Our discussions of space reminded me of my experiences visiting the “Rothko Chapel: outside of Houston.  The interior space pictured below is in a building specifically designed to view some of Mark Rothko’s later works (following the artists wishes). Note the contrast to the typical Museum/Gallery experience.  The building is referred to as a chapel but it is not affiliated with any religion.

     I remember being impressed with the effect of the space more than the architecture that created the space, The scale and shape of the interior combined with Rothko’s rather dark horizontal compositions seemed to promote reflection and introspection, decreasing kinetic physical energy while increasing potential spiritual energy, which contrasts strongly with the typical environment of awe and spectacle one might encounter at a museum gallery exhibit.   See comments related to the Rothko Chapel posted on a blog sight.

“Silence is so accurate.”
-Mark Rothko
_________________________________________
I recently came across my journal response to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX. The words and image don’t do the in-person experience justice to any degree, but I thought I’d post it here. Rothko is the man. :O)

________________________________________

May 9, 2008
Absolute and utter silence.

I can hear every knee crack, every crinkling of paper and every breath.

///

After awhile, everything blends. Breath, steps, movement- all flowing together into this

slow,

tragic,

fluid movement.

The room itself is breathing quietly. The paintings that at first were flat and motionless have started breathing- almost painfully. A very shallow breath and a very deep, ragged breath at the same time.

Looking closely, you see the hand of the artist. You see “wounds” on the canvas. Areas of imperfection. Areas that make the surface very real.

///

Watching people interact with the room is such a beautiful thing too. People are open and free and willing to express themselves in an environment that is comfortable, soulful, deep, and meaningful.

What an amazing place for contemplation or prayer or emotion…

Rothko’s statement “I paint big to be intimate.” really comes to life here.

You can’t help but slow down.

Breathe.

Stop.

The design of the building is so obviously perfect for these paintings.

Even the doorways, and the shadows and the light that they present, add to the space.

The space is both organic and rigid.

The lighting from the ceiling is almost other-worldly. Dramatic. Soaking the top of the room and barely touching the floor.

///

The room is very much about

Light/dark contrast

Breathing easy and a sense of struggle at the same time.

I think it’s about that place that is so dark and so real.

A place we don’t often let ourselves go.

 link to blogsite:

http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ZURL=%2FModern%2BArt%2Farticles%2F23%2FRothko%2BFans%2BMust%2BSee%2BRothko%2BSymposium%2BTate&URL=http%3A%2F%2Foneswelleblog.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00e54ef16809883300e553d645a38834-pi

    Pierre Bourdieu’s career and influence spanned areas of Anthropology, Education, Sociology, and Philosophy and is fairly unique in the realm of critical theorists in that his positions were largely based on data gathered through ethnographic research.  Bourdieu’s early work in Anthropology laid the foundation for over two decades of grounded research in the social sciences.

     While critical theorists following the Marxist train of thought tended to focus on the exchange of economic capital as the root of the social problems arising in a capitalist society. Bourdieu was dissatisfied with the limitations of two dimensional socio-economic analyses of less objective cultural considerations (Bourdieu 1977:3, 177).

     The work of Pierre Bourdieu provides tools to address these and other matters which may be more useful and relevant when applied to the worlds of art and design.

     In this paper I will explain some of the concepts and methodologies that Bourdieu applied to his “study of taste and cultural consumption”, followed by an attempt to apply these concepts to the world of product design and an assessment of this application. 

     Background

Bourdieu’s first published work in 1958 involved ethnographic fieldwork investigating the sociology of Algeria.  This work described the dynamics of the struggle for position within identified cultural fields.

     Over the course of more than two decades, Bourdieu continued to investigate the importance of cultural fields, and developed the concepts of Cultural and Symbolic Capital to describe the non-material aspects of capital that influence the cultural dynamic.  Bourdieu expanded on these basic elements as they applied to a diverse range of subjects including; architecture, education and, most notably for the interest of this paper, the relationship of aesthetic preferences to culture and class (Jenkins:12-20).  .

     The concept of Cultural Capital was introduced by Bourdieu to describe the dispositions and habits of the dominant cultural faction which provide an advantage to those who already possess it and a disadvantage who do not have equal access to it (Harker:87).

     Bourdieu also coined the phrase Symbolic Capital to signify economic capital which has been “transformed ” to non-material indications of lifestyle, such as; a refined fashion sense, or, a desirable affect in language. The ‘material’ origins of the effect are masked, which serves to enhance it’s efficacy (Bourdieu, 1977:183, and Harker:5). 

Bourdieu’s General Model of Cultural Practice

     Beginning in 1967 Bourdieu presented several articles and books investigating aspects of education that tend to reproduce the culture of the group or groups that control economic, social and political resources (Harker:87, 97, 229 – 232), these systems obviously favored those who had acquired traits of the dominant class. Awareness of this bias has had lasting effects in the world of education (including recent criticisms of standardized testing in American academic institutions) (Harker:9, 87, 97).

     Through this work Bourdieu developed methodologies relating social disposition, various types of capital and the field of interest and applied them to a variety of social topics, including the analysis of “taste and cultural consumption” in the rarified world of Fine Arts.

     In 1979 Bourdieu published La Distinction in France which was translated to English in 1984 as Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. In the introduction of Distinction Bourdieu’s defined his work as ‘the science of taste and cultural consumption’(Bourdieu, 1984). As the sub-title implies, Distinction is a critique of Kant’s model of a pure aesthetic (reference to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason), but Bourdieu also states a desire to “break with the ‘economism’ of Marxism, which reduces the social field to the economic field” and also to “break with the objectivism of Marxism, which tends to ignore the symbolic struggles within the social world” (Harker:4). 

    Bourdieu’s general formula which he applied to a variety of social dynamics and was used in his investigation regarding the relationship of aesthetic taste and cultural consumption in Distinction, is as follows:  (Habitus x Capital) + Field = Practice (Bourdieu 1984:101).

Habitus 

     According to Bourdieu, “Habitus” refers to “a system of durable transposable dispositions which functions as the generative basis of structured, objectively unified practices” (Bourdieu 1979:vii).  These dispositions effect and are effected by the objective structure of the habitus, and are shaped and reformulated by personal history. Dispositions are acquired within a social field and often operate on a subconscious level and may surface as automatic gestures or postures of the body. is often implied through that person’s sense of social distance or even in their body postures. “Thus one’s place and habitus forms the basis of …personal relationships, as well as transforming theoretical classes into real groups” (Harker p.11).

Capital

     For Bourdieu the concept of capital is very broad and may refer to material things (economic and/or symbolic capital), or culturally significant non-material attributes such as prestige, status, or authority, along with culturally-valued taste and consumption patterns (Bourdieu, 1986:241-258).  The value given to capital (within a field) is related to social and cultural characteristics of the habitus (Harker:13).  Capital tends to amplify or multiply the effects of habitus.

     Field.  A field in Bourdieu’s terms is a social space in which one struggles for social position. Fields are defined by the stakes, power (politics), academic distinction (education) and may vary in regards to concreteness (Jenkins:84).  Each field has a different logic and structure.  Since habitus is not fully determined by structures, and that one can hold positions within multiple fields, or assume multiple positions within a field, there is considerable opportunity to maneuver utilizing various strategies (Harker:17). 

Practice. 

     The practice can pertain to either an individual or a social group and is the result of the interaction between the habitus and the field it relates to (Bourdieu 1977:72).

     These entities are malleable and inter-related changing over time. Habitus changes from individual to individual and from generation to generation and changes elated to the positions within a field change the dispositions and structure that form the habitus. 

Bourdieu’s Project - Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste

     In Distinction Bourdieu addresses the Kantian questions regarding; what Art is, and, who is qualified to sanctify art as Art, creating boundaries and classifications in taste. Bourdieu approaches this problem by subjecting the culture of Art to empirical ethnographic social analysis. The principles of the subjective definition of what constitutes Art, or not, by the actors in the field, is then empirically constituted, and the definitions at work are objectified revealing that the boundaries and definitions are in fact arbitrary and subject to class relations (Jenkins:129). Bourdieu’s position is that the notion of distinction, with suggestions of originality and superiority are cultural positions engendered in the habitus in a similar manner as dining preferences, fashion sense, or other facets of culture (Harker:132-133). People learn or develop habits of cultural consumption.

     Using the discovered understanding of the classifications of legitimacy, cultural products were divided in three zones: universal legitimacy, contested legitimacy and the non-legitimacy of personal taste.  Tastes and preferences were similarly mapped, also in three categories: ‘legitimate’ taste, ‘middle-brow’ taste and ‘popular’ taste, which corresponds to education level and social class, creating a preliminary model of class life-styles (Jenkins:138).

     Within this model, the working class aesthetic is a dominated aesthetic, with many references to the (culturally arbitrary) dominant aesthetic.  Bourdieu claims that the working class is less able to adopt a point of view regarding aesthetic judgments, since these decisions are “distanced from necessity”.  The middle and upper classes which are more comfortably distanced from necessity are allowed a “playful seriousness” – this assured aesthetic sense – the ability to assess distinction is acquired through conditioning associated with a particular class – uniting those with similar conditioning. This illustrates that taste is one of the key signifiers of social identity.

Correlations with the World of Product Design

   (refer to Whilhem Wagenfeld, c. 1938, MoMA collection )          

   (refer to Peter Behrens, c. 1908, MoMA collection)

                 There are direct correlations between the class delineations within the worlds of Fine Art and Product Design.  Like Fine Art, “High Brow” product design is defined by the rarified world of New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and Bourgeoisie collectors.  The prevailing aesthetic of items in MoMA’s permanent collections modern, stark and geometric.  This design is perceived and sold as clean and timeless. A bit of (secondhand)[1] investigation suggests that this aesthetic, the equating of modern design to be good design, was …    

“the brainchild of Edgar Kaufman Jr., son of the Pittsburgh department store magnates who commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater residence in, Mill Run, Pennsylvania. In 1946 Kaufman Jr. was appointed director of MoMA’s Department of Industrial Design, he conceived and orchestrated Good Design competitions and exhibitions in collaboration with the Chicago Merchandise Mart”(Vienne:22-23).

Veronique Vienne adds that “Kaufman Jr. was a staunch Modernist who conducted a one man campaign against what he sincerely believed to be the “bad” taste of the public”, and cites “Eva Zeisel, who won countless Good Design awards for her elegant ceramic pieces, as denounced the elitist aesthetic, and Milton Glaser who said, “Good Design stood for the elimination of story telling’. (Vienne:22). 

     The “Not-so-High-Brow” (or “High-Middle-Brow”) Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum, whose heritage, like design, is rooted in crafts, will exhibit work that is more timely and more representative of popular interests.  The Cooper-Hewitt’s National Design Triennial Exhibition would be the equivalent of the Whitney Museum of Art’s Biennial Exhibit – showcasing the freshest talent of the day.  This “High-Middle-Brow” is also defined by the trade press, such as in Art’s case, Art in America, or the world of design, ID magazine. 

     ID magazine’s Annual Design Awards, and the International Design Excellence Awards (known as IDEA awards) published annually in Innovation, the quarterly magazine published by the Industrial Designers Association of America (IDSA) help to establish these “fresh faces” on an annual basis.

     The aesthetics of award winners fall into three aesthetic categories:

     MoMa Bound - Modern styled pieces that may be bound for MoMA’s permanent collection – time, and proven (commercial) success of the designers, will tell.                                          Apple iPod –MoMA bound      

Trendsetters – More form intense, trendy, fashionable design of the day. Since the prevailing popular design aesthetic is more fleeting or fashion-like. These products are less likely to be selected for MoMA’s permanent collection, but may be good contenders for the Cooper-Hewitt’s National Museum’s Design Triennial. exhibition museums are less likely       

 One Laptop per Child         

Project, MIT Media lab

Announcement for an upcoming exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum

      High Concept – Idealistic, sometimes futuristic, sometimes altruistic, awards not necessarily about form, for instance green designed products like

the One Laptop Per Child project.

     Popular taste – The proletarian taste of the masses is usually ignored, regardless of any commercial success.                                                             

ShopVac Vacuum Cleaner, 2008, Shop Vac Corporation

Conclusion

Rather than discovering or defending an absolute definition, Bourdieu has shown how taste, the sanctifying of aesthetics, is relative to habitus of the dominant culture. In the worlds of Art and Design the purveyors of taste are those who possess symbolic and economic capital valued by the fields of their dominant culture usually in the form of advanced academic degrees and/or employment with recognized corporations — the curators of museums and jurors of art exhibits and design competitions.  Although the definitions and the arbiters of taste are relative, the habitus and field of the dominant class has the inertia of history which is defended ruthlessly, especially by those aesthetic marshals who have traded hard earned economic capital for symbolic education credentials and cultural capital sometimes in the form of expensive lifestyles that denote cultural status.

     Bourdieu’s concept of Distinction connotes differentiation, originality and superiority.  One would expect an understanding of instances individual player’s ability and desire to break away from the prevailing set of probabilities in a field, especially in the world of academic literature in which similar objectives and demarcation exist for those presenting their ideas.  Although the idea of statistical probability leaves the door open for such innovation, Bourdieu’s model presents an air of determinism negating possibilities that the field does not allow for, this is actually a criticism that Jenkins puts forward.  Critic Arthur Danto offers a perspective which is perhaps more liberating regarding Bourdieu’s concept of the dynamic of agents within the field.  Danto suggests that each claim within a field automatically suggests and includes three other alternative positions, ie; if position A is claimed, the position opposite of A is open for consideration, along with the possibilities that position A and it’s opposite claim are both true, or, that they are both false (Shusterman, 1999:217), supporting Bourdieu’s statement that the field “creates the creators”(Bourdieu, 1996:231).  This perspective suggests that all possibilities exist within the field in effect waiting to be discovered by individual agents, like critic Arthur Danto, I’d like to believe that the individual has more autonomy (Shusterman, 1999:217), and leave room to attribute at least some credit to the genius and creativity of the individual.  Bourdieu provides a structure to analyze cultural definitions of art while avoiding the problems associated with Kantian attempts to define subjective inherent or ‘pure’ qualities of art — but while avoidance may be a clever skill, it is not entirely satisfying.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline on a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; in French 1972) 

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood Press), 241-58

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Danto, A. (1999). ‘Bourdiue on Art: Field and Innovation’, in R. Shusterman (ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader.(Malden, MA, USA Blackwell Publishers)¸214- 19.

Harker, R., Cheleen Mahar and Chris Wilkes. (1990). An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu - The Practice of Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Pres, Inc.

Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London, Routledge.

Vienne, V. (2001) Something to Dresire: Essays on Design.  New York, Graphis Inc.

http://www.ubu.com/film/bag_fall95.html

regarding Eurocentrism and problems occurred by that hegemony.

watch?v=YkIw3I2qeyU

While it is would be difficult to dispute the Phenomena of Euro-centrism, or perhaps more accurately in the realm of the art world Manhattan-centrism, it seems to me this academic observation is trumped by the related effects of globalization and that trends of consumption effect aesthetics at every level.  Aesthetic awareness and self-awareness becomes that of the dominant western perspective, which all else is discussed and considered relative to. It seems to me that the aesthetics of the West have become dominant through global consumption without necessarily considering deeper or historic effects of euro-centrism.

Regarding All-Owning Spectatorship

Trinh T. Minh-Ha’s writing on the All-Owning Spectatorship seems to elaborate (expound, lucubrate) on the concept of context and relative meaning along with the altered perceptions that result from relative positions of power. 

Mubridge Photo Study

See link regarding Muybridge and his “scientific” photo studies.

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/em1053.pdf

That said, I have a few memories of Eurocentricism (not that I knew what it was when these experiences were had) and thoughts on the Mosquera article.

The topic of European expectations for third world art was brought up in the Gardens and Machines class a while back. Juan Obando talked about Columbian photographers getting rich by taking pictures of the “suffering” children in Bogota.

A few weeks after this, I visited my girlfriend’s aunt and uncle. I was told that her aunt loves art…so much so that she’d filled her house with it. I found out that her aunt did, in fact, love art…so much so that she’d filled her house with ornately framed Picasso’s and Dali’s.

In elementary school there was this kid named Greg I liked to hang out with. He raced go-karts, smoked cigarettes, and had a leather burning kit. His dad had a sweet collection of Native American art. He’d get drunk and tell us how valuable it all was. About that same time, my class took a field trip to the Eiteljorg Museum in Indianapolis. That place was full of Native American art, and I started to form an idea of the “exotic.”

A couple years later, the exotic was further reinforced in my mind when I attended an African American culture festival. My mother did her undergrad a traditionally black school in Indianapolis called Martin University while I was in middle school. She liked to attend the arts and culture events and brought me along to expose me to “different ways of life.” Ha…mom.

I mention these Eurocentric memories because I’m wondering, like some of my other classmates, how I’ve come to create the things I call my art. Did I develop naturally…my questions and interests shaped by some innate and pure artistic guide? Or am I a product of Eurocentricism? And if so, what does this mean for me, a white but maybe black guy from Indiana? Am I exotic? Are there Eurocentric stereotypes I should be portraying in my work?

Currently, I’m not up to the challenge of Eurocentric deconstruction. I’m more interested in finding a new Eurocentric niche. There are many currently in existence, and they have gained proper respect as shown by their inclusion in academic discussion, galleries, and museums. There is one niche, however, which is yet to be legitimized…a style of art widely dismissed as trash. I am speaking of Redneck Art.

Redneck Art is the art of American rednecks. It utilizes an incredibly wide range of “at-hand” media, is largely representational and humorous in nature, and serves as a creative rallying point for a community that feels like outsiders in the contemporary art scene.

Take a look at these fine examples of Redneck Art, and ask yourself why this unique form of artistic creation is denied it’s own Eurocentric niche.

Mailbox Gun

Assquatch

Beverly Mobile

El Mansion

Butt Doorbell

COLOMBIA: THE ONLY RISK IS WANTING TO STAY

The idea of the world as a touristic escapade has been around for long, so long it has shaped it into a giant theme park. “countries”, the touristic name for economic regions, now more than ever are going through a process of rebranding: building a new, modernized image that plays well with the international market but that also preserves their “traditional values”, since those are the features that are to sell as “unique”; this naturally creates conflict. In a globalized world, the retarded idea of having “national programmes” clashes directly  with the global agenda and with a new generation of “citizens of the world”. Nonetheless, governments around the globe keep pushing this semi-nazi rhetoric under the premise of tradition and patriotism.

By embracing tourism as their only reliable industry, third world countries are limited to satisfy the aesthetic tastes of First World and replicate the image of leisure of the North. This, of course, serves as a reinstalment of subordinance and domination in a more picturesque and exotic scene.

*************************************

According to Mosquera:

The Other needs to stop adapting their art to Western expectations, and embrace how colonialization has affected their culture.  They need to “respond actively to the reality of their time”.   The reliance/acceptance of  on traditional methods/expectations is a product of colonialism only perpetuates Eurocentralization.

Responding to Mosquera:

What was postmodernity thinking when it placed otherness in the foreground?!

We live in “a great time of hybrids”, as Mexican rock star Rockdrigo sang.

In general, outside of just otherness, I feel the solutions offered up with art are almost exclusively self-referential.  Contemporary art is less about the individual and more about its own place in the art world.  Its relationship to the art world takes first consideration.  Not to say that’s a bad thing.  Isn’t that what the MFA program emphasizes?  It seemed Mosquera was suggesting that artists representing the Other should purposely work as contemporary non-traditionalists.  If it is that deliberate, is it more or less authentic?

I enjoyed how he described the “contemporary artistic scene” as more Manhattan-centric than Eurocentric.  Isn’t that just what New York wants to hear?  It might be true on some level, but it really depends on the perspective of the artist - or art critic.  I think so much of contemporary art operates outside of galleries and museums now that the whole notion of “making it in New York” is irrelevant.

Mosquera is an Adjunct Curator at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York.

So, going back to the SOFA issue, to say the least I was unpleased this year yet again. For one, call the art fair glass (based on the fact that everything there is made of glass), and second show something new for once, I saw that the last two times I was here.  My biggest concern is the ad that SOFA had this year, what the hell is going on, not only does this make Galleri Udengaard look bad, it make ceramics look lame as hell.  If the ceramic artists in Denmark are making work like this I will cancel my trip, and as for ceramics, what is Lars Calmar trying to accomplish, what is he trying to communicate?  Your figurative work is great, so continue working in bronze, and stay out of ceramics for the people in this world who work with clay.

As for the idea of Americentrism, it would not be so if it weren’t for the idea of Eurocentrism.  No matter what country you come from their will always be a backing of that country and its heritage.  The ideas from one culture will always influence another in one way or another, just look at Santa clause in his all red get up, this was not always so(thank you coca cola).      

I feel that i must tread lightly on such topics- as i have little expertise, or even understanding of them.  I don’t mean this in a critical way; my lack of understanding is in no way attributed to a lack of receptivity on my part-more so a lack of immersion.  How can I, the cover girl for the average, ever truly grasp third-world ethnocentrism?  I admit i have never been to Africa, Asia, or South America.  Not to say that i won’t- i just haven’t yet.  I’ve never been to Europe either…actually come to think of it, i have never left the midwest.  I don’t even know what an ocean looks like.  I have read about them, seen pictures, and even watched documentaries; I could probably write a research paper on the ocean.  However this ability doesn’t translate into the art world.  I can understand the ebb of the tide by hearing it through someone else’s words, but to understand the nuances and the hierarchy of tradition in post-colonial art, not so much.

Mosquera quotes, “…the diversification of artistic circuits clashes with the difficulties of intercultural evaluation already pointed out.  Critics, curators and historians have a great responsibility in this sense.”  I agree full-heartedly about the circuits, but i disagree with the responsibility.  I feel that when the problem at hand is authenticity within cultural circuits, that the critics and curators can only exacerbate the issues rather than rectify them.  The spectator is more responsible for the intercultural evaluation than the critic.

Maybe i am wrong in discussing this, but i cant help but overlook the issues with art and authenticity, and focus more on the social-political aspects.  What about gentrification?  Or more so, the effect that gentrification has on public works of art.  Before i moved to west lafayette, i was living in west Humboldt park, a puerto rican neighborhood on the west side of chicago.  (although this and the title of my post may confuse you, i am in fact, not puerto rican.)  Aside from all the cultural gems i was fortunate enough to experience while i lived there, one of the most communicative and thought-provoking were the murals.    Puerto Rican artists have been commissioned from time to time over the last 50 years to create beautiful murals showing pride in their culture and honoring religious and political figures.  Does anyone question the authenticity of these AMAZING works of art?  I didn’t think so.  However, over the past few years, the very edges of Humboldt Park have been succumbing to gentrification.  What happens when they need to tear down the building this mural is painted on to build a 3-flat of condos for the young urban professionals who think the area is “up and coming?”  Its at this moment that all authenticity is lost, and it becomes street art.  Maybe its even considered graffiti.  In fact, by existing, these images are disservicing the whole area.  The social relevance is what determines the authenticity of these “murals“, ”street art”, unsightly graffiti.  How quickly authenticity becomes irrelevant!

This movie was shown in Humboldt Park (the actual park) over the summer, and was created by a young art student at Columbia college.  I think its cheesy.  Like, really cheesy.  I suppose partly because it is difficult for me to truly empathize with the politics and social systems in puerto rican culture.  But the point being made was honest enough.  As a Puerto Rican artist in America, do you risk losing your cultural vision by “westernizing” your work? (succumbing to eurocentrism) OR do you maintain your cultural tradition and authenticity under the risk of gentrification eradicating your social relevance? 

Between Western and California trailer

between western and california interview