AD603 Critical Theory

My thoughts… are not organized… *sigh*

I thought Piper’s criticism on race in america (more specifically black america) and the percentage of blackness versus visible blackness was really interesting. She challenged notions that are entrenched in our culture and asked the viewer and other americans to work to deal with it in a way that was both intellectual and fair. Although Piper discusses race as her identity (but rarely specifies “racial identity”), she neglects other makers of identity. In fact it seems as if she doesn’t take in to account that there are thousands of other things that make up an identity (at least that is how i see it). 

I don’t consider my race to be an important element of my identity. I’ve been told that’s not ok. The fact that I’m white, or visibly white, is and should be a major part of my identity. I just don’t think so… and for the record i think it’s only fair that i determine the important elements of my own identity.

Last night, I was thinking about the elements of our identity, and the validity of those elements within society. I think we all have parts of ourselves that we like to keep from other people, identity factors that we don’t feel comfortable revealing. Furthermore, we may have elements that we only feel comfortable revealing in similar company. With the levels of disdain in this word for people who are different, there are understandably big major important parts to people that they can’t necessarily safely discuss. Issues like religion, sexuality, socio-economic background, family life, and history, are elements I identify with my own identity much more than race, but generally don’t discuss because they are pretty loaded. Some people may be uncomfortable with me because I’m Christian, or something else… maybe because they aren’t, or because they feel oppressed by the Christian church, or for some other reason. I don’t know. But, I have noticed a certain discomfort in other people when I talk about my religion. 

My point is… I thought Piper’s points and questions to be very important. I do wish however that when directing those questions to her audience, she asked or even implied other questions that would lead us to evaluate our own identities and the prejudices aligned with them. We all have our own little (or big) traits that somehow “other” us from other people. In her case, she discusses the contradictions of being black, but being able to pass for white. She never talked about pride, but ask what we are going to do about it, and why it is better to pass if you can. I can pass for atheist, but I don’t want to. How is that any different? I guess that I feel that discrimination is not isolated to race, and when questioning identity, and discussing prejudice, it would be appropriate to be a little more democratic.

I don’t know that I really have that much to say about the Krauss reading. I thought that it was interesting, but explained the function and definition of sculpture in an all too structuralist approach; especially since the thing in question (sculpture) was seen as something that could not be defined in structuralist terms. So, for me, I found there to be much to be desired in Krauss’ argument.

She discusses binaries, but only in the terms of things that are opposites and then two levels of (not titled as such) grey matter. For instance, architecture and landscape are a set of binaries in which she frames to reference sculpture. However, she clearly sees that merely stating the two ends of the spectrum as being insufficient. In this case she adds two other terms, in an attempt to broaden the framework in which to fit the subcategories of sculpture. These terms are non-landscape and non-architecture. Although she believes the addition of these terms to be an adequate finish to the extension of this binary, I do not. In her diagram she uses these terms like freshman algebra. Does anybody remember “FOIL”? … Fronts, outsides, insides…etc?  She pairs these terms up so that the end result is a fully defined and comprehensive look at modernist sculpture (architecture: landscape, Architecture: non-landscape, Landscape: non-architecture, Non-architecture: non- landscape). Maybe it is just me, but I’m not convinced that you can boil down an entire media into a mathematical equation, one in which all parts fit. What about the things that don’t within that pretty little structure?

For example, Krauss questions the sculptural validity of cultural sites such as Stonehenge, saying that because of their use, are “just exactly not sculpture”. Although in this case Krauss aligns herself with Kant in his Critique of Judgment (which I am quite fond of); I, in this case, disagree.

Stonehenge doesn’t fit in her definition of sculpture, and it certainly doesn’t fit neatly into her uber structuralist diagram. In this case, the art is in the landscape. It is not removed from the landscape, or place there to obviously interfere with it. It has become part of the landscape. Stonehenge is certainly not architecture. I think the greatest shortcoming in Krauss’ argument is that she sees actuality for what it is at present. The reality is, that nothing is permanent. The landscape is fluid, and is constantly changing. With that in mind how do we validate Stonehenge as anything but sculpture interacting seamlessly within a landscape, to the point of becoming one? Does anybody living actually remember that hill without those monstrous rocks? Nope. In our own consciousness and reality, we could not fathom that landscape looking any different. It is iconic as well as it is sculpture.

In that case…does her formula work? No… some sculpture, even modernist sculpture cannot be defined by charts and formulas, especially when, at times, that is exactly what it is trying to avoid.

In this reading, Foucault brings up a concept we haven’t seen yet. We’ve discussed the culture industry, authenticity and aura, and our unconscious; but Foucault reveals something new for us. Intentionality. However, Foucault discusses this within the framework of architecture intended for liberation versus oppression. He not only discusses the intentionality of the artist (or architect in this case), but the feasibility of this intentionality, and result of intentionality.

As artists we immerse ourselves in a fairly selfish and internal reality sometimes (at least I do), but Foucault reveals that issues of our intentions must be thought about. For example, Foucault discusses that spaces designed and intended for liberation and freedom can often be transformed based on use and conduciveness to spaces of oppression. He points out that designing for cohesive and total intentionality is impossible, because the opposite can occur. People that can wander freely within the space can find them selves surrounded and caged by the openness of their environment. On the flipside, one can find total liberation in encased solitude.

This is a fairly depressing thought for an artist; what the hell are we doing if our intentionality is defunct through the process of use by the intended or unintended audience? Well, first of all, I’m not entirely sure this is what Foucault was saying. Intentionality and planning are all very important; the artist however has to be aware of the implications of their own intentionality. The intentions may not always make sense within the context of the exhibition, space, or audience. Furthermore, the artists symbols may not make sense, and although the artist may have something very important to say, the audience may leave without the meanest understanding, or worse, offended even when the artist’s intentions were nothing but innocuous. 

What do we do then? What can an artist possibly do to not be taken in and be consumed with issues of intentionality? It’s already hard enough to make work that makes sense to us, so how do we rationalize all of the issues and make work that a comprehensive audience will be able to understand? We don’t… This is another thing that I’m pretty sure Foucault was getting at.  Part of being an artist is doing the best you can to make the work “work”. Not to be absolutely positive that the work cannot in any situation be used for evil. No work, space, or frame is entirely conducive to any extreme. An artist can be as intentional as possible, however, once the artist gives up his work for exhibition or sale, only fragments of that intentionality remain.

I am still coming to terms with this… and I feel as though I might be for a long time. It’s hard for me to grasp that nothing I say means anything; what matters is what the audience thinks I am saying… which brings up the question, other than the literal creation of the work, what is the point of the artist? If what he has to say is diluted by the fact that his intentionality has very little to do with how the work is understood, does he matter?

This reading, more so than any other reading so far, made me giggle. Oh lacan, you are hilarious. First of all, I think its sweet that somewhere around the age of six months I managed to surpass the intellectual capabilities of an untrained chimpanzee. And I really do wonder if, in my dreams, I am a fortress, stadium, arena, or any other large structure that can contain hundreds of people and is placed conveniently in a marshy swamp.

Ok, enough with that. Although I do find lacan funny, and just like Derrida he has his moments of both confusion and hilarity, I managed to find some things about this reading that I imagine I will turn into art fodder… The idea of a Gestalt is incredible to me.

The word identifies a “thing” or “being” that is made up of a variety of characteristics, but within that body (not exclusively human or animal) there is meaning far beyond the conglomeration of parts. OMG. That is fascinating! Of course, that (for me) is the whole basis of art and the whole point of making it! The idea that the conglomeration of parts and marks and lines equates to something more than the direct summation of those things it just makes me tingle all over.  (Although lacan was clearly talking about a little boy or girl who sees him/herself in the mirror for the first time and has some sort of recognition of him/herself as a Gestalt).

Also, I think the whole idea of the mirror stage is pretty cool too. But I do wonder if there are a variety of mirror stages throughout our lives. Perhaps there are none that are as earth shattering as the initial discovery of ourselves as solid functioning existing beings, but what if we had these little epiphanies all the time? I mean there has got to be a point at which we come to the understanding that we are a certain sex (generally), or that we are redheads, or blondes? We are constantly making new discoveries about ourselves, many of which are made by looking in a mirror. Ultimately these discoveries add traits or aspects add to our Gestalt (is that a noun or an adjective?).

My question then, is: within this empirically altered Gestalt do we have a greater understanding of ourselves? Or by the constant barrage of new self-information does our idea of our selves become more convoluted? I guess what I am trying to say is: Do we know ourselves better when there is less information but initial discovery, or when there is more information but the information is constantly changing as we discover new things (and some that become refuted)? …nature or nurture?

Furthermore… are we not ourselves most before society has had a chance to tell us what to do? Aren’t we the most human when are completely dictated by our bodily and immediate needs? Or as humans, are we doomed to forever be controlled by our culture?

Oh God, get Sara Rockwell and her squirt gun in here…I think I need to be doused.

So…here’s a clip from The Life of David Gale, it doesn’t deal with the mirror stage, but I think that it points out something about lacan that is interesting and deconstructs our minds…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyqVvMAp9Bo

Freud id a trip. Oh wait; what I meant to say is Freud is a trip. Hehe… Ok, so that’s not very funny. And, although I thought these readings were very funny; in fact every time I read Freud I get the giggles. Perhaps it has something to do with identifying an Oedipus complex in little boys…who knows. In any case, even though I continue to find Freud just a little funny, I do have some questions about the Id, the Ego, and the Superego, in regards to the conscious and the unconscious.

I Understand that some of these aspects to the consciousness sometimes breach and/or are part of both the conscious and unconscious; however, I am curious about when in a child’s development do these aspect become prevalent. When does a child become aware of rationality or passionate feelings? The Freud Reader identifies the id as the part that is passionate and the ego as rationale and reason. So, when a young child is consumed by his unconscious, when does he start to be conscious of reason to undermine his passion?

When does he stop being hateful and fearing his mother, and use reason to determine that she might be all right after all?

For that matter, The Freud Reader discusses that the only way we can be aware of the unconscious is to be aware that it exists (or at least that’s what I thought he said). Well, thank you Freud, I can now identify something because I can identity it? It sounds awfully cyclical to me. However, it does make sense. The only way that we can be aware of unconscious thoughts, feelings, or impulses is to be aware that they can occur. Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of Freud to explain to us what those impulses are, how they occur, and what they mean.

This idea makes me a little squeamish. We are so worried about corporations having monopolies on commodities in small communities, but we will sit back and let Freud tell us that are feelings of angst are because we are trying to find a replacement for a penis. Freud has a monopoly on our unconscious’s. Yikes.

Furthermore, there is the idea of the Freudian Slip. Like, the topography of our unconscious somehow rise above the topography of our conscious during conversation and, Whoops! We said something we didn’t mean… except we really did mean it.

Here’s a funny clip…George Bush is fantastic…

 you tube!

So, at least in this reading the Freudian slip wasn’t addressed…was it really Freud who thought of that any way? Who knows…Whoever thought of it, I think its pretty funny…

There is no doubt in my mind what group Adorno believes to be the pinnacle of society…the thinkers, the academics, the critics. Although, I by default have to agree, as it is a path I am choosing for myself, however, I find there to be a certain twinge of hypocrisy in his ideas. He is a Marxist, yet, he condemns mass culture because of its tendencies to be manipulated into mass decision. He states that the “thinkers” are marginalized by this notion, because they are few and far between, therefore, their superior ideas are subsequently diluted by the bumbling idiots that have had their decisions made for them… “I have noted, enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means or fettering consciousness. It impedes the development of the autonomous, independent, individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves.” (Adorno, 19).

In Adorno’s own words, this seems quite the “snobbish” approach. In Marxism, or in any populous dominated culture, is it not the right of the populous to determine, to judge, and to decide? Would it not be detrimental for a culture or society to be pulverized by a variety of ideologically opposite ideas when a compromised consensus is trying to be made?

My motivation for commenting on this perhaps is the upcoming election, although this is not a reference to art, nor is exactly what I imagine Adorno had in mind, it is nonetheless applicable because its consequences hinge on a mass consensus.  What if, every person decided to think for him or herself, and thus decide that their next-door neighbor is a better-fitted candidate than say…McCain? It’s just an example, but within this logic lies (in my opinion) the shortcomings of Adorno’s argument. Without a constructed set of populous ideals, in which the “consumer” is convinced or persuaded, the resulting aftermath would be nothing less than anarchy.

And within that notion, Adorno undermines each person outside of his own social group. It is not his responsibility to speak for others, nor is it their individual responsibility for others to speak for him. Yet, in this assumption of personal responsibility, Adorno feels that he has somehow been left behind, or that his neighbor has been deceived by those in charge of the forces of manipulation (as well as a number of other people who have in turn made an unconscious decision, inebriated by the twittering of the masses and those in control of them)…

…and as it applies to art, the application of the masses as a determinant is fairly irrelevant as an american issue. The museums and the critics (those in the “art world”) determine the art that is shown, and the masses are then able to judge. Furthermore, do the masses really approve? or do we care? I have observed that not only to the masses not approve of contemporary art (as the function of art is opposite that of cuisine or pornography… to shock, or provoke… not to please) they don’t understand. 

I took a political theory class in my sophomore year of college. During this class, the professor brought up the “issue” of contemporary art, that is, that its goal is to piss people off. She brought up the work “Piss Christ” by Serrano… except she said that it was by Duchamp…(which lead to another discussion). In any case, her point to was to say that art is no longer what it used to be and is no longer based on talent, but can be done by any schmuck who thinks that he’s brilliant and affected. Instead of art being a necessary or natural progression of human development, and an action and attempt to provoke thought; she (as well as most people i know) believe contemporary art to be a deviation from what art to be. 

ive attached a link of a picture of it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Maybe I am being a little hard on Adorno; after all he has some very good points… Many of which I agree with. I even agree with the one I am contesting (a little). My point perhaps in that it is possible to think critically about the things we love and agree with, as well as the things we don’t. In fact, maybe it is equally important. We are never so right as when we can look a truth in the face, turn around and find another truth of opposite nature, and then proceed to make a decision…and then find another. I guess I just hate the idea of any statement that is made under the assumption that it is right…So I question and refute them out of principle. 

Things I think about the readings…

One thing that Marx seems to overlook is the difference between theory and reality; and even though he seems to champion the proletariat, he limits their credit by giving them limited subjectivity. He warrants their economic equality, but doesn’t seem to realize that his theories can only suppose reality, and forgets that every member of the proletariat has his own motivations. Furthermore, Critical Theory in the Frankfurt School continues this idea and grants subjectivity but denies personal/group identity. 

Although this idea makes sense, granting identity would be disagreeable with the concept of communism, while subjectivity would allow for community endeavors (like ants…each ant in a colony is disallowed a personal identity, but allowed subjectivity; they can act and make decisions, but are still no more than an equally important member of the community); it seems the difference between objectification, subjectivity, and identity is that they all represent different areas of the same spectrum. Although, identity is/was such a capitalist idea and only applicable to the bourgeoisie, the dirty truth (little t truth) is that regardless of whether the government allows identity, it will nonetheless occur.

I think that maybe the reason for denial of identity is that “identity” gives people license to distinguish themselves from others, therefore limiting equality. In the case of Marx, equality was the goal; so much so that one class’ identity was demoted to mere subjectivity, while another class (serving as the object) was promoted to subject. However, Marx’s idea of equality rested in economic exactness, while equality does not necessarily imply exact essential qualities, but instead implies that when it is all said and done, all qualities average out.

In my opinion Marx’s theories fail because of the limited scope of his own perspective. Marx was in such destitute poverty, he was completely unable to pass any sort of informed judgment on any other class. He felt quite marginalized (perhaps with good reason) by the bourgeoisie and therefore constructed theories that would elevate the proletariat to the level of the bourgeoisie. In that sense, I feel as if his theories could have very well been misinformed. Although I think that his theories are a major contribution to that particular society, because they give rise to revolutionary ideas that promote “equality” (little e equality), his ideas were so radical, that they undermined the political and economic system so much that the effects were catastrophic (Stalin: although Marx is not responsible for what people did with his theories, the emergence of theories that were so radical, may have been slightly irresponsible).

This is I think the positive thing about the Frankfurt School…or the school and its contemporaries… The School had the hindsight to analyze the issues with Marx’s theories, and synthesize them with other sources (Kant, Hegel, Descartes…etc). They were able to find both the qualities and shortcomings of Marx theory. One, for example, I found to be particularly “true” is:

“The traditional standpoint of orthodox Marxism… fails to grasp the significance of examining both the objective conditions of action and the ways in which these conditions are understood and interpreted. By underplaying human subjectivity and consciousness Marxists missed the very factors which were so central in preventing the emergence of a revolutionary agent” (Held, 21)

Lukacs and Korsch maintained that revolutionary agents emerge when people overlook others’ ability to consciously make decisions, and undermine the power of human subjectivity. I think that the progressiveness in the Frankfurt School that allowed them to synthesize Marx theory with other philosophers is good and progressive, although, I do think that both dismiss one major idea that they seem to acknowledge and them skirt around…identity…

I guess maybe these are just things i disagree with…