genre-as-medium, so my question is: what is serialization, and how does it relate to genre-as-medium?

Q2. Carvell believes that television " has not yet come of age aesthetically" and he goes on to discuss it more throughout the article. The aesthetics of something and in this case television are subjective; not everyone will have the same opinion of what should and shouldn't be considered having an aesthetic quality, so what does it mean to be aesthetically pleasing? What is the criteria?

The Fact of Television

Q1: Cavell says that when a member in a genre-as-medium "diverges", it "compensates" for this divergence. (p. 200) How does he see this as possible? Does this compensation take the form of being more "stereotypical" ? Does it just mean that the movie is for the most part like the "typical" movie of that genre or what?

Q2: I noticed that Cavell's idea that tv works in serial and movies are more individual reminded me of the idea of site specificity. A movie can stand alone, it's the experience of the individual movie (phenomonological) whereas in tv, it's more the idea, the characters that make a tv program worthwhile (discursive). It's not an exact analogy, but it's an idea. My question would be is this a fair analogy?

Good Idea Nancy Davenport

George Baker... where to begin. Well since it has become second nature for us to deal with these blog posts like band-aids with the single mind-track-motion of RIGHT OFF!!!, I will leave out everything worth analyzing and just put in here whatever crap comes to mind the fastest.

George Baker says that the problem today is not that the term photography has been stretched beyond its limits, but that photography has become abandoned, and "technologically outmoded"; but if cinema has been wrongly categorized as photography, and yet the problem is that photography has been replaced by cinema or what have you, then is it possible to conclude that the problem of abandoning photography is caused by the fact that we consider photography and cinema to be the same? In other words, if us thinking of cinema as the new photography, and this in turn causes us to focus on cinema instead, then isn't the "technological outmoding" caused by this seemingly non-problematic issue of bad categorization? If something "not problematic" is the CAUSE of a problem, then doesn't that make the cause problematic?

Question 2, as 1 was not numbered but who pays attention to the gory details anyway if they're just flesh wounds:

Why did it have to end the way it ended? Was there really no point to Baker's piece other than to (try as he might to) justify his first essay that he alluded to, where the two notions of narrativity and stasis were probably criticised for being counterintuitive and so a comeback was somewhere in view? Don't you think a name like Half Baker prepares us better mentally than just "George"?

Oh yeah and intermedia... but who cares, because I'm done!!!!!!

Intermedia and Photography’s Expanded Field

Question 1: In Dick Higgins’ article on Intermedia, he claimed “The scene [of Milord] is not just characteristic of the painting world as an institution, however. It is absolutely natural to and inevitable in the concept of the pure medium, the painting or precious object of any kind.” (187) I can understand what he meant by the scene as a generalization of historical paintings, but what does he mean by “the concept of the pure medium”?

Question 2: In George Baker’s Photography’s Expanded Field, he applied Krauss’s Piaget model to modern photography and classified only those “images” that are “not-narrative” and “not-stasis” as modern photographs; others would be “photographic images”. How would Davenport’s “Stills from Weekend Campus” be classified? Is it “narrative” and “stasis”, or “stasis” and “non-stasis” since it is a still?

Intermedia

1. Higgins's definition of intermedia is art that is constructed with two or more media, not just simply painting on canvas or sculpture. Art can be a mix of things including visual, musical, and conceptual works. However, when adding different materials to art, the concept of art seems to change as well.. The question I have is that, since the expansion of art is not limited, which means there are more things to be considered as art, then how can we set the standard for high class art? higher class of artistic form?

2. In "cinematic photography," George Baker talked about the expansion of the terms to a different kind of art. I'm wondering despite of the common forms of contemporary art we have right now, how far would art go?

Photography's Expanded Field

Baker talks about how in the mid-1990s a whole new generation of artists began “to mine the possibilities of stasis and not-stasis” and “pushing the still image to a field of both multiple social layers and incomplete image fragments.” He mentions that this has increased the connotational codes found within still images and how this has expanded to a more fully cultural arena. I think that this types of photographs by this new generation of artist would be interesting, because each cultural group may have a different perceptive when viewing the photograph. So I am wondering how these different cultural connotations the artist created though photography affected the appreciation or acceptance of the new wave of art photography? I feel that cultural connotations are quite confusing, especially with art and photography out of my cultural realm, whether it be cultural differences in time or background. Sometimes I feel that my cultural background makes me perceive things differently, maybe not what the artist intended their views to perceive.

When reading the article, I found some of the description of the different expansion of art a little difficult to understand like how something can be narrative and not-narrative at the same time. I found some of the pictures in the text confusing also. Some of the pictures in the text like on pg494 look like they are just photography of just regular people, similar to pictures one would take of their family or friends. What is Baker trying to say about these photos? Are these included under his definition of photography expansion?

Intermedia

Q1: Dick Higgins claims that traditional paintings "do not allow any sense of dialogue" (187), but that what he coins "intermedia" does. I don't understand how he can say that without thinking that some paintings may speak out to certain viewers on a more personal level that he himself cannot achieve. "Happenings" may speak out to him but not others; in fact, I'm a bit confused as to how this mixture of "collage, music, and the theater" (189) works exactly (perhaps an example would change this). Also, what does he mean by "The concept itself is better understood by what it is not, rather than what it is"?

Q2: In George Baker's "Photography's Expanded Field," he describes photography as being narrative, not-narrative, stasis, or not-stasis in a fashion similar to Rosalind Krauss in her article "Sculpture in the Expanded Field." How does one determine whether a photograph is a "talking picture" or not? I feel like different photographs can speak to different individuals, and don't see how one can claim a certain work to be stasis or narrative without someone else thinking the opposite. If this is true, then what is the point of Krauss and Baker making their mathematical diagrams, attempting to graph out these works of art as if their categorization is absolute?

Photography's Exanded Field

1.) Higgins states that in the 1990's a new hybrid of "stasis" and non-stasis" emerged, forming a "counter presence". This still image was intended to "push the image into a field of both multiple social layers and incomplete image fragments". My question revolves around the fact of how is a image classified as "fragmented"? Some images that Higgins discussed as fragmented could possibly be images that if separated, could alone stand for the same cultural discourse they were intended to be.

2.) Douglas Gordon's "slowed" films are claimed to "reduce the narrative cinematic product to the foundation of the still frame". This process occurs through an extension of playtimes of twenty-four hours to seven days. Does this playtime literally mean physical playtime or pictures simply moving at slow speeds? Also, what audience is this aimed for (as the majority will not sit through a seven day "slow" film.)?

Intermedia

Q1: Dick Higgins talks about how a characteristic of the painting world is that it is institutionalized. This is due to the fact that it exists in a institution and paintings are viewed as expensive ornaments. He says that there is "no sense of dialogue in them". What does he mean by that? Does is mean that there can be no discussion upon what the paintings are symbolizing because they are there to just to spectate? People think they are just beautiful and that's all. Is that also what he means when hes says that 'I am the state' will be replaced with "After me the deluge"?

Q2: George Baker begins by saying how photograph has expanded to using many different props to complement picutures. He then talks about the photograph being torn between narrativity and stasis. I don't understand this description of the photograph. Is he saying that the life of the picture is the narrativity and the "its devotion" to equilibrium is its stasis?

Intermedia and Photography's Expanded Field

Question 1: How does Higgins come up with his term "Intermedia"? He goes into detail about how it is not mixing artistic mediums that still suggest grandeur and ornateness, the passiveness of traditional art. It must not only mix medias but also engage its viewers, audience, and society in discourse and converstaion. "Intermedia" seems too weak of a term to be coined for such activisim, grassroots art. Since this type of art must challenge dialogues and push people to question and search for answers, it not only encompassed multiple art mediums but must also be political, social, psychological and much more - shouldn't it be more appropriately termed "interdisciplinary"

Question 2: Baker describes "cinematic" still films done by artists such as Wall to be fragmented, absent, discontinuous and with a sense of "counter-presence". I'm still a little confused as to what exactly a film still is, and if they are all cinematic, but it seems to me that this counter-presence quality they have and project onto their viewers is due more to its transitivity rather it being fragmented. Since it is not permanent, and only there for a moment, this contributes to its disjointed nature. The author describes the nature of these cinematic photographs as being more rooted in their cultural environments rather than the art of photography itself. How is this so? Do current social and cultural thoughts help shape and define specific art fields such as photography? Is it a working and dynamic definition?

Photography's Neuter State

In his article Intermedia, Higgins addresses that “we need more portability and flexibility, and this the traditional theater cannot provide” (189). However, he later contradicts himself by indicating that intermedia is universal to some extent throughout the fine arts. Would he consider mime shows a presentation of intermedia within theater? Can we consider the possibility of a still film to a monologue evidence of de-compartmentalization of theater?

Throughout Photography’s Expanded Field, Baker stresses the evolutionary role of photography as a bridge medium to “more compelling forms” in exchange for its debasement as an art form in and of itself. Furthermore, Baker formulates an interpretation of photography as “being neither truly narrative nor static in its meaning” but able to aesthetically organize into sequence and series. Since there exists the possibility of photography existing as both an intermedia and independent art medium, how do we reconcile its dual functions and, also, who defines the conditions for either discourse: the artist or the audience? And overall, is the breaking away from compartmentalized art mediums a foreshadowing of the fluidity of all art structures? Will sculpture, paintings, architecture, etc gradually emerge into postmodernist manifestations parallel to photography?

Photography's Expanded Field

Question 1: "For if modernist photography was somehow caught between two negations, between the conditions of being neither truly narrative nor stasis in its meaning effects- if the modernist photograph had become a sum of exclusions- then this opposition of negative terms easily generates a similar opposition but expressed positively" (pg 496). I understand that "non-stasis" is simply "narrative" (and the opposite is true as well), but what I am confuse about is the meaning of this quote when it is said that it is between, what does the "sum of exclusions" really mean? Because the meaning that the negative is a positive makes sense but what is not completely clear to me is that the photography is caught between the two negations if in fact it can be the other with this negative connotation. Does this mean that there isn't an inbetween, and that every photograph is one or the other, and there are no other variations? (also said that "photography is no longer the privileged middle term between two things that it isn't" (pg 505), a bit confused)

Question 2: In "cinematic photography," "the opening of the still image into manipulations from other cultural domains" (pg 501) is an expantion of the terms to a different kind of art. It's the fusion of narrative and stasis. I'm curious to know how art will evolve in the future to expand on these concepts.

Photography’s Expanded Field

Q1: The dichotomies of narrative/non-narrative, stasis/movement, etc. lie at the heart of George Baker's “Photography’s Expanded Field.” Ok, some photographs display evidence of some of these notions, but what is the greater relevance of this discussion? Why is he stuck on this idea…is this just intellectual riffing? I say: the latter. He seems to suggest as much with his telling comment that “the reader by this point will not be surprised to learn of how fondly I remember sitting in [Rosalind Krauss’] office conjugating the semiotic neutralization of things like the terms of gender and sexuality…” No, indeed, not this reader. Sounds like a guy who admittedly just likes playing with words.

Q2: Klein groups, semiotic squares….charts. Complex mathematical constructs. This reminds me of the artistic co-opting of “entropy” and other such pseudo scientific jargon. Is this for real? I guess the main questions I have after reading “Photography’s Expanded Field” are 1. what, exactly (not generally), is Baker trying to say, and 2. Why hasn’t he read and then re-read “Politics and the English Language?” He gets a C for clarity. I wish I could assign some value to his content but I don’t really know what it is.

Q1: The notion of static film is discussed. Baker says this form of art begins to give expression by combining the narrative and the non- narrative. Yet what exactly is the idea of a "Still film?" How is this different than a slideshow of multiple pictures? Is it possible to have a still film without a narrative expression? Who dictates that the art has a narrative- the artist or the viewers?

Q2: What exactly is a slowed film? How does this differ from a static film/ a still film? How is it possible for the playtimes to be extended to periods of 24 hours or a "time span of years?" Does the playtime mean the amount of time the work is displayed or the actual time it takes for the film to be shown once? Is a slowed film made up of video made to look like individual images or images put together in succession to make a film?

the evolving photograph

Question 1 - In Higgins’ Intermedia there is a moment in the text where Higgins expresses the following about paintings, “We view paintings. What are they, after all? Expensive, handmade objects, intended to ornament the walls of the rich or, through their (or their government’s) munificence, to be shared with the large numbers of people and give them a sense of grandeur. But they do not allow any sense of dialogue.” What do we as a class make of such statement having experienced seven weeks of sculpture, paintings, architecture, etc? Specifically, what do make of Higgins’ claim “they do not allow any sense of dialogue”? What sort of dialogue is Higgins referring to – a dialogue between art and viewer or a dialogue between viewers and their opinions about the painting?

Question 2 – In Baker’s Photography’s Expanded Field Baker states, “We are dealing less with “authors” and their influence than with a structural field of new formal and cultural possibilities, all of them ratified logically by the expansion of the medium of photography.” The first half of this sentence reminds me of Roland Barthes and his “death of the author” idea, but if we are to move away from “authors” and their influence, can we really create a structural field of new formal and cultural possibilities without fully considering the authors influence? I understand the medium of photography is expanding, but perhaps it is only expanding because artists are choosing to expand, is this not the influence of the artist?

Intermedia

Q1: Higgins discusses Kaprow's work. He says that Kaprow wanted to relate the spectator and the work so he put mirrors in his sculptures so that the spectator could literally see themselves in his work. He then added "environments" which were enveloping collages around the mirrors to make the work even more physical. Higgins then says that Kaprow put live humans in his work. Is the art still the same piece if the people walk away or if a different person joins? Did this matter to Kaprow? Or was the idea to have something changing and moving?

Q2: Higgins says that the "best work being produced today seems to fall between media," that the most facinating work is not one media but a mixture of a couple. I understand that this work is facinating because it is not something we see very often, but why is one media work made so inferior to it? Can't artwork of one media be just as interesting and meaningful? Why doesn't Higgins think so?

intermedia

it seems that when adding different medias to art the concept of what art is must change. In the article, and observed in contemporary art, art can be a mix of a number of things including visual, musical, and conceptual works. the problem with this expanding notion of art is that more things can be considered art. If this is the case, what happens to notions of high art or being a good artist? It seems that anyone can not just be an artist but anyone can be a good artist, and thus who is to judge and understand new forms of high artistic content?


I think it is interesting that photography becomes such a strong platform for contemporary art because it creates so many new concepts that could not be portrayed in art? It connects the reality of the world with the vision of the artist. Photographs depict real life but only one moment in one life, which, in a sense, is not real at all. Life has temporal modes and certain durations that could not be infused into a photograph. how does photography change art and why is its use to important?

Paper #3 Assignment

The next paper, 4pp, due Thurs, 3/12, is an open topic. You can therefore choose a subject and thesis based on ANY of the material we have covered (or alluded to) in class. The only constraint is that it should develop in the course of four pages an incisive and coherent argument. You may choose to write about a single artwork or artist, about a broader theme (e.g. "monumentality") or about the intersection between two or more artworks/movements. The openness of this assignment is designed to help you formulate a topic and thesis on your own, based on your own interests or on question/issued that have been piqued for you, but under the umbrella of course material. After this paper, your final research work will be on a topic of your choice that falls OUTSIDE the scope of course readings and discussion.
Please remember to bring 2 extra copies, in addition to the one you hand in to me, on Thursday 3/12.

The Grey Zone

On Pg. 120 is states that "If Burden had been killed or more seriously wounded he would not have become a hero of the antiwar movements, but would have been subject to more intense disapproval and ridicule". This quote strikes an erie expectation of American culture, as it stating that it is okay to cause harm to oneself in the name of art, which is promoting the act of violence itself. That then leads to the question of what is the line of appropriateness in art? Burden is supporting the anti-war movement, and his extreme act can be used to mobilize emotion, however he is supporting the very thing he is intending on ridiculing, violence.

Burden was shot in a controlled situation, true the impact of a gun shot wound is unpredictable but Burden was aware that the shot was coming and the impact it would create on himself, the shooter, and the audience. Typically when someone is shot their emotions are running rapidly as they do not expect the situation which would create a completely different environment than Burdens. Since Burden had meticulously planned out the situation of his shooting, would that even classify him as experiencing what its like to be shot? Of course he experienced the pain of the wound, but a major component of being shot is the emotional chaos that is occurring in that instant.

The Grey Zone

On page 471, Ward talks about public and private, describing Burden’s cover up story for getting shot. He said the event was either private or public, I assume depending on the part of the story that is told. The domestic dispute is private with the hunting accident is public. Ward said that the after effect of “Shoot” was to reveal the instability of the legal definitions or limits of those categories. Is he referring to how well the story holds up in public? What is he saying to say about this public and private relationship?

On pg 465 of the reader, Ward talks about how in relation to “Shoot,” ‘everyone’ (us) is the collective that forms around the violent event. He goes form saying the Burden is just one of ‘us’ > ‘we’ > ‘everyone’ > ‘I’. What is his meaning? Is he saying that he can relate to Burden’s art performance by just watching it? Is this the relationship Burden talks about when he said that “all the audience cannot help but place themselves into my shoes?”

Please Shoot Me??

1) "I think everyone subconsciously has thought about what it's like to be shot...To do it in this clinical way, to do something that most people would go out of their way to avoid, to turn around and face the monster and say 'Well, let's find out what it's about,' I think that touches on some cord" (119). In essence, even everyone who was there watching is still going to be asking the same question after Burden went through with being shot aren't they? Because at the end of the day, he is just another one of the soldiers who has had a bullet put in his arm, and the people still have no idea what it is like to be shot. So what I wonder about this quote and how it relates to the whole incident of Shoot is how this in any way answers the question for society and the audience what it's like to be shot? Isn't he the only one that 'finds out'?

2) Ward mentions that as a result of Shoot "we get Burden as heroic victim, as a kind of Martyr, whose self-victimization mimics, in protest, the brutality of the war" (119). Burden classifies in this reading that Shoot could be nothing other than art. But in a sense, couldn't the audience or critics get the feeling that this is almost a mockery of American society of the day? Maybe that is what he is doing, I am not exactly positive. The article talks about how "being shot, at least in America, is as American as applie pie." In that sense, couldn't Burden be seen as portraying that our country has come to accept guns and violence, so making it a form of art is the ultimate way to make it appear beautiful? Does he support his action as art alone, or is it not art at all, but just the protest?

Grey Zone: Watching Shoot

Question 1: Burden executed a private act which required a public audience (it was distinguished in this article between public and private audiences). How does the audience affect the significance of this art, this performance? Does the performance change by the audience viewing it, or does the type of audience change the piece? Is art only important because of those who view it? Because otherwise, how would we appreciate it or learn about it if no one has observed it? Does a piece's significance increase with the number of viewers? How does the audience size emphasis the meaning of an artwork?

Question 2: Was this worth the art, shooting a person? How do ethics play a part in this piece? Did nobody want/try to stop this from happening? Or was everyone too distracted to think about this aspect?

Watching Shoot

1. Frazer Ward suggests that Burden's Shoot is minimalism, therefore, it requires audiences. However, in order to understand his attempt of showing the concept of violent that is informed by mass media, the public needs to somewhat get “involved” into the scene. I'm confused about how this particular wok is being categorized into minimalism art work.

2. Burden claims that his art pieces are private, including Shoot, but in order to make his art works work, he must show them to the public. When viewing his performances, there are only a couple of people allowed in the audience, which is the so called the “private work”. Accroding to Ward, his works are kind of public and yet they still create a send of privacy by having a primary and a secondary audiences. I don't really understand the concept of primary and secondary audience. How do you decide who is going to be the primary audience and who is to be the secondary?

Vinegar shot me for Art

1: Because of legal reasons, Burden had to make up a story for the police report about a jar of vinegar falling on the gun. This changed the official public account of what happened, which Burden seems to consider a part of the art. The "secondary audience' might have been likely to read newspapers and magazines that include the anecdotal description but also the official report. Does this change the meaning of the piece? Burden set out to find out what it was like to be shot, then he doesn't really explain what it was like emotionally, and he doesn't even tell the authorities what really happened. Should this be taken into consideration very seriously or not really, since it was just a way to keep the marksman and the audience from getting into legal trouble? Does the unwillingness to be completely candid reveal something? If I had to turn this into a single question, what is the difference if a jar of vinegar shot Burden, or if it was his friend?

2: What exactly are Minimalism and Modernism, as defined by Ward? I thought a characteristic of modernist art, is that it is transportable and that it can have the same meaning in many spaces. However, I'm seeing phrases like "modernist diving of authentic presence via medium" and "Minimalists' phenomenological spaces" (125). These seem to have a phenomenological site specificity attached to them, the idea that the experience is a part of the work. Does this means that the location is not part of the experience? Ward also sets Burden's Shoot as being different from modernism, but I have a hard time picking up the differences, or at least it's hard to keep everything straight. What is a word that can be used to categorize Shoot?

Burden's burden

In his article, Ward provides an analysis of artistic implications and social relationships to the fomenting and execution of Shoot as an artistic performance. More appropriately defined as a spectacle, Shoot relied on the collaboration and “acquiescence” of the audience, the marksman, and Burden himself. However, towards the conclusion of his article, Ward identifies the requirement of a “public-in-miniature” for this reenactment of an individual shot. But if Ward had identified the audience as an essential component in showing fascination to the intrepid act, why then does he characterize them as a “public-in-miniature”? In this term, is he referring to the quantitative size of Shoot’s audience or their general passivity to the hazardous performance? Had Shoot been carried out in front of 20,000 spectators at AT&T Park, would the audience still be considered a “public-in-miniature”? Whether Baroque paintings or empirical minimalist performances, an artwork is never experienced or interpreted by an entire society. So, is the role of an audience itself minimalist? Would it not be essential?

Ward allocates extensive discourse to distinguishing between public and private audience and how its representations influence the perception of Shoot as a performance. He claims that Burden executed a private act which required of a public audience “in the sense of an interested, participant group” (123). However, in terms of Shoot as a performance, is the sense of obligation by the artist (in this case, Burden) to provide an act of significant interest intensified with larger audiences? Had a hundred individuals witnessed Shoot, would the act’s empirical nature is lessened?

Ward

Q1: Freid's attack on minimalism is discussed at length. He argues that the authenticity of "rested on its own to 'defeat or suspend its own objecthood'" (33) by means of the medium of the artwork. Fried also criticizes the public dimension to art and how that effects the perceived meaning of the work as well as the intended meaning of the work. However, I do not understand what is meant when it is stated that if an object cannot "suspend its own objecthood" then it would fall into theatre and posess no value as an experience or artwork. It would just be an object. What exactly is meant by this and why would theatre categorize an object lacking objecthood/ value?

Q2:The constant discussion of public vs. private in this article has prompted me to further consider Shoot. The work of art itself is a collection of all the pieces that went into making it- the spectators, the gun, bullet, shooter, the space, documentation, and the artist. The viewers were invited and therefore were mentally prepared for the results of this performance. It is argued that in some ways these people contributed to the artwork, even though no one interferred. Perhaps the people were chosen based on their likelihood to attempt to halt the work etc. Yet, it prompts me to wonder how the work of art would be altered had no audience members been invited, and instead a video feed (I realize that didn't exist then) was posted on the internet or recorded. Do people have to experience the art in order to give it the minimalistic idea that the art can be experienced in multiple ways? Or is just the possibiliy/ ability for the work to be physically viewed in many ways enough to categorize the art in this was?

burden on society

Even though Burden's performance took place within the controlled, "ideal" space of a museum/gallery, the audience could not control itself; instead, they stood, unable to react rationally and possibly stop such a vile act. This, however, actually redefines the museum space, now as a space of contemplation and discovery, a place where one goes to be isolated from exterior thought and learn about oneself (particularly, in this case, about one's own indecisiveness). In other words, his performance shifts the previous aim of the museum from a place where the public discovers society's so called cultural values into a place where one would question the actual value of these institutional ideals.

The minimalist aspect of this piece is then defined in a different way than Ward states in his article. A minimalist art piece is meant to be viewed such that the viewer is the subject, and not the object itself. Hence, the artist of a minimalist art piece would have intended for the viewer to be the subject, and in this sense it is not the viewer who determines this, but the artist who is now underhandedly provoking the viewer to think and examine. Burden's performance, however, doesn't merely provoke the viewer to think about themselves, but to think of their cultural identity, a culture which is formed seperate of the indivudual. Then Burden's method of provocation entails further analysis of existence, a much deeper analysis that places the individual, as an individual capable of making individual decisions, as part of a greater scheme, part of the greater world of people.

So then, my question to you is, could such deep provocation have taken place, had Burden not intentionally utilized the very method which his artwork criticizes?

Ward states in the article that his performance is partially a criticism on the "bloodlessness of minimalism." It is this criticism that takes the piece into a grander scheme; thus his piece is not entirely minimalist, as its focus is not so much on the viewer anymore, since it is partially contained within such a context of art's historical moment. As aforementioned, however, this criticism is what led to the greater pondering of one's own position with relation to the world. Allow me to rephrase my previous question: So is this not minimalism, if it indeed is inclined to place the emphasis on the viewer, even if it uses notions separate of the individual to do so? Furthermore, does the common practice of minimalist's viewer subject not create merely an artificial pondering of one's self, since the pondering is actually provoked by someone other than the individual?

Watching Shoot

Question 1: Frazer makes a short mention towards the end of the article about how Buren's wound, and the bullet used, sort connects the interior and exterior -making the environment and his body continuous. I feel like this analysis is sort of a stretch, reflecting some of the other fragmented analyses and experiences reported and discussed. Is this example analogous to the interdependence and relationship between public and private in this "performance"? Does the bullet do the same sort of damage and blurring of lines that Shoot does for America's cultural and public identity?

Question 2: The author goes into a lot of detail about the public/private delineation in Buren's "work", how in this case, the viewers, the audience becomes equal to the general public through their passivity and generality (that no one in the audience, or even Buren's friend, is named). I understand that there is a primary and secondary audience, and that the issues of responsibility and ethics fall primarily on the immediate crowd. However I still am confused as to what this means for the general public, then and now (without the Vietnam war background)? I think it's also interesting, although kind of dismal, when Frazer describes Shoot as a public in miniature of the real world - our subservient nature to being governed and passively agreeing to it all. Obviously the scene has changed since then - mass media is even more prominent than ever and the backdrop of the Vietnam War is no longer there (although replaced with new backdrops..) Is this how the American public still is? Can Shoot still be called a "public in miniature" of our country?

Shoot

Q1: Ward brought up a couple of reasons why Burden may have done Shoot. One was to protest the brutality of war with his self-victimization, another reason was to put people in a position of "what do I do in this situation?" The third reason that Ward discussed was because Burden wanted to know what it felt to be shot and believed that everyone, even if subconsciously, wondered what it was like. Considering all of these reasons, what impact did Burden want to have on his audience and others who learned about his art? Did he want people to protest the war? Did he want people to take a stand in the future instead of letting the bystander effect affect them? Or did he just want to show people the experience of being shot?

Q2: The bystander effect increases as the number of people increase. If Burden wanted to make an impact, why didn't he have a larger audience?

Gray Zone: Watching Shoot

Question 1: While rationally I can understand that Burden’s work has a context of the Minimalism and the spectacle of war, I don’t think personally I can accept Shoot to be a piece of artwork. Emotionally, the question of why would anyone in his/her right mind would attempt something like this is what I thought of initially. I understand that assigning “a pathological state” (116) as Fraser described does not help to explain the work in question, is art really capable of transcending legality, rationality, etc that as long as it is piece of artwork expressing certain ideas, it is acceptable? Especially on pg 118, in an interview with Chris Burden, he claimed “Well, it’s something to experience. How do you know how it feels like to be shot if you don’t experience it? It seems interesting enough to be worth doing.” I can understand his artistic/intellectual curiosity to do with being shot, but actually creating a stage actively for it to happen seems outrageous and insane. How can the deliberate process of planning to be shot considered as an act of creating artwork?

Question 2: Fraser talked about how ethical individuals would attempt to stop the shooting from taking place. He said “the very violence of shoot seems to have called out for intervention on the part of the collaborators or audience members….Yet, once it was in train, some combination of the expectation of a specialist public, prurient fascination, an antimoralistic, antiauthoritarian historical milieu, even the brevity of the work, prevented any such intervention.” (117) What I think is interesting is that if someone actually did make a gesture to stop the shooting, how would it change the nature of the work?

Ward/Burden

Q1: Frazer Ward, in Gray Zone: Watching Shoot, includes several quotes from Chris Burden about his performance, Shoot. “I’d be telling a bunch of people, and that would make it happen.” “Often there were only two or three people there to see them, or maybe just the people who were helping me.” “All the audience cannot help but place themselves into my shoes.” “I’d convinced all the people around me so much no one even brought a first-aid kit.” “There would be this grey zone, like – was I shot? Or was I not?” Burden has a very down to earth way of describing these things. He seems almost artless. As if he can boil down his own performance to a few salient ideas without belaboring it or getting subatomic. Ward, on the other hand, falls on the other end of the rhetorical spectrum. He reads many things into Shoot. In light of this contrast…is he reading more than is there? Perhaps it was the novelty. These days, this sort of thing (violent/shocking performance) underwhelms us. For example, another performance artists: Genessis P-Orridge of Throbbing Gristle. As a “performance,” he and his wife had gender reassignment procedures and plastic surgery to turn into the same person. Most people never heard about it. The response of many who did? Meh. What would Ward have to say? Probably much less than he had to say about Shoot.

Q2: Are Burden’s performances mostly notable for their spectacular qualities? If NO ONE ever saw shoot, either in person or via media, and there was no shooter to witness it either, but just an auto trigger to do the firing….would we care?

Gray Zone: Watching Shoot

Q1. When reading Ward's article, I found it very interesting that no one called the police when the shooting occurred. Usually when someone is shot, people around the incident render it necessary to call the police, but in this case since it was considered art, no one called the police. Does that make it okay to not call the police just because it is art? Did the viewers have a responsibility to call the police? 

Q2. I understand that Burden had his friend shoot himself because he wanted the public to place themselves into his shoes while simultaneously speaking to the Vietnam War, but is what he did ethical? Is it okay to shoot someone for the sake of art? Was shooting himself the only way to get the point across or that there another way to get his point across without bloodshed? 

Gray Zone: Watching Shoot

Q1: I find it interesting that after Chris Burden performed Shoot, everyone called him a martyr, a heroic victim, etc.; all quick to label him under something that people could understand rather than looking at the meaning behind his art piece. Thus his artwork becoming a spectacle more than anything else. People were fascinated and interested in what he did because no one has ever put themselves in a position to intentionally get shot. Later in Frazer Ward's article he mentions if the final outcome of the artpiece were to change and Chris Burden died, then the reaction from the public would be the complete opposite of fascination, they would most likely disapprove and ridicule. So I wonder why people don't see that possibility and still ridicule him? Does this show mindless the public can be? Does it take something serious and dangerous for people to wake up and realize what is not a spectacle? I feel like this reaction from public can be compared to their reaction to the rest of the world and real life situations. Because violence is so common people don't do anything until there are real consequences, like when killings of Jews was finally called a genocide. Is this what Frazer Ward is talking about when he talks about the responsibility of the audience?

Q2: Burden claims that his art pieces are private, but he said in order to execute his work he must tell the public. If he does this, he then has an obligation but when it comes to the actual viewing of his performances, there are only a couple of people allowed in the audience therefore creating a private work. Frazer explains that this means that his work is sort of public as well and creates a 'primary and secondary audience'. I'm not sure if i understand what he is trying to say about the relationship between the private and the public. I understand the responsibility of the private audience, but what is the responsibility of the public?

Gray Zone: Watching Shoot

Q1: After reading about Chris Burden's work, I can't help but question the legality of what occurred. It all just sounds so mysterious, at least from reading this article alone. How could he just lie to the police about the context of his shooting, and then not get in trouble after the truth came out? How is it possible that the audience and the marksman continue to be publicly anonymous? It would be interesting to interview these witnesses to get their input on the effect of the work on their lives afterwards, and I'm amazed no one has sought their names. I wonder if Burden himself has asked them what they thought about it in private.

Q2: While I can sort of understand what Burden was trying to accomplish and the fascination it brings, it still seems like a stupid thing to do. How is this form of protest against the Vietnam War more powerful than the actual images and death counts from the war broadcasted every night on television and radio? With so many casualties overseas, what's the significance of some guy who decides to voluntarily be shot by a friend and then calls it art?

Shoot (Him Again)!

Question 1 – There has been a general trend in class that sometimes art just doesn’t appear to be art, i.e. Malevich’s Black Square. There has also been a tendency for artists seeking to redefine their role and participation with their artwork – Shoot I believe is an example of where Burden really redefines his role as artist in producing his artwork. My question is what do we call an individual like Burden? Do we still consider him to be an artist? Or do we agree with Frazer in calling Burden other names aside from recognizing him as artist, i.e. “victim-by-request”?

Question 2 – Reassessing the context in which Shoot came about, how popular would Burden’s work of art be in today’s society? Would Shoot still be considered a Minimalism example while also an example of the “spectacle of war”? Would 21st Century Americans widely approve of Burden’s work of art or instead protest against such visible violence in the form of art?

SHOOT

first of all, how is this legal? The museum is an institution like the government and i am somewhat astonished that the museum allowed it to happen. When thinking about how no one stopped it, not the artist, not the shooter, and not the audience, one realizes why did not the people who work at or manage the museum stop it?

The article discusses how this art piece is critical of the vietnam war and how chris is somewhat a martyr but i feel like this is much different. It is shocking and masochistic but at the same time i don't think it expresses the strife of war but rather the intensity of art. It says in the article that he did not beliece that it was the same thing as war because he was shot at by a friend and not a foe, but at the same time he felt like he experienced somethign similar. My first question is, if it is similar to war then how can one be shot so non-chalantly and acceptingly? My other question is that many of the people who went to vietnam and experienced being shot at were forced to go, and Burden's artowrk "shoot" is entirely voluntarily.

Lastly, this artwork is described by Burden as being both public and private. It was public in the sense that people witnessed it, but it was private because it was such a small group of people who observed. My question is if he did this entirely privately, just him and the shooter, how would it affect the artwork, and likewise, if he did it entirely public in front of hundreds of people, how would that affect the artwork. Though it is hard to believe that nobody intervened during this situation, i feel like if their hundreds of people riots and protest could break out, and if done in private the artwork would be nearly meaningless because it would lose its believability. No matter what though, i think the artwork is incredibly astonishing and i am happy that someone had the guts to entertain an idea so shocking and profound.