The Ecomuseum:Incorporating the sense of purpose and identity with the pieces on display.

This week we read multiple articles dealing with the idea of the ecomuseum. In practice, an ecomuseum is a place where the pieces on display are not simply left in cases for the regular museum patron to simply peruse at their leisure while they exist solely behind their glass case separated from the context that they once existed in, devoid of their original purpose. the ecomuseum is a place where the pieces are carefully placed, instilled with plaques and sometimes even used in demonstration to give the onlooker the sense of the true social context that the piece used to, or currently exists within.

The first example that sprung into my head when thinking about examples of ecomuseums would be found in some of the museums that I was lucky enough to have visited as a child on field trips. Them being the Mashantucket Pequot Museum, and Old Sturbridge Village.

The Mashantucket Pequot Museum is known as the largest native american heritage museum. From the moment you enter the exhibits they are able to put you into the environment of what it would be like to be around the museum pieces in their past life.


From the exhibits you can see in some instances that specific pieces are taken out and put behind glass under lights in order to preserve the objects from possible harm, but to also give you an insight to the artistry behind the object. Whenever the museum does this, they make special care to provide some sort of context for the piece through writings about its significance on plaques and pictures placed beside them. Most of the exhibits are artful representations themselves attempting to recreate what life would have looked like for native people in this place in a specific time period. These exhibits I believe serve the most justice in terms of putting the visitor into an environment that would bring them to their best understanding of the cultural place that each of these pieces holds.

The second example of an ecomuseum that I was able to experience was Old Sturbridge Village. In this outdoor interactive museum actors are hired to perform the daily tasks of people in the pre-civil war era. Walking through the village alone gives the visitor a sensory likeness to what it would be like to live in that time (Not counting the touristy drawbacks, such as tour groups and schoolchildren traveling in packs). Along with displaying the tools and demonstrating the means by which the people would use these tools, the actors themselves are well versed in the goings on of the time period and can provide cultural backgrounds for the task they are performing by explaining certain significance and application within the time period.

Dystopian Novels Effects with a focus on The Hunger Games

When one thinks of media with a message, dystopian novels come to mind. Often dystopian novels are the product of the author seeing the world and envisioning what can happen in the future. Some of the more classical dystopian novels include George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley Brave New World. This could be better defined as future anxiety and often are against what occurs in the novel. In 1984, people are watched by the all-knowing Big Brother and have threats such as the thought police. In Brave New World, emotions such as love, happiness, friendship, and struggle are removed due to technology. The two of these authors had something in common, presently a lot of issues our world deals with today.

But why are dystopian novels so popular today? It’s a question I often ask myself, it’s fair to say that at least 50% of my books at home are dystopian novels. Science fiction in general is something I thoroughly enjoy, but dystopian novels are always so much more addicting. It can be argued that science fiction as a genre is merely dystopian literature, however I see the too differently. Not all science fiction seeks to warn their readers where the line between innovation and obsession ends.

The best dystopian novels are those in which there are characters who we can relate to. Their reactions are ones we feel we would have and we are fascinated when they face their obstacles. Keep this in mind when I approach my next point.

The Hunger Games faces an enemy in the Capitol and those who are simply stuck in the past. There is a point I would rather talk about such as what will happen in Mocking Jay Part 2… However that means I would be well, my next image makes the point well enough.

So I'll settle for talking about the basis theme in the novel. Rebellion, against an unjust government that uses human misery and pain as a sport. It is merely a yearly reminder to the districts to never repeat the same mistakes again. Katniss Everdeen is the figure of the rebellion, which some say started when she had her berries in her hand. They are of course wrong, it started with Rue's death. When Katniss stayed to treat the little girl's body with love and respect to not squander the second chance she had. Katniss showed the districts that they should be united and this started the slow burn that is fully felt in the second installment.

Put it simply oppressive governments will do anything to quell rebellion. They will twist it into something dark and evil  and they will punish those who do not follow their laws. They will take a message and make it into a popular song or video for the populace to enjoy for the sake of enjoying. To play it until the song has lost all it's meaning.

An example? The Hanging Tree song. 

Now listen to this:

This makes me uncomfortable. Why? Well this is exactly how the Capitol would neutralize the song. To take that message and make it meaningless. The movie is a crowdpleaser, which misses the point of its original material. The movies oversimplify the message and becomes the very thing the books cry out about.

Censorship and the term "Art"

I, at first, want to start this off by saying I thoroughly enjoyed reading different students' perspective on the concept of art and censorship. It opened me up to realizing that I constantly think about censorship, for example, on a daily basis. I watch television on an average an hour a day and I have come across not only watching my favorite show, Spongebob Squarepants but many others specifically in Disney movies that have incorporated sexual innuendos and other inappropriate references. Check here for top 10 sexually inappropriate moments in Disney. I can't ever forget the fact that my mom didn't enjoy me watching Spongebob growing up. I never really understood why because I thought it was entirely harmless. She would come into the room and make this groaning noise at a part she would think is inappropriate. As I grew older, I began to think of these innuendos as clever and even more funny than I originally thought. There are theories that the characters of Spongebob represent the 7 deadly sins. You can read that if you want, here. Spongebob was portrayed as lust whereas Squidward was portrayed as wrath. It makes total sense when you think about it. Spongebob loves everything and always has a great day. Squidward on the other hand, hates his job, his neighbors, his life, and all that goes with it. He is constantly annoyed at Spongebob's behavior because of his constant happiness. Whether it was their original intention to do this or not, it definitely opened another perspective for me to look at such a harmless innocent show in a whole new way. What I thought to be kitsch actually ended up having an avant garde twist to it because of how I looked at it.

Picture from 20 Mindblowing Messages

Things like these amaze me. How has anyone not noticed these references? For example, in the Lion King they are hailing to Hitler by performing the Nazi salute and marching collectively while chanting nonsense. As a kid, you would have never known these evil cult references are hyenas that are all just stupid and for comic relief in the movie. However beside all of the inappropriate references in these movies, there were also some hidden messages that proved they had them integrated and intertwined somehow in some way. They weren't always bad. Remember the license plate on the Pizza truck in Toy Story? That sequence "A113" is hidden somewhere in countless Disney movies. You can click here to see some of them. This is where "art by appropriation and art by intention" come into play from Carolyn Dean's Trouble with the term "Art". Their appropriation is on point by re-creating imitations of imitation by slyly incorporating something from another movie. There is also a combination of avant garde and kitsch in popular movies like the Disney collection however, it is carefully portrayed and otherwise ignored/missed. Avant garde is the abstract versions of contemporary art in which the viewer needs to exert energy and thought into whereas kitsch represents popular commercial art that is considered mindless. One primary example I have mentioned in the term A113. This represented the number of the animation classroom that was located in the California Institute of the Arts. It was exquisitely and carefully placed in each of the movies that are shown in the article mentioned above. These are abstract ways of interpreting Walt Disney's intention of integration. It definitely comes up more often than you would think when you actually sit down and watch with the intent of understanding the artist's purpose.

He portrays art by intention because some of the characters overlap such as Ryder and Flynn from the movie Tangled guest appearing in the movie Frozen. Also, a figure of Buzz Lightyear or a drawing of Sully will appear on the floor of another movie. It really is quite creative the way Disney portrays their art. The hidden messages are here.It is different in perspective, however. As a kid, you weren't concerned about the inner meanings of things nor were you probably concerned about picking out the little things in movies. You got the bigger picture and you took its value for what it was worth. As Carolyn Dean said, “calling something art reveals nothing inherent in the object to which the term is applied, rather, it reveals how much the viewer values it” (27). This is where I begin to repeat myself. It's all about perspective. There was a study that was conducted that showed the number of people entering a museum,where visitors stop, whether they talk or read, how much time they spend, etc. This proved the idea that people deemed different art important or abstract and others were effortlessly looking at the picture. In turn, it created some evaluations to be held while deciding which ones needed changes to attract more time spent/time thinking about the artwork. It gives them more of an ample opportunity to read what the artist has to say about the artwork as well as a brief description leading to their thoughts and opinions about the artists' intention.

When Greenberg discusses the terms avant garde and kitsch, it made me think about what the world is like today. What do you value in life? Time? Money? Nature? Art? Art is sometimes effortless however it also has significant meaning depending on who and what it's about. The problem that lies within artists is the fact that whether or not they want their art to be an imitation or a creation of meaning and depth. It's hard to prioritize your ultimate passions when there is so much in the way to stop you. There are a lot of artists that live with the continuous conflict within themselves to have their art be more than an object as well as being able to be sustainable. As Lewis Hyde said, how does the artist live if it is considered a gift? Do they have to be a lawyer in the summer and artist in the winter? How do they pay for their resources or their families if it's just a mere gift? Arguing that, it also appears to be a commodity within the capitalist society we live in today. With all this being said, there is actually no real definition to describe art with the intent of accommodating for many other cultures. Is the purpose of art to recognize a social purpose? Or rather, is the purpose of art to become a commodity of which is sold to gain profit? Is it simply something to just effortlessly look at? Do you need to delve into the artists' lives in order to find out their true motives of their work? Is it a metaphor that represents something of a bigger value?

"Welcome to the Future"  

There happens to be an artist that I have stumbled upon on Instagram who I have grown to be deeply interested in his work. Daniel Arsham is a young contemporary artist that has always had interests in architecture and structured space. He had a distorted way of thinking about these things because he would have walls oozing, As Greenberg said, "the nonrepresentational or ‘abstract,’ if it is to have aesthetic validity, cannot be arbitrary and accidental, but must stem from obedience to some worthy constraint or original” (3). This originality has never before been seen by the public. It is newly created to have these withering pieces as well as dimensions in the walls. He re-creates some objects such as a keyboard or a microphone to be viewed as ancient and fragile pieces from into the future. Along with that, he creates 2-D, 3-D, and even 4-D images which are so abstract to the eye. These are the types of pieces I love looking at for a long amount of time because of the motives of the changing future that are represented in these pieces of art. Here is a website about some of Daniel Arsham's pieces as well as his own website here. I have been following him on Instagram for quite some time now and I can't even begin to touch the surface of his work.

"Corner Knot" 

There is an interview between Daniel Arsham and Artsy regarding some of his upcoming milestones in his career. He will be working on projects with Pharrell and James Franco relatively soon and that should definitely play in a large role to gain more audiences to his abstract contemporary art. Here is the article. "Part of the goal that I have in Snarkitecture is to cause architecture to act in ways that it shouldn’t, and allow materials to surprise us and to perform and do things that we don’t expect. And it’s often a very subtle, quiet alteration." The picture above describes the vision Daniel Arsham has of this distorted and disintegrating society that is presented to be in the future. I think this is a great way to alter these already created pieces to be thought of in a different light. Technology is forever changing but what will eventually be of this Earth? Our materialistic objects will end up withering away at the fact that no one uses them. Foucault emphasized "normalization" in which he would "make arbitrary distinctions appear natural, logical, and above all, useful" (Dean 29). In Daniel Arsham's artwork, this is not the case. He wants society to think in future terms along with thinking out of the box and developing this alteration of structures that can't be.

I have really been thinking about the term "culture wars" as well as the opportunities some privileged artists do have. We need to be able to accommodate for everyone's diverse backgrounds and interests/beliefs. By that, we need to talk about public funding and who has access to it. African-Americans have suffered through centuries of slavery which induced psychological trauma. They never had a chance to thrive because it just keeps lingering around them constantly fucking up their lives. They had too much public neglect thus not allowing them to flourish by any means of fame or fortune. “Artists on color have always been especially dependent upon public funding such as that provided by the NEA, since they continue to lack the kind of private sector patronage that even moderately successful white artists take for granted "(Wallace 168). It has been existing especially since the era of when the television first came about. The Ed Sullivan Show was one piece of evidence that was known as a buffer for upcoming artists including those of color. Elvis Presley got censored from the waist down because of his legendary and thus "inappropriate" dance moves. The Rolling Stones had to change their lyrics to Let's Spend Some Time Together rather than Let's Spend the Night Together. There were countless chances that Ed Sullivan had to permanently kick these performing artists off for not respecting the demands of the family oriented audience. Ed Sullivan didn't care about who came on the show as long as they respected the boundaries of censorship and the importance of keeping it appropriate for the family. This was essentially the start of opening up the network to people of color as well. The article on Multiculturalism and Privilege expressed the fact that people need to be informed of the different kinds of culture that is out there and if not, they will know nothing but mainstream art. Linda Gibson said "until television presents black dance, art, salsa, jazz with the same regularity as mainstream programs, specific segments of the population won't think about it" (Haddock 147). Ed Sullivan was focused on pure talent rather than what their race or background was. From Martin Luther King Jr to Muhammad Ali to Louis Armstrong; Ed Sullivan welcomed all African-American people of their specialized talent on his show to really boost up the national ratings. There are some black and white videos on their performances and speeches here. They all had inner meanings to why they appeared on the show. Just like the Oscars performance or the Grammy Awards, someone needs to inform the public of problems such as equal pay or equal opportunity. There was always a way to preach about the positive influence these types of artists or people had on the public about what was acceptable in society.

Gifts from Birds

Several days ago, a story appeared about a girl who receives gifts from crows. This showed up on my news feed at the same time as the very disturbing footage of ISIS smashing 2,500 year old Assyrian sculpture to bits in the Mosul Museum. 

Assyrian Llamassu guardian figure (7th century BC) destroyed by ISIS last week.

The story about the girl and her relationship with the crows seemed to offer a break, an island of comfort on such a depressing day.   I shared it on the facebook page of the Material Collective (this is a group of scholars interested in art and material culture).   My friend Karen Kurczynski, who teaches modern and contemporary art, commented "It's relational aesthetics!

Leonard Baskin, Crow

Many of you in the practicum have commented in your posts that the notion of a gift economy where the artist or other creative thinkers produce outside of a market economy is impossible and unsustainable. Importantly, Bourriaud is only advocating for projects that produce social "micro utopias."

Because the grand-scale social utopias and revolutionary hopes of the 20th century have  failed (as Tatianna points out in her survey of socialist propaganda), "any 'direct' critique of society is pointless if it is based upon the illusion of a marginality that is now impossible, if not regressive" (Bourriaud, 2002). The contemporary artist, in this scenario, works to produce situations of encounter (however temporary), rather than objects:

"the goal of most relational aesthetics art is to create a social circumstance; the viewer experience of the constructed social environment becomes the art. The task of the artist is to become a conduit for this social experience. To that end, artists often create a physical space to be used for a particular (often ephemeral) social event." Hyperallergic

The televised musical moments that Tatianna and Tony have mentioned in their posts, to me, seems to also embody these shared moments of experience. I mentioned Foucault's intimations of the transitional, liminal or crisis space of the heterotopia--a place that is dreamed about, that exists both apart from and implicated in the everyday.

This small, utopian moment of solace in the story of a collection of trinkets assembled by a girl, brought in beak and on wing. On my screen I have a print of a crow by the wonderful graphic artist Leonard Baskin, and beside it, an image of the stone winged guardian figure that had coexisted with ancient civilizations and our world until last week. Solace in an encounter with wild creatures, at a time when these magnificent objects, condemned as idols, smash in a scene of dystopian chaos.


 

Songs with a Message

This past Tuesday, Tatianna brought up John Legend and Common’s song “Glory” and how artists can use their work to relay a message to society about a specific issue that needs discussion. By doing this, the artist, whoever it may be, is becoming a facilitator of a movement. At the same time however, when artists relay a social message, it can force others to follow and those that do not are left out of conversations and possible even seen as lesser of an artist. Some artists have been able to truly make a difference in society by their music and have led to social change. I thought it would be a good idea to put light onto some of the biggest and more recent artists who have done this. Many current artists have been putting forth music about those who are seen as others and different and are telling the world that you should be whoever you wish to be and not be forced into a specific role within society.

The first set of songs I would like to put out and discuss are “People Like Us” by Kelly Clarkson and “Stupid Girls” by P!nk. Both of these songs are telling the listen that you should be yourself and not be afraid to be different. In Clarkson’s song, she tells her audience that “This is the life that we choose, this is the life that we bleed/ So throw your fists in the air, come out, come out if you dare.” This specific line demonstrates that each individual is exactly that: and individual. And if you have ever been treated as less or bullied that you are not alone and that you have to fight because it is you that will come out on top. It is your life and you have to live it. In P!nk’s “Stupid Girls,” a similar message is being portrayed to the audience. This time, however, there is a stronger focus on females. In today’s society, females are supposed to be and act like they are the on the cover of Vogue or Cosmopolitan. P!nk though is telling her female followers that you do not have to be “dancing in the video next to 50 Cent” or “travel in packs of two or three/ With their itsy bitsy doggies and their teeny-weeny tees.” The lyrics along with the music video send an incredibly strong message to young girls that they should not want to grow up and be like one of these “stupid girls” but instead be true to themselves and do whatever you want. Not want society wants. P!nk also advises girls to be strong and that she wants to see “Outcasts and girls with ambition” and it is this type of girl that will be able to overcome the terrible portrayal that society has placed on females. I could spend an entire blog post on “Stupid Girls” and the music video but I’ll leave some interruption up for everyone else and continue to provide other examples moving forward.

Continuing with the message of being yourself, artists Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis and Lady Gaga have most recently presented society with songs that have helped in the movements for gay rights in this country.  In one of the verses of “Same Love,” by Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis, Mackelmore pushes the envelope about some of the problems with the word “gay” and his support of gay rights:

If I was gay, I would think hip-hop hates me

Have you read the YouTube comments lately?

"Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily

We become so numb to what we're saying

A culture founded from oppression

Yet we don't have acceptance for 'em

Call each other faggots behind the keys of a message board

A word rooted in hate, yet our genre still ignores it

Gay is synonymous with the lesser

It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion

Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment

The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins

It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!

Live on and be yourself

When I was at church they taught me something else

If you preach hate at the service those words aren't anointed

That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned

When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless

Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen

I might not be the same, but that's not important

No freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it

This verse speaks for itself. Mackelmore and Lewis put forth some of the many problems within society about the gay community and how it needs to be changed. This is exactly what Tatianna was talking about with “Glory.” A very simple song becomes the anthem of an entire social movement in order to make change and better a portion of society. I selected to show the live performance of “Same Love” at the Grammy’s during which a select few gay and lesbian couples were married during the performance in order to show the progress of their rights since the song was first released. It is truly of the most touching performance in Grammy history.

The final artist I would like to discuss briefly is perhaps the artist who has done most in recent memory for minorities and has single handedly caused movements within the LGBTQ community: Lady Gaga. Gaga is another one that an entire blog could be focused on. (Hell, an entire semester worth could be fixated on her!) Back in 2010, Lady Gaga worse the infamous Meat Dress to the MTV Video Music Awards. Although most were caught up on the actual dress and not understanding what she was doing, Gaga herself addressed the outfit by explaining that she was protesting the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and was standing up and fighting for what she believed in. For the record, when the policy was being debates, Gaga’s protests and messages were at the forefront of the issue and were some of the leading reasons as to abolish this policy. Her music has also continued to fight for the LGBTQ community, especially in what she refers to as her favorite song to perform, “Born this Way.” The entire song is telling society to be who you are and that no matter what it is okay because you were born that way and “God makes no mistakes.” She wants everyone, “No matter gay, straight or bi/ Lesbian, transgendered life/ No matter black, white or beige/ Chola or orient made” to “Rejoice and love [themselves] today” because they were born that way.