"How is it feminist? Because a woman made it"

Those are words from an art history professor I had a year ago talking about the feminist work of Sherrie Levine.

Duchamp's Fountain casted in Bronze by Sherrie Levine
I cannot say that I am a huge fan of Sherrie Levine's work, but that isn't so important so much as another common, unfounded art historical insofacto comment, which when it is observed makes little if any sense as a Universal.
A woman taking any sort of position is in a patriarchy is not in and of itself feminist. In this particular example with the artist Sherrie Levine, making an object in a male dominated art world is not inherently feminist. Certainly we could argue that the piece is feminist--in fact evidence supports this. But that does not mean it a woman making it automatically makes it feminist in any shape way or form, or at the very least, I don't find its position to be so easily and quickly understood as feminist.
Let's put the art world aside and instead enter the political sphere. If we see a woman protesting the new restrictions on abortion outside of the White House, we would probably think (correctly) that she is a feminist. For sake of argument, the protests result in the new restrictions being removed. The day after the new restrictions have been removed, we see still people protesting! But instead of signs demanding restrictions being removed, the signs dictate that abortion should be completely illegal! The majority of them are women, and they are taking a stance in a patriarchy. Does that make them feminists?

I hate to make, "most people would say" statements, but here we go: most people I believe would not consider these women feminists, eventhough they are standing up for a cause they believe in in a patriarchy. Perhaps some of the individuals from the first protest (pro-choice folk), reacting against the new restrictions, respond that the second protesters (pro-life) are simply acting within the boundaries of what it is to be a woman in a patriarchy. One might quickly dismiss this only because it assumes that one's position on abortion determines whether or not one acts within or outside of a "woman's role." The arguements continue on.

But it does not matter. Already, a distinction has been made between the act of taking a stance and the content of a stance, simply by creating the duality of "woman against patriarchy" vs. "woman unknowingly conforming to patriarchy." To base who fits in what category solely upon a single factor seems ridiculous, therefore the issue is not "against patriarchy" vs "conforming to patriarchy," so much as what these individuals are saying. Being an (politically, artistically, etc) active woman, does not necessitate a feminist stance.

60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

Two of many Sol LeWitt's incomplete Cubes

Bruce Nauman's Run from Fear Fun from Rear in neon
60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments
The work from the 60s and 70s is, in general, of great importance to what I make and do, and I think about it frequently. And as I always do, I think about the public's reaction to these sorts of pieces, although Bruce Nauman says repeatedly that he makes art for the few--not the elite--but that his art is something he'd want to show a friend, for example. Though Nauman is quite confident, I am not and I am insecure about the public eye, what they think (MAKE ME THINK). I want to preface by saying my thoughts on this matter are founded upon the assumption that the "general public" (whatever that means) sees these pieces as tasteless or simply as not being art (which actually is a very astute observation, if people don't just shut down when looking at something "modern" or contemporary and find it to be a little odd--for sake of simplicity right now, I am going to ignore this and bring this up in an article about Duchamp sometime later. This issue is not my primary concern).

I believe that the work seen above ought to be seen differently than other forms of art--I think it ought to be judged by different criteria. The work is not about aesthetics. What I mean when I say this is that there is no one aesthetic that determines or creates the piece. Instead it other systems, which an artist uses to execute an idea or action (or in this case, which someone else executes... see my first brief article "end of the beginning"). It's literally experimentation; it's experimental art. In the case of Sol LeWitt, the system is obvious when you see a great amount of his work. With the open, incomplete cubes, I believe that Sol LeWitt made every combination of an open cube available. If I am incorrect, he still 'made' many incomplete cubes. He experimented within a specific framework and saw the results of following that system.

Perhaps the viewer feels cheated, believes that the all the cubes are complete worthless based on the absence of an aesthetic system which determines the appearance of the piece (again, this is not to say there is not an aesthetic to the piece or that appearances are not important to the artist). To reiterate, I believe that this individual looks at the work from a slightly flawed perspective. To say that experimental art is bad is like saying a scientific experiment is bad. Or even more bazaar, to choose say you prefer one cube over another. That would be like asking, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?"

This question, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?," appears odd to us. I am arguing that odd reaction is the same regarding experimental art. At this point I would like to clarify a couple of things. Of course, is that you can prefer anything over anything else and judge biasedly. For example, you could prefer the scientific experiment that has a gray rat because you like gray rats. In this sense, no reaction is bazaar. You feel and think what you feel and think. At the same time though, this gives no consideration to anything except your own opinion, which is what you could say I am attacking: no consideration.

So if you 'cannot' judge based on an aesthetic system, what system do you judge it by? Well, an experimental system. That is what is important, the experiment. In short, if you don't see it this way, you are seeing it incorrectly.

Questioning Perceptions...

But can this really be a true statement? Can I or anyone else say that your perspective is wrong? Could I or someone else say that a person is visually illiterate? This is confusing for me. I personally believe that, yes, I can say that people see things incorrectly and that a piece does have an inherent logic.


But then i turn around and say, but art is not just what is in the head of the maker but also in the eyes of the viewer (though Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com , has made a very good point to me that ultimately the artist, not the audience, is the only reason for art being made--I agree, but again I am more insecure and concerned about public opinion). Though I firmly believe one can see things incorrectly, I have no proof or valid foundation. In fact, I can only say that the opposing argument, that art is primarily if not completely interpreted by the viewer, has more evidence. This entire conversation inevitably addresses the question, "what is art?," and the common response, "these complexities of what art is and how art is seen makes it art."


I am skeptical of this. Challenging "what is art" is not a valid way to make art. Philosophers and theologians have challenged art making, but that doesn't make their argumentation or writings art to the general public or even the art work, does it? Obviously not.

One philosopher, Arthur Danto, to tackle the question, "what is art?," defined art as whatever the art world accepts as art. But what if an object was once considered art, but is no longer? What of Byzantium? Those "artists" were considered craftsmen! Who are we to retroactively claim these people as artists when their own contemporaries did not? On the other hand, does it matter if it is the same creative spark, which is shared across cultures? Is a child's or a scientist's drawing not art because it isn't accepted into the cannon?

In short, I question questions and doubt doubts. And furthermore, I don't know.

In His Infinite Wisdom

By Thomas

Usually we judge artwork by beauty (and whatever you define that to be), inherent message (the inside story, if you will), and how it connects to the audience. Some artists believe their work can also be found worthwhile without any of these qualities. Specifically, even if an art piece is untoward or appallingly unnecessary, it can have worth if it provokes people, or generates some kind of controversy in subsequent conversations. Here we have In His Infinite Wisdom. Damien Hirst achieves <>shock>< in his audience with a gestational anomaly and which he credits to god (or God or. ..). Brilliant. So, is this supposed to suggest an atheist point of view or are we actually blaming an extra leg on a calf on someone other than hormone-pumped heifers? Its unoriginal, midordinary and bland. OMG, there are freaky, sad and bad things in the world? How incredible.

ART and AIDS

By Thomas

U2’s Bono kicked off the AIDS charity auction—which topped $38.7 million—last night with a rendition of “All You Need is Love.” A piece by the same name by Damien Hirst—A large plastic heart with dead butterflies stuck to it—sold for $2.2 million to a telephone bidder. Damien Hirst’s priciest work garnered $6.2 million “before fees,” according to Bloomberg.com. Now, Sotheby’s is undoubtedly a well-meaning auction house, but what are the “fees,” involved here? If this is a charity for AIDS victims in Africa, then why are fees involved? I’m sure their paltry 10% commission of the hammer price is appreciated by the dying Africans.

Charity auctions carry a purely positive connotation. Who would not want to be involved in a charity auction, and frankly, why would one not want to donate to such a thing. Naturally, if your auction house is Sotheby’s and this is an extremely well-publicized auction, you will see several celebrities there. Not only will Bono perform a Beatle’s tune, but actor Dennis Hopper, former tennis star John McEnroe, real estate mogul Aby Rosen and model Christy Turlington all show up. Following the auction there’s an after-party including KaiKai KiKi LLC CEO Takashi Murakami, entrepreneur Martha Stewart, models Helena Christensen and Liya Kebede, R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, newscaster Brian Williams and actress Ziyi Zhang. Not only did Christy Turlington buy Francesco Clemente's ``Red Flower on Scorched Earth'' for $155,000, more than double the valuation of $70,000!!, but she happened to write a paper on Damien Hirst in college! Artists involved were some of the priciest in the business. Not only was Hirst well-represented, but Murakami’s “Red Flower Ball (3-D)” sold for $1.5 million, U.K. sculptor Antony Gormley’s piece went for $250,000 and Andreas Gursky “Pyongyang IV,” a photograph of a Korean festival sold for $1.4 million.

Art dealers bought up most of the pricier pieces and phone buyers bought up most of the rest. Hirst’s piece, “Where There’s a Will There’s a Way,” brought in more than a sixth of the proceeds. It was purchased by London’s White Cube Gallery, one of Hirst’s own dealers. Of course art adviser Thea Westreich stated that celebrity events can’t serve as a proxy for the health of the art market, “It's a sexy auction for Valentine's Day.” This may indicate that Damien Hirst and other artists don’t commonly fetch this extreme in prices. However, if dealers and mysterious “phone bidders,” bought up most of the pieces, what are we to expect, that these pieces were not worth what they were sold for? This would undoubtedly put the dealers out of business, the mysterious phone bidders in a position to relinquish their phones. Such an auction is brilliant for these artists. Not only is their work put out there as their own, when often such pieces are constructed by the “Hirst Studio,” or “Murakami[[ and others ]],” but receiving this kind of publicity and these kind of over-the-top prices on their works only makes their snob appeal/recognition/worth go up. The contention is not that art at this level is a Giffen good (goods that are in higher demand at higher prices). Instead, demand among the rich is heavily linked to recognition. High Art's worth so often is judged by author rather than by, well, worth. Why would an artist of Hirst’s caliber not want to hire his studio workers a few more hours to make such a piece for auction when it can only increase his popularity and appeal. Even better, "I'm a good person, I donate to charity, World!"

Celebrities get tremendous props simply for attending such events. If they, like Christy Turlington, actually come away with a piece, it makes big news. Not just among the higher-up community, but among the public. Martha Stewart looks much better than she did yesterday, simply because she is mentioned in articles discussing the (Red) Auction at Sotheby’s. Additionally, these people are buying art. Valuations were estimated to be much lower than the auction brought in, however, these artists commonly sell pieces for such prices. What better pairing for your 42^nd street townhouse apartment and your image than a Hirst cabinet with antiretroviral drugs stuck inside and an “I contributed to charity,” medal?

In a purely reasonable sense, altruism does not exist. Every individual acts on his or her preferences and maximizes utility according to those preferences. An unselfish act is just as selfish as a selfish one from a purely personal perspective. In other words, celebrities and top artists in the business have motivations for submitting to a charitable auction as I have mentioned, but also have internal motivations which reward them. Maybe they are doing good for horribly sick people in Africa. Maybe AIDS workers will get it through their heads that condom distribution doesn’t work and that more creative ways to prevent the almost inevitable spread of AIDS are necessary. Ultimately, events like this, which focus on a dire problem (AIDS in Africa), but which ignore such things as genocide in Darfur, may serve the wealthy artists and celebrities involved more than those in Africa.

Thanks go to Linda Sandler and Katya Kazakina.