Rose Arscott

From Rose:

These are just a few thoughts. Not properly collected thoughts but simply things that came to mind while reading the Suzanne Lacy.

There were a few questions that continually popped into my head while reading Lacy’s writing. For one what makes public art public? What makes public art interactive? Is interactivity simply the audiences involvement in the art’s creation or can its definition be stretched to it being the audiences influence on the creation of the art?

Is public art inherently interactive? The public is complicit in the art’s existence and purpose making them automatically a part of it. Therefore the interactivity in public art is a given.

In the section Information Revealed: Artist as Reporter that begins on p.175 Lacy mentions framing. “Intentional framing is inherently political…what will be seen is what the artist will have seen.” This reminded me of an article that Susan Sontag wrote for The New Yorker called Looking at War.  I couldn’t help but be reminded of Sontag’s points on regulations of framing that governments will put on war photographers and reporters in order to fit what they think is appropriate for the public to see in the frame of journalism. This thing of choosing what the audience will and will not see is a political statement and choice regardless of whether you want it that way.

Jeffrey Basham

Suzanne Lacy response,

There were many aspects to the reading that stuck out greatly to me.  I found her work to be a critical dialogue about structure, audience and the liberation and responsibility of public forum and art.  I found her ideas compelling and the piece reflected that which she hoped to engage.  That is to say, she took a creative observation of discourse, the way art is discussed and almost more importantly -- how art is critiqued.  It is almost as if critique holds back the evolution of the art with which my art becomes relevant.  I think it is important to state, she compares audience, criticism and the evolution of new forms to be derived in structure, medium and how we display the work.  We can criticize the art, but art can arguably always be relevant and created out of and indicative of how we are progressing.  

What struck me most was her discussion on the molding of culture and how criticism can deify art, when indeed it can be reflective of the culture's temperament. Lacy, discusses in many respects that the micro becomes the macro and the macro will try to shape how what is intangible, and audience interaction... we learn to perform and we try to create, co create what may already be predetermined toward being shaped.  Radical thought is often quantified by those who see the activism later and than want to create it.  There will always be people who are not pro "your" art, and know the evocative nature of the work we do, suggests we must see the vision through.  Knowing your audience and know when to push them toward your vision and be willing to fail and fail better.   

Austin Antoine

From Austin: 

After doing this reading I have come to the realization that artist's

canNOT work with the sense of wanting to impress anyone, and should

make sure their work is seen by the group they want. In the end there

will always be someone who sees, is displeased, and will spread word

to many about how much they disliked the work overall. A great mental

image that came to me after seeing the rippling effect is the thought

of a child (loosely). A child is raised on opinions from figures of

authority(parents, teachers, coaches,etc..) and will grow to form

their own opinions based on the perception they've molded together,

even though it's well known that the best way to learn about something

is through first hand experience. So in the end, unless the child is

an innovative person that actually starts something that can be judged

later, he/she will never know for certain if he really understands

anything, there is only opinion.

In the end the main goal as an artists is to have someone see your

true intention and be affected by it.

Nicole Sullivan

Suzanne was very clear about what she wanted to talk about and say about each thing.  A lot of her writing was about how artists relate to audiences and how to breach the gap between the two.  It makes me wonder what the relationship is between the performers and the observers, aka the audience. I think that to a certain degree we as performers strive to please the audience if we want a successful career.  The difference is that to please the audience I don’t think you need to venture completely out of your morals.  There will always be people who like your art and critique it.  My personal opinion is that the audiences that you are trying to reach out to will receive it.  An example that comes to mind is when writers write plays like “For Colored Girls”.  A lot of the African American men are portrayed in a negative light in that play and don’t really enjoy the play.  Yet many African American women can relate to the issues that are prominent within that story.  Sometimes there are movies that degrade women and as women we get irritated.  Truth is, both of these things happen.  And I believe everyone has a right to see both sides without judgment, because there will always be something that contradicts what you just saw.  I didn’t agree with the idea that artists always want to please the audience.  Sometimes people make art to start controversy, and they don’t care nor need others approval.  Granted to make money there has to be something appealing to the observers, but controversy things can actually be appealing.  Creativity is going to be different for each person, and nobody can dictate that.  Art is a freedom of speech. Who the audience base is greatly impacts what you’re doing and what you’re saying.  Should you compromise your piece to please the audience?  How do you make anything and be able to stand behind it without worrying about other people critiquing it? Art makes people feel, whether it’s full of hate, hope, happiness, etc.  We forget as artists there are very few of us. The majority of people go by the rules of their careers (their bosses); they have boundaries. As artists do we have boundaries? At some point you have to do what you want and you know what you’re doing for yourself. Don’t change yourself- if you care too much about everybody you’re beliefs will change.  But then it’s like I keep thinking, many people are artists for a living.  In that case money is a priority and in order make a living we have to please the audiences of our art.  There’s a time and place for everything.  You can’t always do what you want, and that goes for every career. Overall I feel art should be judged by its own ideas, not how people think it should be.

Artist as Activist

The snippet of The Colbert Report today reminded me of another story the show followed last July concerning the United Farm Workers, Take My Job campaign. UFW challenged any American to work as an immigrant farm work for one day and Stephen Colbert rose to the occasion. From this experience, Stephen Colbert had the opportunity to speak on Capital Hill concerning issues of immigration. This is the link to that video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy25NFH69gk

Although I am extremely pleased with the attention The Colbert Report brought to the issue, I worry the humorous heavy tone of his statement on Capital Hill took away from the seriousness of the topic. Especially because I assume the public did not continue past Colbert's opening statement and watch the actual question part of the hearing. It is during this section, where I believe Colbert truly shined. I have much respect for Colbert and his passion to participate and educate the public on this social issue. His closing statement to the Congresswoman should be every artist's top reason for becoming political in the public domain.

The bottom link is a CNN article about the Take My Job campaign and Colbert's involvement.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-24/politics/colbert.house.immigration_1_undocumented-farm-workers-migrant-farm-labor-foreign-workers?_s=PM:POLITICS

"...formally private lives have assumed the character of public property through the media"

This is the first statement to jump out at me and I thought was really poignant. Our lives as Artist are so public and on-display that sometimes I feel as though I'm opening my soul up to an unforgiving world to take and do with it as it pleases. It is a very unsettling yet beautiful experience at the same time. My feelings about who the audience is in relation to the artist is something that really made me think.

"Many public artists today suggest that the communication is two-way, some going so far as to purpose that the space between artist and audience is, in fact, the artwork."

Lacy speaks about "deconstructing" the audience and how that relates to the work; does it enhance or take from the overall meaning. In writing about this she constructs a model of the layers between the artist and the audience. In doing this, one is already saying there is some formulaic process to public art, or any art for that matter. This is the main reason why I had such a visceral reaction to this text. I believe that public art in itself is a form of activism. Whether the artist is aware of any activist activities or not or whether the artist even considers themselves an artist. I believe we get so caught up in these labeling of "what is" instead of just feeling it or seeing or experiencing these public art pieces and having that moment with ourselves and interpreting it as the audience and not get wrapped up in wondering what the artist intentions were for you.

The image above is an example of an artists reaction as an audience member to what corporate art puts in front of our faces on a daily basis, they just call their art "advertising". I really love to see things on the streets that are reactions to things like this. This is a simple statement that the artist put up and now every time someone walks by this billboard made for this capitalist agenda they will stop for just a moment and think. Everyone will have a different reaction to this and maybe someone else will come along and alter it, but thats the beauty of public art. It isn't mine and it isn't yours....it's ours, and whether you want to think you are the artist or the audience I believe if you let yourself move in this centrifugal way were you are constantly morphing between the two, there will be less of a definitive line between them.

[the following link is a piece broadcasted on 60 minuets. Please comment your thoughts if you have any reaction as an artist or audience or artist/audience or anything in between!]

When did this become art? <----------click here :)

This Resonated with me a great deal, thought I'd share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oU0I8APK-o

I feel the real meat of it is when the different language comes in.

Heather Hewko

What I thought was interesting or just kind of jumped out to me from the reading (Debated Territory) was the relationship between the audience and the art. What weight does the interaction give to the art? Even if opposed or in favor of the art the audience is a crucial impact on the overall experience. The audience takes their own perspective and will impose a projection of their experience to what the art is speaking to them. So the interaction is a give and take. The artist makes the food and the audience has to eat and digest it, and take with them what they will. Not everyone likes the same food. And that's that. Even with the artist as the experiencer, reporter, analyst, or activist each presents the opportunity for their work to be criticized and what one may feel towards the art, another will feel the opposite. So can one truly critque art and speak for an audience as a whole? From what I got from the reading, the answer would be: no. The view is different with each individual. Many can get similiar experiences, none can be exactly alike. Also, something I like was the concept of "what is 'good' art". If the artist's intention is make a positive enlighting experience, does this now make the art...good? Once the artist starts to only rate their art from the success they receive, and only cater to what the critics want or favor does that not make the art less impactful/honest

Will Cotter

From Will Cotter:

While working on the reading, the first chart, on page 174, really stood out to me.  In the text, Lacy graphs the four roles an artist might take with their work and their relationship to an audience, and looking at that made me think a little more about the intention an artist might carry with their piece, or even their whole portfolio.

A lot of times I dismiss art that doesn't speak to me on a socio-political level - if I'm not moved by a work to the point where I might reconsider my own values, the piece doesn't really work for me.  What I'm starting to realize now is that different artists expose different levels of subjectivity with their stuff, and while the really "out there", opinionated work gets to me, other audiences are equally moved by objectivity.

I think a great example of an artist that transcends the boundary between roles as experiencer, reporter, analyst, and activist is Chinese artist / activist Ai Weiwei.  During his tenure on house arrest, Weiwei devised an installation called Sunflower Seeds, consisting of over 100 million hand sculpted, hand fired clay seeds that audiences could interact with, walk on, and, often, take home with them.  Weiwei's intention with this piece was clearly an active one, borrowing the sunflower imagery from old communist propaganda and enlisting the forces of thousands of poor artisans to help him create a work that mocked the continually oppresive Chinese government.  But Ai is the same guy who designed a number of the structures, including the "Bird's Nest", for the Beijing olympics.  His architecture was often praised by spectators as being indicative of the great pride the Chinese had in hosting the World Games, but really Weiwei was subtly satiring the political system that was so scared of Ai's influence that they continually arrested him on false presumptions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's sometimes hard to tell for sure whether an artist is intending to take an activist role with their work, or if we're just appropriating a piece as an audience, but sometimes it's fun to imagine a piece being created under a totally new context.

Stacia Hitt

This past week protesters occupying Wall Street were seen creating signs through a collective art forum brought together by a topic of interest. Not being able to use application devices for speech these protestors had one person speaking and then the rest of the group reciting what the speaker had just said in union. The protesters artist or not were experiencing, reporting, analyzing and acting on there instincts of the message that they want to convey.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10009481-3.html#ixzz1ZEBQSN9a

While reading Suzanne Lacy’s Debated Territoy: Toward a Critical Language for Public Art one line stuck out to me in particular “the artist becomes a conduit for the experience of others, and the work a metaphor for relationship.” As artist I feel a grave responsibility for recounting a story in a way that is new for that relationship with the artist. I am a detective giving information and how that information is viewed becomes a way for expressing between the artist and the public. Like these protestors there goal is to not change Wall Street over night but rather in peaceful way start recognition and this is their outlet. There are many articles that talk about there mission being unorganized and not having a conclusion and for them maybe it doesn’t but as part of their idea they are trying to instill some type of message and how that is perceived relies on the public. “Private experience has lost an authenticity in the public sector that art may at least symbolically return to us. To make oneself a conduit for expression of a whole social group can be an act of profound empathy.” In this case of Wall Street they are seeking change and it’s a collaborative process with the public to pursued and seduce citizens to become activists in their communities.

Jacob Friedheim

From Jacob Friedheim:

I thought the reading was quite insightful in it's analysis of the artist as an activist. It's a difficult thing to put a finger on, as "The nature of meaning is perceived so different by various audiences" (172). I am interested in utilizing my creativity for activism of my own sort. Thus far, my understanding through practice of the steps of artistic activism has not stemmed very far. I would certainly venture to say I am one to call upon my experiences via my work; the most engaging art for me has been the times when I do so.

I like to think my work is me being a conduit between myself and past experiences. When I'm not quite grasping my work, I'll engage in reporter like qualities, putting myself out in the world in order that I may discover something new that I can "report" or "reflect" to my audience. 

Art is a main component in social change, and it is my job to, as the reader put it "Engage with an audience not only to inform but to persuade" (175). Of course, half of the activist's battle is in reaching the audience, to "Position artists as contributors to intellectual endeavor and shift our aesthetic attention toward the shape or meaning of their theoretical constructs" (176). The ability to do so comes through careful analyzation and convicted communication. 

One task lies in gaining the audience's attention, the next in moving them to a new realm of thought and understanding. This is, in my opinion, the nobel job of an artist. Art will always be a reflection of oneself, but art that has a point outside of reflection and replication, that changes the way the viewer thinks, is the art necessary for changing the world.

Suzanne Lacy Response

The part that really got my mind thinking of art that I've recently seen was when Suzanne Lacy introduced the second diagram of how the artist-relationship revolution can be seen - specifically the circle representing "collaboration and codevelopment."

The idea of collaboration and codevelopment between artist and audience made me think of this sidewalk artist in New York City, Hani Shihada. This past summer I got to see him working on (he chose a sidewalk right around the corner from my family's apartment) a frighteningly lifelike portrait of the UK's former prime minister, Maggie Thatcher. When I first saw the finished work I wasn't sure if it was alright for me to walk over it since it just looked so gosh darn cool, but a few days later it dawned on me that it's a sidewalk...it's meant to be walked on. Within a week comments had been written around the portrait - most of them were short phrases critiquing Maggie Thatcher's political legacy. But that makes sense, most likely that would happen if you drew a portrait of a known political figure on a sidewalk. And it dawned on me that Shihada was probably very much aware of what would happen once his part of the work was done. He did his share of this public artwork and opened it up to the next phase, collaboration and codevelopment with the audience.

For some clever reason I decided to not take a picture of the Maggie Thatcher portrait, so I have no evidence, but click HERE and you'll get to his website. He has some pretty varied sidewalk work, worth taking a look at if you feel so inclined.

its a tiny pic, but you get the idea...

Suzanne Lacy

Ok. Wow. I'm a little lost as where to start. This may seem scattered. There are a few thoughts I continue to ponder over from this reading. First of all, I believe with so many new diverse forms of art (installations, performance art, guerrilla art, interactive art) intention of a piece should be a factor that never leaves a critique list. There may never be an answer for its intention but it should always be one of the first questions asked.

Secondly, these new forms of art or taking art out of traditional gallery spaces are not new concepts. They have been exercised for many years past. Graffiti is a great example of both categories. It hasn't been till recent that art critiques have acknowledged them. Suddenly the art form appeared out of nowhere but the truth is, it was there all the time. Passing you on the train. Staring you in the face in the bathroom. These two particular examples are exposed to tons of people a day. Yes, there will be times when its passed by (just like you can walk by any piece in the gallery) but, lets just say that in that bathroom that simple landscape drawing in sharpie above the towel dispenser made someone think about their childhood, humanity or simply brightened up their day, is that not as valid as a charcoal landscape in the MOCA?

Third, for me, the most exciting is exposing strangers to new ideas or possibilities. I try not to make my work about political or social themes (although they are present, just never the foundation) because I think once you have an agenda like that it becomes propaganda. I want to create stories any person can connect to because they are based on basic human needs. Its hard because politics and social issues do make up my experiences. Its double edged. Is it possible to have a pure reaction?

I think I've gone and made this about me. (this just has really been on my mind all summer) But again, art is a reflection of our thoughts on the world and what we have to say about it, not what critics have to in rebuttal of it.

Lacy Response

At first reading this I became very lost in what the goal of the author was and what I could actually take from this text. If you take out all the adjectives you pretty much get someone who is being prosecuted for obscenity in art. Which then reminded me of the famous court case Jacobellis vs. Ohio where

"The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except 'hard-core pornography.' Stewart wrote, 'I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.' (emphasis added)"

Very similar in many ways. But also I feel the outlook of the author should consider that the reaction to this art piece to be a compliment. I mean you Affected this person so much that they went out of their way to get your art piece taken down.

And due to that more conversation and questions are being risen of the morality of this piece. So all in all I would say the Artist of this piece should be pretty darn proud. Audiences will always have their own opinion and may affect what pieces are shown more than others to the public, but who is to say we can't turn the tables?

Michael Ho

Lacy Response

In this week's reading artist and writer Suzanna Lacy questioned art critics' approach to today's boundary pushing artists. There are many statements within the piece that struck a chord in me and gave me an opportunity to sit back and think about how I experience art, judge art and expect it to be judged. When she talked about the artist as experiencer, it made me want to tell the critics to learn to be a critic as an experiencer- granted experiencing is only a half of the journey of digesting a piece; the real juicy morsels of discussion, critique and reaction are where we get our money's worth. This is a key fact that I had failed to remember throughout the piece. I thought "Why does she care about critique so much? Just do your work." Then I remembered that the main reason she's making such a big deal about how the public must learn to appropriately "critique" art is because the director of a museum is being charged with obscenity.

This is a major issue. Being offended by a piece of work is one issue, ranting about it all over your blog or newspaper column is another issue, but bringing the law in to justify one's discomfort with the piece at hand is an outrage. The only reason what's "obscene" in the states is obscene is because they go against the grain of our society's cultural norms. The question of reconstructing how art critics critique shouldn't be limited to address only the art world, but our society as a whole, for the issues brought forth in this article are applicable to and are truly meant for the pedestrian patron attempting to makes sense out of a dildo in a lampshade.



Sophia Wang

What is Public Art. By Rachel DeRosa

In the reading by Suzanne Lacy she asks us what is public art, how does it get made, by whom and for whom. This immediately made me think of all the public areas that I have seen in the three different cities I have lived in.

This is a place in Las Vegas where people have come together to do graffiti. This place is primarily used for photographers to come and use as a public space for photo taking.


The second place I lived was in Oxford, Mississippi where I attended Ole Miss. Every year in May there is this event called Double Decker, and the town square where all the restaurants and shopping is located closes down for the day for people/locals to bring out their art, art that expresses themselves and others. The art is sold, and it gives these artist a chance to be heard and get their work known.










Lastly, and obviously I live in California, and for the last two years I have been going to the Art Walk in Downtown L.A something everyone needs to experience. It is the second Thursday of every month. There are many galleries over 50 and about 10,000 people walk the streets to see the work. It is a place for locals to sell art they have created or collected like vintage clothing or accessories.

Nature Against Puppets

The reading packet starting with Suzanne Lacy reminded me quite a bit of various puppet theaters from around the world that utilized the puppet shows to provide information about current events and future meetings that were not caught by the government censors mainly because the messages were being provided through puppets, not something to seemingly pose a threat. Other companies such as the Bread and Puppet Theater in New York use larger than life puppets in protest parades.

This paragraph, from the Suzanne Lacy portion;

"Art as a profession, taught in art schools and displayed in museums, has created a paradoxical division between its practice and its public locus. The confrontational framing that figures prominently in recent art controversies is in part a product of the modernist model of the artist. Alone in her studio, the artists creates through struggle that, at various times, pits the individual against nature. Culture society or the art world itself"

Reminded me of this quote from the professor/author, Joseph Campbell;

"I once heard a wonderful lecture by Daisetsu Suzuki, you remember this wonderful old Zen philosopher who was over here? He was in his 90's, he started a lecture in Switzerland, that I heard in Ascona. He stood up with his hands on his sides and said:

'God against man - Man against God.'

'Man against nature - Nature against man.'

'Nature against God - God against nature.'

'Very funny religion!'

Both of which, let me realize how separate from nature - even human nature - we are as a society, and how the public square as defined in the reading is perfectly great for railing out political jargon as well as a space for the artist to interpret the words of the politicians to provide additional conceptual framework to others as well as comment on the words being spewed.

Saber's sky graff by way of Jose Estrada (thanks Jose!)

Project by graff artists Saber and MSK. See more here and   here.

Talk About Graffiti

A day in the life of street artist Mr. Brainwash . . . like him or not..



- Sophia

Good to know...

20 Laws Every American Should Know

What To Do When You Are Stopped by Police, Immigration Agents, or the FBI

Welcome to our blog!

This is our place for virtual meaning creation, potential collaboration, and questioning beyond the boundaries of our classroom space. We will be posting our responses to the assigned readings in this blog. Feel free to also use this space to share information about relevant events, news, and art happenings.

Today one of you asked me a great question at the end of the class: "But where do you start?"
So many "issues" in our communities need urgent engagement... there is so much work to be done. Where do we start? We start right at the beginning. You start with yourself. Pick a spot and start walking. And collaborating. And creating.

With all my best regards,
Evelyn