Kester

After reading so much on Banksy (for my paper) I can't help but relate the two readings. Banksy is all about not being in a gallery and being viewed by the public. Not having the confines of museum boards and admission as well as space outside. "They began to question the gallery itself as an appropriate site for their work. Further, the museum, with its fusty, art historical associations, appeared ill equipped to provide a proper context for works that explored popular culture or quotidian experience."

I went to a bunch of gallery openings with a friend of mine over the summer and I went because I was thinking "yea it would be nice to get back in touch with the art world and see whats going on." Maybe it was just these galleries that I went to but it actually made me feel less connected. I was being pushed paintings and asked for donations constantly. And the art felt cold and processed. I went to go find art in L.A. galleries and I could've just stayed here and been in the art community.

What a Riot!

I can only write about what I know and I can't help but wonder what would happen if Mady came to my high school with this assignment. I grew up in a small town outside Boston where race and class were never an issue. I guess from the outside looking in we were "an uppity class". Although we were all different races we were mostly all the same class. We didn't have the "poor kids" and the "rich kids" and the crime rate was little to none. If we had had this assignment I guarantee we wouldn't have chosen something of such substance or important in issues. Those kids chose Rodney King because "most of them were born in Los Angeles the year in which Rodney King was in the news" and they chose Claudette Colvin because she was someone whom they identified with and was "the same age of many of the performers". Knowing my high school we would've chosen Deborah Samson and Paul Cellucci. Is it weird that I feel un cultured? It's always the kids who have "had it harder" that seem more interesting.

Propaganda (Late)

I like the idea that propaganda can include motivational posters and demotivational posters, as the current trend to post snarky, visual jokes on each other's Facebook walls and and through email. Both contribute to how people experience and question the world around them.

Motivational Posters...

Demotivational Posters...

Very Demotivational Posters...

-Chase

What a Riot….another late response.

Middle school and high school is an interesting time for students in the US, The developing minds and changing bodies and body chemistry. As stated in the reading, some were perturbed by the content and process of Mady’s CAP process, but what is interesting is that while the words were written by Mady who has a more educated notion of the history and effects of the Rodney King trial and the political situations of that time, the workshop really seemed like it was being lead by the student’s understandings. And not only their understandings, but their fears, emotional responses and their team work to understand the differences and path of other human beings in various situations. It seems to me that really what this workshop was, was a study in a collapse of what the mythologist Joseph Campbell calls, “The Heroes Journey,” which is ultimately the path of an individual.

-Chase

Late Kester Response

A lot of the conversation in Kester’s “Critical Framework for Dialogical Practice,” involves the gentrification of urban areas. And while the paper mainly focuses on New York locales, the shock waves of this idea can be seen today, most recently in Detroit and Chicago.

In Chicago, the Ida B. Welles Projects were torn down and replaced with upscale townhomes. Some of the residents of the projects were displaced, while others received free housing in the townhomes. The free housing is thanks to more affluent neighbors paying for their apartments for upwards of $500,000 spaces. Here is a video.

In Detroit, A city that currently is the least populated in the United States and has the highest crime is trying to attract graduating students and 20somethings to live within the city in order to boost the local economy as well as make it a livable city.

Both of these cities to a certain extent are trying to create a faux-culture, community.

-Chase

Late Lacy Response

In “Debated Territory: Toward A Critical Language For Public Art,” Suzanne Lacy wrote;

“With these questions comes a particular dilemma for new genre public art critics: Can, or how can, a materialized belief system be evaluated? Raven’s deliberate use of “good” underscores our vulnerability in matching our beliefs to the artist’s, comparing and holding as good any mutuality. One critic values contemplation and the other activity; One espouses leftist politics and the other right fundamentalism. In fact, while all art represents artists’ understandings of meaning, the often culturally interventionist intentions of some artists threaten the stance of “objectivity” by which criticism attempts to deify art.”

A difficult obstacle in any art, I think is a “professional critic,” explaining his or her own biases and opinions on a work. Classic examples of this obstacle could be Ellsworth Toohey (clip) in Ayn Rands, “The Fountainhead,” and Addison DeWitt (clip) in the 1950 film “All About Eve.” Both of these critics are paid by the mainstream to not provide a background, study or explanation of a piece of art, but post their own individual opinion on the piece in order to sway the publics observation of the piece. Both of the above examples were able to boost or ruin an artists work based on Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s idea that, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

In today’s world, I believe that the only honorable critic is Roger Ebert. Ebert provides context for each film the he reviews as well as explanations and backups for each of the observances that he writes, as opposed to many other critics cowering behind their “four-star,” system.

-Chase

propaganda

when i think of propaganda i think of banksy's art. i've seen that people have posted some pictures of his graffiti, and i would like to share one of my favorites...(above..location: london)

this image depicts an iconic scene from quentin tarantino's film 'pulp fiction' with samuel jackson and john travolta's characters clutching bananas instead of guns. this mural was destroyed in London circa 2005 authorities gave reason that the painting's "general atmosphere of neglect and social decay which in turn encourages crime".
though i would argue that banksy's intention was not to encourage crime, but to raise awareness of criminal acts with a sense of humor. the guns are bananas. bananas dont kill people. these iconic suave figures are reflections of how glorious/glamorous killing can be. with bananas in hand banksy tells through this piece how comical idolizing crime is. painting over this image, is a silly way of not acknowledging crime's importance in society, and the ignorance of not wanting to share an important message with a community dealing with the issue.


heather hewko

Kester (visual response)

Late Kester Response.

This particular reading was hard to get thorough. At first it felt like a simple list of interesting examples of new takes on public and community art. It was not until Kester began to really dive into Dawn Dedeaux's project that I really was able to get a good look at the issues he was highlighting. The problem of someone coming from the outside a community to make a piece of work about that community and display that publicly. There is merit in Dedeaux's work involving a community in its creation however I was disturbed by this woman's motives for creating the work. A nice sentiment of nursing her own prejudices but I think that this particular self interested agenda would have inevitably saturated the work. We look at Kester's word on it,

"Hardy and the young prisoners with whom she worked provided Dedeaux's with a kind of therapeutic resource, allowing her to reestablish an ethical equilibrium following gut is empowerment and self-doubt catalyzed by her muggings." p.143

Of course the understanding of art from the outside can always be taken in a extremely critical fashion and without seeing the artwork myself it is hard for me to make any real comment. That said, in Kester's article it was hard to find the real community benefits to the work other than the soothing of the artist's discomforts regarding being mugged

Propaganda, a interesting turn

Last week we discussed the difference between Propaganda and advertising. Someone raised an iterating point that has stuck in my head. Advertising is selling a product and propaganda is selling an ideal. I found this picture of a work by Banksy in LA that I think blurs the line between these two things...

Here is the link for the website it came from.

If you follow this link and click on the picture you can see if full size.

Mady made it work.

As one who wishes to produce a community theater piece that resonates with its participants in a deeper way, Mady Schutzman's approach in using the Theater of the Oppressed method proved to be a very poignant one indeed. Boal's renowned Joker system is one that truly allows for any inexperienced actor, say, one of the community volunteers, to be able to engage the piece from several angles as simultaneously as they can. It allows a volunteer(who is already in a unique position in terms of being someone of an untrained theatrical background) to fully immerse themselves in a story and explore all of the vantage points, while at the same time not restricting their innate desire to use their own critical eye in regards to the piece. In keeping all of these elements in mind, Schutzman was very wise to engage the Plaza project this way. I felt in reading the piece that the children involved were able to use their own experience and really be able to maximise the performance(to their satisfaction) to be effective in their community.

Why are artists responsible for the observer?

SAM

An hie book A Critical Framework for Dialogical Practice Grant Kester wrote:

"The third implication of victorian reform concerns the structural relationship between community artists and the individuals with who they work. In a Victorian model the act of giving to the poor is understood to derive from a universal reservoir of human sympathy and benevolence."

Basically this is all about How people a long time ago celebrated giving back more than we do now. We are all so caught up in hour own lives to keep up with taking care of each other don't usually even look to see if I have money when someone asks me for one.

Humans many times forget that teamwork is the only way to get things done. We live in a world where now is too late and you are always able to answer your phone or an email.

This is a fundamental flaw in our current sociological area of our culture, all of the old codes and rules are mostly gone. Many old constructs of our society now vanished were in place to keep civility and chivalry in the air.

Unfortunately as we advance with technology and design our main goal seems to be finding something that i ridged so yeah in that case.

SAM ROSENBLUM

Late- Lacy response

Some interesting questions came up for me during the reading of Lacy's writings. One of the questions that intrigued me most were: Should art that is potentially offensive and or politically incorrect be funded by the government? And what exactly defines art and/or an artist, and who is it for? Being at CalArts for the past 3 years has really opened my eyes and mind to the "definition" of art. I have concluded that there really is no set definition HOWEVER if it had to be put into words i would simply say, art could be defined as something someone has had on their heart or mind and has found a way to physicalize it and share it with others. I don't believe that art should be censored, as much as i may dislike some peoples versions of art, i am no one to judge, nor do i know why they created it or what they went through to get to the point of sharing. As far as who can be qualified as an artist i think just about anyone at any given time can create SOMETHING of value that someone can deem as artistic. I believe that art should not be censored and should not be specific to a certain type of person or group of people, therefore i think artists of any kind should be able to gain government funding. There are no LAWS against being rude, offensive, or politically incorrect. Only cautions and warnings. If people like to challenge that, i have no problem with it. It isn't permanent, you don't have to love or accept it, or even deal with it on a daily basis. but of course if it really still seems to bother you at the end of the day, you can use art to express yourself and let it all out! art is for and by any and everyone and no one at all.. all at the same time.

Suzanne Lacy, Public art, and the future of humanity

From the desk of Sam Rosenblum,

In her book Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, author Suzanne Lacy writes:

"Public art has become a highly competitive alternaive gallery system in which artists are thrust into contact with a broad and diversified audience, each group bringing its own contributions to the debate"

This is probably the best kind of art. Straight from the artist to the observer. Public art is out there on the streets where the people are. This reminds me of a story... I was in Paris, and my friends and I had planned to go to the Louvre. When we arrived we were told that they were closed for the day.

All of that art inside that building. Some of the most famous works of legends of the human civilization, and I couldn't step foot in it. Instead we "bike rided" as one of my friends insisted on saying, all around town using the Velib bike-share program.

Public art like Lacy described here is much more aligned with what I see as the direction humanity will venture towards. Power through equality, equality through understanding.

SR

Upset!

This weeks reading was a lot easier to get through, I thoroughly enjoyed that! But I found this article to be quite interesting. The play itself had a lot going on and I thought that the joker system was interesting to look at from an audience perspective because it's puts you in a situation where you discover who is willing to sit and watch, and who is willing to speak up for a cause. It kind of relates to my rehearsals where Deena, my director, told us this story about how this mans house in a small, Midwestern town, where the nearest fire department was the next town over, caught fire. So he calls the fire department and they rush over and as they're getting ready to put out the fire, they get a call to tell them to hold everything. Come to find out the man didn't pay his taxes or something, a bill that was $75, and the fire department was not allowed to extinguish his house. So he lost everything because of $75. But how it relates is what I was saying about the audience, it makes you question, where are the ones that are suppose to protect and serve us when law gets involved? Who are the ones willing to fight for their morality?

Late Suzanne Lacy

I'm one of those people that believes that art is everywhere and everything. I just am. Art can even be the thoughts I have running around inside my head, the images that pop-up in my consciousness when I smell something, see something, hear something, etc...

I think that taking time to justify what is art, what isn't art, if something was intentional or not is a waste of time. I wrote a paper last year in my Theorizing the Body class, arguing that Ed Gein, the notorious serial killer and grave robber, was in my eyes an "artist", because he made household items out of the body parts he gathered from freshly buried corpses. Now, as gruesome as it was, he crafted incredible things such as lamp shades made from human skin, belts of women's' nipples, bowls out of human skulls, and so on and so forth...

Obviously, there was no way of me knowing whether or not Gein considered himself to be an artist or whether he was just insane. That was not important to me because, as sickening as the items were, they were still things that he made. I consider him an artist...a seriously fucked up one, but aren't we all insane in some capacity or another?

When I received the paper back, my teacher wrote one comment: "Gein was not an artist. There is no way to prove this, because Gein was insane. I would like you to rewrite the paper."

I have to admit I was relatively shocked that a teacher would make such a bold statement, without even reasoning with my argument...and especially a teacher at CalArts, of all places!

I understand where she might be coming from, but I myself believe that art can be made whether it's a conscious choice on the art-maker, or not.

Needless to say, I did not rewrite my paper.

:)

Mady's Essay

What is so incredible to me about the Joker System, and the work that Mady produced with the kids at Plaza, is that this kind of way of teaching someone through theater can work with people of all ages; kids, teens, adults. It can also be used to help people develop an awareness to solve problems in any type of group of persons, types of class, and wherever they are in the world.

Boal created such a simple and universal method, and Mady's one account of applying this method to a group of teen agers was a concrete example of how the Joker System is effective and a useful learning tool for anyone. I'm sure it was a wonderful and enriching activity for the kids to engage in; it almost seems like one of those games you play as a kid that is so fun and challenging, that you forget you're actually learning something in the process of playing it. It makes me wish that teachers all across our country take a look at our dear buddy, Boal and his Joker System, and incorporate more of his pedagogical influence into the American education system and the way we teach our youth. Open-mindedness is key.

WHAT A RIOT!

This reading was something that resonated home with me. I'm really interested in anything involving civil rights, especially the Rodney King story and Rosa Parks. a quote in the reading that stood out to me was "No body's a monster here. That's the thing that makes it tragic, that these characters are human beings." And it really is scary that people like the policemen who beat Rodney King are living and breathing human beings like us. It makes me wonder how people get that screwed up and can actually do things like that. What drives a person to harm another human being in such a violent act? The reading brought up another good question with the quote "are the police there to protect me or to suspect me?" I feel like as a black female I've had a lot of trouble trusting police. I frankly don't like them and think the majority of them are corrupt. I feel like they walk around on a high horse and break the laws as criminals do. Yet nobody stops them because of a simple badge, aka the Rodney King case. I just hate that they're here to protect us, yet they can be the very ones we have to be afraid of. I don't trust policemen whatsoever and that can be a scary thing.

Lastly in the reading Mady Schutzman spoke on how all the kids played differently roles throughout the play and how they used the Joker to help people digest the severity of the circumstances in this play, especially the children. The kids were able to play different parts and speak on racism through the characters such as Claudette Colvin and The Bus Driver. "The Joker System embraces the mutability of identity, reminds us that our identities, as well as others', are constructed and thus available for reconstruction." This relates a lot to my major here at Calarts, as I am studying acting. I'm sure for the children who didn't quite understand everything they were talking about- switching roles every five minutes between such different characters with completely opposite beliefs wasn't that hard. But for me since I know a lot about this kind of stuff, and feel strongly about it, it would be extremely hard to put myself in the shoes of a policemen beating a black man based on his skin color. The reading stated may questions the actors would ask themselves or statements they'd say to themselves to be able to take the role of that character but I personally could never find a reason to do that. Now if I were to imagine beating the policemen who beat Rodney King, I think I could find that anger. But beating a man for no real reason, it's something I'll never understand.

Upset

This weeks reading really inspired me. I sincerely enjoyed it, it was a lovely look at how important it is to give children the opportunity to make REAL art regarding REAL topics. I think a topic as heavy as the Rodney King beating or the civil rights movement in general, from a really in depth point of view is both a huge responsibility and learning experience for a group of kids of this age. I was particularly interested that Mady allowed for, and encouraged the kids to come up with and research the historical figures they wanted to portray, and the fact that these two particular characters came up was interesting to me. This story and the work itself really inspires me to continue to push boundaries and push beyond my own limits or the limits i think i have.

Propaganda Through My Eye

Written By Mar Chernoff

Response to Kester

Community-based public art is universal. Any person can now create art, a picture/video/sound bite can be taken, and it be shared on the web for anyone to stumble across. I get my inspiration for art from the most random sources. I designed a miniature golf hole after seeing some canadian artist warp plywood in sculptures. I thought it would be cool to watch some use that as a mini golf course.

We are a community within a larger community. There is no limit to the extent of art that we are exposed to from any other community in existence.

Written by Marc Chernoff

Response to Lacy

I found this reading to be right dow my alley. I took the reading and had an immediate connection to the idea that the artist is the experiencer. When I create art I do it for myself only. I like to challenge myself. If someone else enjoys it well then good for them. In this world that we live in I have learned to do things for myself. being adopted and from a well off family I have never had to want for anything. I have had things done for me my entire life. Im 21 and in college. Its about time I do things for myself without the consent of others. The entire time I was reading this weeks reading that was all I could think about. I don't think one should concern themselves with what other people think of their art unless they are doing for an individual or a group. Its up to them.

This was written by Marc Chernoff

Upset!

As Whitney Houston stated before she went off the deep:

"I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way."

Yes. Right. The kids. What are we teaching/telling kids about politics and the day to day events of the world? No adult outside of government class in high school asked my opinion on the Gulf War, what I thought OJ Simpson's verdict meant to society or if English should be voted as the official language. Where were the grown ups or classes to ignite and cultivate a desire in me to become a responsible citizen, a person capable of criticizing and activating the environment around myself?

But who wants to bring up old, messed up shit? I admit its never the topic of discussion when I'm around kids. I want to ask about their dreams. Tell them how they can reach for the stars. Nobody wants to be Debbie Downer with the trials of the world. But kids are apart of this system just as much as I am, in my limited understanding of it all. And they should be told the truth. Given the facts. Taught how to decipher information. Be asked to explain themselves. We have to be the ones who do this for them. Hell, they might surprise us. Give us insight. Show us a different perspective.

As adults we have to remember to include children in the discussion and interpretation of our society and government because they will be the ones running the shit when we get too old to do anything about it.

What have your told your sibling today?
-isabel

What a Riot!

Its really important to be educating kids about the history of racism in the country – however I’m not sure if I understood the route that they went in the article. Like the article said, some people were worried about the manner in which Schutzman was placing her beliefs in the script. Playing every character and experiencing every angle of the story is a good way to learn and understand more about the situation and humanity itself, and then in turn apply that to their own lives. I agree that “young people can handle difficult material and non-conventional staging”. They didn’t need to be babied, but they do need to understand the process and the importance of what they are doing. I may be misunderstanding, but Schutzman states that the kids participating in the program never really grasped the script or the process. If the main goal for the program is to reach the kids, shouldn’t the ultimate goal be their understanding and not their ability to say the words without fully understanding them? Schutzman quoted Dodge who said “We are indeed practicing propaganda if we don’t inform [the actor] what she is saying, who said it first, why she’s saying it. That kind of educational responsibility is indigenous to this program”. So if the goal is not to release propaganda, and instead to make sure that the participants fully understood what was going on, then that should have been what they were aiming for in the outcome. I appreciate Schutzman’s choice to not “dumb-down” the script but then the main goal should have been to make sure once the complicated material was introduced, the kids knew what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Jenny Curtis

UpSet

The reading for this week, was much easier for me to understand compared to past readings, or was it? Maybe this week the reading for me just seemed like I could relate more in a sense. I am not an actress so reading scripts aren't always my favorite type of reading however, I felt more engaged. I think what stands out most to me is the fact that Claudette Colvin a 15 year old girl was so courageous. I believe we are our at our strongest point between adolescence and our young adult lives. It is easier as someone who is not as developed into the world to stand up and say somethings. I think because you have yet to be rejected or not as much as someone older. The reading is inspiring in a sense that you remember to put yourself in someone else shoes. I truly love hearing about a system that of the Joker system, and how there is a specific role for someone who is this drama leader, someone who takes full responsibility for all matters, however they cannot interject. I think it is wise to have a neutral standing person in a performance, that person can help you conclude your thoughts and ideas without being bias. I also love how this is an interactive play and involving the audience is important. Although I am not one to jump in on class gatherings it is nice once and a while to be pulled into a surrounding where you have a part. - Rachel DeRosa

Never got to post my favorite piece of propaganda I found while researching last week:

Caitlin Teeley

What A Riot reading

Reading Mady Schutzman’s What A Riot, made me think how useful it is to place young teenagers in an environment where they have the opportunity to step out of themselves. The age-group of thirteen to seventeen is usually known as a time when one becomes more of an introvert and more reluctant to share one’s thoughts and ideas. From what Mady shared, it seemed to be quite the opposite for the kids in the production of UPSET! And the reason for their willingness to share, I think, has a lot to do with the fact that they were given an opportunity to do so. The most interesting part to me was when Mady described the process of finding the character of Officer Laurence Powell (the officer that delivered the most blows to Rodney King). The fact that these young adults/kids were given the chance to step into the shoes of a “bad person“ and allow themselves to try to understand his thought process really impressed me. It isn’t an easy task to try to see someone, who at first glance seems “bad”, as a human being - and doing that at such an early age is a valuable lesson. I wish I was given that opportunity when I was thirteen.

Upset! ! ! !

Yay! Finally a reading that didn't require me to read the page ten times before I understood it. I was extremely impressed by this play; from the subject matter to the fact that she didn't adjust the text to make it easier on the kids.

Mady's use of the Joker system to tackle such heavy material was quite clever and extremely brave. So often, plays (especially youth plays) done about the topic of race, class, violence, etc. are done in such a non-invasive, "safe" way that the topic is merely gazed at through a glass partition. They end up resembling after-school specials or cheesy anti-drug ads. The Joker system used in this context eradicated this banal approach to such delicate issues and put the onus of tackling these issues in everyone's lap: the audience, actors and even us as the readers (in a rather distant way).

Mady's passion for serving the topic as well as the performers was extremely apparent by the way in which she chose the subjects of the play (Rodney and Claudette) and the care she took to properly research these historical figures and thoroughly inform the students. Yes, the students were being exposed to new, unfamiliar, sometimes scary territory but they were being given an invaluable experience; in a way that they might never have been able to had it not been for Mady's involvement. Not only that but she took great care to show many perspectives and not just a simple biased "Racism is bad, mmkay?" I didn't think it was possible but I think I love Mady even more now than I did and I'm a huge fan ever since 1st yr.

Suzanne Lacy=Art and that one discussion.

Oh, the ever present question of "What is Art?" that usually is being discussed at any point in time on any art school campus. Whenever this question arises, we can all usually agree on several well known universal truths. As Suzanne Lacy so eloquently illustrated in her article, these tiers are subject to variances. It is very important for us as practicing artists to have the common understanding that we all create out of our own experiential knowledge and to harbor a base level of respect that, by the very act of the artist creating something, they are evoking a reaction. Our processes and means may vary greatly, but the end result is to, either subconsciously or consciously, evoke a response/connection with others. We all know that every piece of art is subject to scrutiny, because its inherent in human nature to analyze and create judgements based on our personal experiences and knowledge base. There are arguments that art that is solely created for the gallery loses a particular essence, but that is of course, yet another vantage point. There When art is created with a public sensibility, there should be consideration for the audience. Many other questions arise, but certain boundaries are simultaneously created and lifted. An artist that has been commissioned to deliver such a statement should have the intent of engaging the viewer on a more broad human interest level. She mentions the artist as speaker for an entire group of people. This would automatically transcend the role of a traditional artist, but then again, isn't that what almost every artist nowadays is attempting to do? Essentially, every facet of art is open to serving function in one context or another and has its place. Thanks, Suzanne Lacy for laying it out for us up-and-coming artists.

What propaganda "is" to me.

Hi there. I'm Sam Rosenblum and I endorse this message.

I think most things are could be described as propaganda if you are to break it down to the smallest detail.

Here are a few examples of clear propaganda right in front of your eyes. I hope everyone in this group realizes that even things you believe in probably use many techniques to convince people to follow whatever it is they are peddling, techniques including but not limited to, propaganda.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the rest of your flight.

Sam

belated suzanne lacy response

What is art? This is a question we are faced with daily. Lacy brings about a series of continuous questions. One question I found myself asking is: Can I or am I willing to support art that I don't support? While this sounds like an oxymoron, it is and it is not. I will elaborate. I went to one of the galleries last week at CalArts, and as I often find here I saw some very pedestrian objects displayed as art. One of the pieces I say was a black seat cover that was plugged in that you usually put on a chair, sit in it, and receive an electric massage. At first I thought "What the hell was this person thinking, HOW IS THIS ART?" There wasn't any effort put into this! But when I allowed myself to think beyond my initial reaction, I thought " well if this is art then perhaps I am surrounded by art all the time. Everything is art." Although this is a piece that probably will not sick in my memory until my dying day, it challenged me to think differently and to try to understand another person's perspective and intention for putting this in a gallery. As Lacy said, "Within art criticism, public art has challenged the illusion of a universal art and introduced discussions on the nature of public..." So what I am trying to say is that it is important to support art you don't like, because the purpose of art among many many other things is to learn, question, and open your mind to something fresh from your own limited perspective.

UPSET! about this reading... I think not.

I really enjoyed the reading this week. Having already thought of Mady as a brilliant woman, I was excited to hear more about the work that she does.

I thought that the approach of crating this piece using Theater of the Oppressed techniques, the Joker system, allowed accessibility for the students. For one, the ability to be the creators of this show that spawned out from their ideas, experiences, and the public figures that interested them gave them power and freedom. I found it especially interesting to read that one kid had said that they didn't want to play a poor Latino anymore. So having the space to explore a completely different character from themselves gave them perspective on their own lives. They were able also to recognize the commonalities between what they experience and what their characters experienced. The root of oppression was recognized even though it was expressed by an grapefruit tree as opposed to their date palm.

Another thing that I thought was wonderful was the way this model allowed the students to investigate through play. It seems as though the immense sense of ownership they each had in this piece allowed for trust in playing and set them free.

I was pleased to see how aware Mady was on her influence on the project. She recognized her own bias and expressed that it existed. She had, especially as the writer and leader, a large amount of say as to how this work unfolded. However her awareness of that was crucial.

I think Theater of the Oppressed work is so fascinating, and I love the way it creates a strong sense of community and allows space to gain perspective.

Upset!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Madie's article that documented her experience writing her first Joker System play with youth from Plaza de la Raza in East LA. I've learned about theater of the oppressed before, but still each account I read from a participant in a TO workshop fascinates and excites me so much. I loved reading about Madie's work with the youth concerning issues not directly concerning them (in the past I had only read about exercises in which the participants would reenact personal stories from their lives). Engaging in all sides of an issue by switching characters, asking questions, engaging the audience and so on makes room for a fresh opinion, new insight, an exploration of unmarked terrain. It encourages the gray area Madie worked so hard to create. Which leads me to my main point of interest. Black, white, and shades of gray. It's quite difficult to attempt to allow oneself to live in shades of gray. As humans we want to automatically categorize, label, judge and disregard. These tendencies are necessary to our survival and general well-being, however they inhibit us a lot of the time by gluing us to our habits and caging us in our comfort zone. The comfort zone is a place where one isn't challenged or questioned. Everything is predictable and boring and that's the only way we know to be comfortable and survive. What TO attempts to do is break down that comfortable space to expand the viewer and participants' minds to something greater- a more inclusive view. Not surprisingly, patents complained about Madie's work which sought the expand and explore gray areas both in the pieces and within the actors themselves. Yet they also criticized her for providing too much personal opinion. There is no middle ground. People will always be upset. But at least with Madie's work the questions were being asked. I find that in critical studies classes, most everyone wants to give an answer. Write a period. Close the book. These options are so limiting not only to the classroom but most of all to the people in general. Looking for the right answer isn't the answer, but if you ask enough questions the "answer" might find you. Thanks TO for always asking questions and spreading this belief all over the world. Sophia Wang

Kester

While reading Kester's article I came across a few points that have previously occurred to me that I was glad to see discussed. One point of his was the separation between the art world and the general public. I often feel, walking around the galleries here at school, that there is a decent amount of conceptual art that I find simply inaccessible. Without a title, blurb or explanation, I find myself ignoring work that could have a profound meaning that I'm not trained enough to see. The majority of art, it seems to me, is created by and for the art world. The general public isn't thought about when an artist desires only to self express, but the art world is expected to understand (these are all assumptions, I have not spoken to any fine artists about this topic). Im not at all against conceptual art, I actually do enjoy some pieces that speak to me, I would just appreciate it if art were made for PEOPLE and not critics. That's why I was so interested and taken aback when I read that artists in some communities were taking art direction from the public. I would love to see the fruits yielded from that harvest. Another term that caught my eye was the fetishization of authenticity. Wow. This is something, as a born and raised New Yorker/ Baltimore transplant I was very interested in. Even now, seeing the / and the words "Baltimore transplant" make my New Yorkian blood boil. From a young age the idea of authenticity, was always prominent. Though I didnt have words for it, I knew what the concept of being from New York meant. I knew that it was the best place on earth to live, it was realist/grittiest/ most authentic place to be and I knew that everyone dreamt of coming there so everything it stood for must be the best things in the world. It's interesting how these qualities are the least desirable to actually live in, but all the kids who've never known different than their white picket fence look up to it and long for it. Sophia Wang

Suzanne Lacy Reading

This piece opened my mind a great deal to the various issues around art. I was especially piqued by her question: "Should people fund, through the NEA, artworks that offend public sensibility?" This caught my attention so much because I thought the point of art was that it was a personal experience being publicly offered. Even if it offends, it is still a valid perspective and it's coming to light creates the possibility of a like-minded soul feeling less alone, more included. Things that bring us together, no matter how offensive, are important, especially today.
I really enjoyed her statement, "To make oneself a conduit for expression of a whole social group can be an act of profound empathy." While this can also come off to some as extremely presumptuous and perhaps narcissistic, it is nonetheless a beautiful offering and in the end it is what we have to look back on when researching the history of a culture, group or time. The bold ones who cared enough to take it upon themselves to represent are the ones who are remembered.
I appreciated her discussion of the benefits of a fluid, flexible audience; one that is not just watching but is somehow involved. It reminded me of Boal's idea of the "Spectactor" By hosting workshops or allowing audiences to volunteer their involvement in the work, they have a more vested interest in it from that point on, even if they only help once. The trick is to rope in the ones who don't have time to be involved. How can they feel a sense of responsibility while simply watching...maybe it's about giving them more power of interaction and choice.

I found the Ramon Flecha reading to be extremely dense but after much chiseling and drilling I found some pleasant insights: Pg 4 "People who hold no academic degrees find new self esteem realizing that they can teach the teacher."- While this warmed my heart and gave me hope for the future, the cynic in me wondered how that would fly with the gov't. Especially, when it places less of an emphasis on "academic degrees" and may have the effect of lowering the value of college degrees. Same page "They stop being passive receptors and begin actively generating knowledge. Reading and reflection become deeper once people realize that the group values their contributions."- This is how to raise leaders. Does a society of leaders work? This text begs for a revolution; a crumbling of the status quo. I tend to agree.
I really enjoyed how he exposed the weakness of the educational systems we currently use. When described in such an objective way, it really shows how backwards our methods are or at least reveals the more patient, compassionate, inclusive way in which we have evolved as people.

Suzanne Lacy

As I read the Suzanne Lacy article, what really sparked my mind was the connection between art and it's audience. When I do "fine art" I normally do it to express myself and to create something that helps me get out my emotions. I usually never think about an audience when I'm drawing but I started thinking, "If my major is fine art, how would I want to incorporate my audience?" The diagram with the circles was extremely helpful in the whole process. I was having a diffucult time thinking about the importance of the audience when it comes to art in general because I have always interpreted art as one's inner being releasing energy into a craft they cherish. So why care about what others think? But upon reading this article, specifically the section about the audience, I found that the diagram really played a significant part in the entire process of relating your audience to your work. With the ripple pond effect it causes everything to react off of each other in a constant flowing motion which is a great image to think upon. You have to ask yourself how you are going to get from point A to point B and with this chart it was a lot of help.

-Jemar Rovie- Frenchwood

Occupying Our Attention

I wrote this letter recently to a former leader of the 60s Student Movement, and thought I might share it with the group.

Dear friends, allies, and critical minds,

I wanted to share some thoughts about how we may understand the political implications of the Occupy Wall Street movement, by considering how it communicates and presents itself in the public sphere. 

I was one of those students who went door to door for Obama. I gave more money than I could afford to his campaign, and I used every tool available to me to communicate what I saw at the time as a pivotal shift in the national discourse. I remember feeling profound ownership in the movement that seemed to be unfolding, a feeling that transformed into frustration and helplessness the more the press attributed the strength of the movement to Obama's magnificent charisma, rather than to a grassroots swell, fed up with eight years of brittle paralysis, that proudly and full-throatedly demanded that the political establishment produce something--anything--on the order of Obama. The banner of liberalism was handed to a leader with no interest in waving it. The cognitive dissonance that followed brutalized our egos, as if we had no part or ownership in the victory. It was, in some specific ways, more damaging than the Bush years, when we could at least tune it out because we knew it had nothing to do with us, and find solace in reruns of The West Wing.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street represents an unthinkable array of alliances, many of whom are the same people who invested so much of their political identity in Obama. The "leaderlessness" of the movement is, I think, a direct response to having an infant movement stolen from those people. As a result, its foundations are far more resilient to the capitalist system of appropriation. The movement's theatrics have been carefully constructed in a way that resists any efforts to co-opt it through mainstream apparatuses, be they the press, elected officials, or similarly aligned nonprofits. A leaderless American Autumn cannot be attacked symbolically, because so far it refuses to dilute the reach of its message by investing in reductionist symbols. 

Institutionally, I support European-style Socialism. But as far as movements go, I see them playing a different kind of social role. The key to OWS's continued success is rooted in a mature understanding of public theatrics. The occupiers who call themselves the 99% have been criticized from the left and the right as taking part of an imaginary culture with no bearing on the institutional apparatuses that govern our lives, and no demands with which to change those structures. In reality, however, I see something real and immediate happening in Zuccotti Park. Societies do not exist one-at-a-time. We see several ideologies functioning simultaneously. This method of thinking is rooted in what theorists today call "immanence"--that individuals actively create society at any given moment through the ethics exemplified by their actions. In an immanent model, the value of an action is defined by its ideological character. I can, today, act in solidarity with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., even though he is long dead. (For example, see footage of a similar Wall Street protest in 1979: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ODCvbn_hUDI#!) Our actions are linked and connected by their ethical fiber, and actively manifest another kind of society, running in parallel to and in contradistinction to the Capitalist society that traditionally dominates mainstream culture. 

The protesters Occupying Wall Street are not protesters at all, but demonstrators. Their city within a city--complete with library, healthcare, homecooked food for all, and participatory structure--demonstrates precisely what a world driven by compassion looks like. They have found success on the public stage because their parallel society exists in direct contrast with the that of the %1, and they have dramatized this contrast through the media to great effect. The chosen site for the occupation is one of the movement's most significant decisions, and a gift that keeps on giving. The public drama is heightened by their proximity to their ideological opposites, heightening the contrasts and forcing those bearing witnesses to choose sides. This tactic, I should say, is completely dependent on maintaining a nonviolent status (or, alternatively, control over the mainstream news, which seems an impossibility). Nonviolent tactics make it very difficult for the mainstream press to undermine the message, particularly when they are beaten and abused on camera. In the public eye, the police become the protectors of Wall Street, and the entire system appears under the control of the 1%. Yet, by articulating their perspective clearly and without hypocrisy--all while exposing the hypocrisy of their ideological opponents--the occupiers appear more reasonable, understandable, and therefore admirable, than the plutocratic elite. The chief Architecture critic of the NY Times recently ran an insightful article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/wall-street-protest-shows-power-of-place.html?_r=1

These tactics have largely helped the occupiers overcome the treacheries of the 24-hour new cycle, which seeks to codify and dissect politics into sound bites. Their obsessive, short-term coverage drives events rapidly towards history, seemingly saying more than could ever be said. However, they cannot do this to the movement because it is an ongoing, outstretched reality, that completely undermines the cable network's understanding of time. It cannot be historicized because it is currently happening, occupying its own 24-hour cycle. 

Accordingly, today's demand for demands--codifying the movement in terms of achievable goals--is necessarily a reductionist action for a movement whose elongated understanding of time is one of its strengths. What we (I think I can say "we") seek is a change in consciousness. And that's what I find most exciting. Not the political leverage, not the demands, but the real manifestation of a world I want to see. If we know anything, it's that Capitalism is a nimble beast. Any energy channeled into the Occupiers' parallel society delegitimizes the Capitalist society. When Capitalism is losing the fight, it makes concessions in order to win back their lost constituency. I guess that's what institutional change looks like, especially when the movement exerts control of the national dialogue. Which it seems they do, at least for the moment.  

Yours,

Nick

PS--This article was written partially in response to an Op-Ed published by Todd Gitlin in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/occupy-wall-street-and-the-tea-party.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=todd%20gitlin&st=cse

Grant Kester

In reading the Grant Kester article, I found myself getting highly upset when they started talking about welfare and arts funding. It began to enrage me a bit because I have family who are on welfare. Now I understand their side and how it may encourage young women to have babies and how it can, "destroy the moral fiber of the poor." Yes, there are women who, sadly, do partake in having a child at a young age so they do not have to work. But for most people, they have no other choice. Some are not as fortunate to grow up with BOTH parents, or in a well stabled home, or in what could be considered, "a good area." I know that I have been fortunate enough to experience both sides of the spectrum. It maddens me because when I have heard my mother talking about the subject, it's not something that most people want to, but they HAVE to, to survive in this world and to feed their families. Not everyone is fortunate to have a substantial educational background to allow them to find a "well- paying" job. Some only know the streets and not the books as sad as that is to say. I'm from an area that you could call, "the hood" and I would see these kids everyday roaming the streets because they have nothing better to do. They don't have the parental guidance to tell them and to educate them about the importance of schooling and education so there is no way in hell, they could find a job that would be suitable for them to raise a family or to live "the American Dream." So therefore these young mother's they speak of, are not educated about sex and what is to come in the future, all they know is their surroundings. Welfare can be embarrassing to be on. Most people don't want to be on welfare but they do it to feed their children and themselves. It's not a luxury in anyway. It's a way of getting by day to day. I could go on and on about this from personal experience.

-Jemar Rovie- Frenchwood

These are the images I brought in today for my propaganda piece - I'm really interested in further developing this project into a set of 8-10 posters that the New Works Festival can use to get students excited about this year's festival. Hopefully I'll be printing these up and posting them some time next week!

Fun fact - if you click on the pictures they get bigger!

The Power Of Belief.

Mady Schutzman

Upon Reading the text and also currently having Mady as a Teacher in TO (Theater of the Oppressed) I am finding TO to be an extremely incredible tool for the youth. I feel that this work should be taught; in particular one of my favorites is Anti-models. Anti-models are situations in which one person is being Oppressed by an Oppressor with the playing of the Joker and Spec Actors as well. Allowing the Oppressor and Oppressed to see the shoes of each other, it may not actually solve the solution but at the very least you gain a better understanding in where the other is coming from. I find this tool should be shown to mostly those in High Schools where I feel the most Oppression would most likely be at, particularly the students (even faculty). In which they have to make big decisions that affect their future. Time and time I saw peers in high school take paths that I just know was planned by their parents and I find it a shame. I find it only a shame in the instances where I know they are leaving their passion for something that is more realistic and accepted in society. Maybe if there had been an Anti-model session they could have been better prepared to face the situation again. Or at least be able to say they had the Power to Act. Which was also a very strong point made across during class upon the subject of Occupying Wall Street and in the play UPSET! shown in both characters Rodney and Claudette (in particular Claudette). Citizens' Power to Act.

does this make you uncomfortable....

FATAL FEMMES - Emily Faris

HEY GUYS, I FOUND THIS PICTURE WHILE I WAS BLOG HOPPING - LOOKS LIKE THE FATAL FEMMES ARE BLOWING UP!!

Fatal Femmes

Hey guys this video is going viral. Please watch....

Keeping your sight unbranded.

As we in this Nintendo generation grew up in the information age, literally right alongside the Internet and arguably one of the fastest eras of technological growth ever, we have been subjected/subjected ourselves to more advertisements than humanity has ever previously subjected itself to. Countless hours of research on the psychology of advertising and propaganda have been spent on refining the tactics we experience everyday. We know that on any given day, we may see, unconsciously or consciously, about 3,000 ads aimed at grabbing our attention. It has become easier than ever for us as a society to recall more advertisements than useful knowledge. This entire notion also calls to relevance the skewed American value system, which indeed puts far more value on entertainment than a healthy state of well-being. But that's for another blog.

It's very strange and disturbing that we as a whole can easily dismiss the very prevalent issues going on in our own society due to and endless slew of forcibly forward propaganda campaigns(i.e."that sucks, what else is on?" mindset). The basic function of propaganda, as we've discussed and read about both within and outside of this class, is to persuade (or dissuade) an ideology of a people. In effect, these ad campaigns we see are just as, if not more powerful than any propaganda used on either side in any war. In fact, wartime propaganda has become a pillar of the advertising agencies in terms of design reference. Comparisons can and have been drawn, likening corporations' methods to fascist governments functioning under a weak veil of corporate law(supposedly enforced by the Federal Government..but how can they be policed if they're paying the police's salaries?). I believe it was good ol' Stalin that said something to the tune of, "When corporations and governments align themselves, this is the making of a true fascist nation."

Linguist and well known political theorist Noam Chomsky has written on the subject several times in his extensive career. Some people find his views to be a bit on the narcissistic side of the subjects he writes about, but they are always nonetheless interesting to at least consider.He offers a very interesting take on how the Propaganda model functions in society in his book Manufacturing Consent:The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Although the book was written in 1988, the principles have not changed whatsoever. We'll all talk about this in circles later.

Propaghandi

Propaganda is a tool used by the powers that be with the aims of controlling/sedating the minds of the masses. One form of propaganda is the now failing music industry. Since America's foundation there have been artists who have been exploited by the music industry. Two examples that come to mind are classic blues sensations Lead Belly and Son House, whose music was essentially ripped off by labels and producers.

These days the music that is played on the radio is by corporate made cookie cutter "artists". People such as Little Wayne and the like, who have no talent what-so-ever, but who are marketed en mass for the sake of profits.

Ergo the people listening who don't choose to question, are fed messages of chauvinism, empowerment of the monetary system, and much more propaganda that the man wants us to believe.

-Jacob Friedheim

When I think of propaganda, I think of a terrifying manipulation of a massive group of people. It also seems so absurd that people would buy into such blatant misinformation especially when you look at propaganda posters from WWII time. However last week, I started an IndieGoGo page, and I begin to question: could this be propaganda too? Although my intention is not to mislead anyone who reads my page, I was making choices of what information should be included and how to word it in order to get the maximum amount of empathy/interest and therefore funding. So in that sense it certainly is propaganda. I realized propaganda isn't always negative. I question, if this is a form of propaganda, where else does propaganda live in the way we communicate?

Propaganda!

When I hear the word propaganda, I automatically think, artwork that depicts a message or certain political stand point, which I guess is what propaganda is. Anyway, the way I feel about the subject is that I believe it's a great way to communicate one's ideas thru a vision and political standpoint that they are passionate about. I know for myself personally, I can find it very difficult to express myself thru my own words, so I like to do other things to express myself. Now I know there are many different forms of propaganda and some can be looked down upon. But we have to remember that it's an opinion of one and we may not like the message it has to offer, but I believe that we must still respect that opposing party because it is a strong view. I feel as though some stuff can be taken in many ways well as some stands for what it is. Part of me feels that the word Propaganda is "negative" but in a way, I admire it for it's art. Although it was big during WWII, I found an image that was quite interesting relating to modern society.
-Jemar Rovie- Frenchwood

PROPAGANDA!

Of the many forms of propaganda I have observed, the most interesting and disturbing kind was the Peking Revolutionary Opera. I first encountered this art form in China, four years ago. I was flipping through the channels on television and I came upon an opera but this was very different than any Chinese opera I had ever experienced before. The costumes were modern and the color red was everywhere. The attitude of nearly every character was excessively empowered, almost cocky. Their posture extended beyond their height and their eyes appeared as if they were going to pop out of their sockets. I immediately recognized the communist symbolism and was utterly appalled and offended that an art form as intricate, ethereal and uplifting as Chinese opera was being bent toward such a mundane, egotistical, manipulative aim. So, when I was given this assignment I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. Upon researching the art form my mind has changed a bit. If you notice, in the pictures, the women are depicted as just as strong and empowered as the men. There is no distinction between them that presupposes value or power over one or the other. Apparently women's liberation arrived in China earlier than it did in the West. A woman speaking about the topic online made a very good point: American and European ballerinas are still dressed as sylphs floating on the shoulders of their strong men. But China's ballerinas are so strong and independent they can carry rifles while they dance en pointe! For the Chinese, this art is didactic but also aesthetic and entertaining. -Julia Evergreen Keefer.