AD603 Critical Theory

The Mosquera reading dealing with Eurocentricism in art caused a whole lot of churning of ideas in my mind, so I think I will focus on that one. There were many of very interesting points brought up, but one that I wanted to bring up (though I am sure it is being brought up by others) was the concept that the Eurocentric view point has a very specific set of expectations of non-Western artists, of which I think also accounts for many of the communication issues that exist between western and non-western cultures.

Mosquera states that the Eurocentric Western view point asks of non-Western artists, more specifically 3rd World artists, to “display their identity” and be fantastic. A higher price tag will then follow by adhering to such a request (more like demand). He states that this request doesn’t recognise that “they are living organisms which need to respond actively to the reality of their time”. He goes further to say that if we wish to fight the effects of post colonial Eurocentrism we can’t do it through nostalgia for “the mask and the pyramid” or work that is based on a traditional aesthetic that addressed a culture’s problem or concern that may no longer be relevant to that culture.

This struck me because it brought to mind a guest artist who had visited my undergraduate school a few years back. I very sadly do not recall his name, but his artists talk and work have stuck with me for quite some time. He was a young artist, probably early thirties, and he was a Native American who was raised on a reservation. He discussed how throughout his college studies and into his early teaching career so far, he always felt the pressure to be what most people consider a “traditional” Native American artist. So he was expected to do studies of he fellow tribesmen in “exotic” headdresses in mid ceremonial dance, or sitting atop a horse on a fast plain, or perhaps a piece addressing the dwindling population of buffalo. He stated that he couldn’t do such work because that was not something that he related to in his day-to-day cultural experience. Instead he created prints, for instance, depicting the canned food that was shipped from the us government to his reservation. It had a plain white label with bold flat letters stating what was supposed to be in it (I say supposed to because he said he later found out off the reservation what these foods taste like in a more natural form, and it was nothing like the processed flavorless goo he was fed). So he was addressing his cultural point of view through his contemporary experience, not nostalgia for what traditional aesthetics used to address.

He stated that with such work he often doesn’t sell near to the way more “traditional” Native American art does and he had to accept that or make work attempting to conform to such expectations from the Eurocentric art world. I suppose further making his point, when I tried to search for him tonight online I couldn’t find anything nearly resembling his work. When searched to see what were the most often bought copies of Native American art I wasn’t too surprised to see some of these…

Marianne Millar “Mon Shon”

Jack Sorenson “Winds of Change”

Now these might not be what many of us would consider contemporary fine art, but these two images apparently sell to the general public like hot cakes, and that makes me consider why people cling to such nostalgia and find that such a more enjoyable (or perhaps easier) art experience. The idea that the Eurocentric West prefers to have cultural groups adhere to what they see as their cultural ideal is certainly problematic in terms of addressing the current problems and concerns of any group of individuals and further distorts any possible understanding or communication between them.

The readings from the book Theories in Contemporary Art Since 1985 are some of the most comprehensive and enjoyable for me.  I find the roles that art plays indifferent cultures to be interesting.  With the world so interconnected by technology it is important to be aware of the ever-changing aesthetics of art.  The issues that are raised as a result of the changes in culture values causes the art world to change and to continually redefine what art is or can be to the human race.  The idea of what effect the colonization has had on the art world is an issue that also affects art educators. 

Many art classes in elementary school were non-existent or lacking up until the early 1980’s.  Many pioneers in the field of art education had been working hard to get the general public to understand the importance of having experiences in the visual arts.  Finally there was a consensus among those in the field to mandate the use of discipline-based art education (DBAE) in teaching new art educators how and what to teach in their classrooms.  While some were against placing such perimeters on teaching art, others felt it validated their field which was not taken seriously.  The National Art Education Association (NAEA) promoted this method for teaching art and it is the method that I learned when attending undergraduate school.

DBAE involves not just the production of art but also the study of art history, aesthetics and art criticism.  During this time it was reinforced numerous times about the importance of being informed about multi-cultural art.  Many of my lessons had to include a unit on non-European art.  It was also made certain that we understood the importance of including multi-cultural lessons in our curriculum.  We were told of the white, European dominance in art history and that it was our job and duty to also teach of other cultures. 

This was really a profound concept to me at this time.  My experience with art and art history at this time were lacking and I had never thought about the idea of art history being written by the same people who colonized the world.  This dominance of colonization in the history of art makes most people only aware of the art created in Europe and areas connected to it.  Society seems to have historically placed a higher value on the art work that is idealized by the masses.  Most all art history books focus on the artists of European descent.  This non-inclusion or de-emphasis of other cultures makes the work of other cultures seem less important. 

There has been an awakening in the world of art educators about the importance of informing our students about the importance of multi-cultural art.  It is my job to make sure that my students understand that all man creates art and it all has great value and influence in the growth of the field of art.  There are many artists of European descent that would not have created the works they did if they had not been exposed to other cultures. 

The art work below is from a book and DVD that Jean-Paul Bourdier created with Trinh T Minh-ha.  No matter our color we all seem to fit into the landscape. 

The readings from the book Theories in Contemporary Art Since 1985 are some of the most comprehensive and enjoyable for me.  I find the roles that art plays indifferent cultures to be interesting.  With the world so interconnected by technology it is important to be aware of the ever-changing aesthetics of art.  The issues that are raised as a result of the changes in culture values causes the art world to change and to continually redefine what art is or can be to the human race.  The idea of what effect the colonization has had on the art world is an issue that also affects art educators. 

Many art classes in elementary school were non-existent or lacking up until the early 1980’s.  Many pioneers in the field of art education had been working hard to get the general public to understand the importance of having experiences in the visual arts.  Finally there was a consensus among those in the field to mandate the use of discipline-based art education (DBAE) in teaching new art educators how and what to teach in their classrooms.  While some were against placing such perimeters on teaching art, others felt it validated their field which was not taken seriously.  The National Art Education Association (NAEA) promoted this method for teaching art and it is the method that I learned when attending undergraduate school.

DBAE involves not just the production of art but also the study of art history, aesthetics and art criticism.  During this time it was reinforced numerous times about the importance of being informed about multi-cultural art.  Many of my lessons had to include a unit on non-European art.  It was also made certain that we understood the importance of including multi-cultural lessons in our curriculum.  We were told of the white, European dominance in art history and that it was our job and duty to also teach of other cultures. 

This was really a profound concept to me at this time.  My experience with art and art history at this time were lacking and I had never thought about the idea of art history being written by the same people who colonized the world.  This dominance of colonization in the history of art makes most people only aware of the art created in Europe and areas connected to it.  Society seems to have historically placed a higher value on the art work that is idealized by the masses.  Most all art history books focus on the artists of European descent.  This non-inclusion or de-emphasis of other cultures makes the work of other cultures seem less important. 

There has been an awakening in the world of art educators about the importance of informing our students about the importance of multi-cultural art.  It is my job to make sure that my students understand that all man creates art and it all has great value and influence in the growth of the field of art.  There are many artists of European descent that would not have created the works they did if they had not been exposed to other cultures. 

The art work below is from a book and DVD that Jean-Paul Bourdier created with Trinh T Minh-ha.  No matter our color we all seem to fit into the landscape. 

In the past semester I have read more documents that have questioned my Latin-Americanicity than I think I can handle. Recently, I have started questioning my work, asking, “How much of this is evidence of Mexicanism? Was I taught, at some point that I need to make work that looks like Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera? Am I making images that are predictably Latin and therefore exotic?” Well, the images above are a juxtaposition of a really old lithograph I made and one of Kahlo’s famous self-portraits. Notice something similar about them?

In response to the first questions, I really do not remember anyone imposing Mexican artists on me as role models. No ever said, “Erika, this is what Mexicans make art about. You need to do this, too!” So, have I accomplished this all on my own?  I think I have. But I can’t figure out if I’ve done something wrong. I am pretty certain that I haven’t.Can you really blame me for making a person that looks this fabulous into a hero?

Mosquera, in “The Marco Polo Syndrome,” maintains that there is this idea going around that permeates the art world, among other worlds. The syndrome, as I understood it, is an approach. Mosquera argues that the way we approach art and culture is much to European-ized. How did this happen? Through centuries and centuries of persuasion, apparently.  Moreover, Mosquera suggests the colonization was the vehicle for Eurocentrism. Colonization is like a special invitation–extending an offer to the less advantaged (third worldly) to be as privileged as one is. In his own words, “Western metaculture established itself through colonisation, domination, and event the need to articulate it in order to confront the new situation within itself.” This reminds me a lot of museums and galleries, actually. It reminds me of carnival-like biennials that aim so desperately to encapsulate a “universal” or “global” art world. All of these are good in theory but in their actualized state they are less than successful.

What I liked about this document is that the author proposes solutions to problems. What I did not enjoy was the absurdity of the solutions proposed. Self contradicting, Mosquera advocates de-Eurocentralisation through “adopting postcolonial impurity through which we might free ourselves and express our own thought.” I am not sure if “our own thought[s]” really exist anymore after all the evidence Mosquera provided against it!

He gives the example of Jose Bedia, a Cuban artist, whom Mosquera refers to as a “Western” artist who makes Western culture from non-Western sources. Here is a video of Bedia’s work. It is certainly different than what I have seen produced in the United States, for example. The explanation sounds convincing. But I think it is inevitable for Bedia’s  work to become saturated, even a little bit, by his “Western ways.”

Mosquera’s ideas make me question my own authenticity. Am I making uterus pinatas because I’m Mexican and it’s “what we do”? Or is it just that I am using my ethnic identity as a necessary vehicle for the concepts I choose to investigate? I prefer the latter. But I am western so naturally I would think these things?

I think it’s a terrific idea to dream about the “possibility of a global dialogue among cultures.” The interesting part is seeing who monopolizes the conversation.

Colonizer’s allegation that they brought development to the colony is totally a deceit. Do people have thirst for exoticism? Or do the colonizers eager to help people develop their business? They call them savior but they plundered profits and resources from colony, moreover, leaving heartbroken memory for the innocent people and scar for the society. Where are the human rights to talk about? Since people in colony are exploited by colonist, I suspect how can they consume art as people who live in an uncontrolled region? How can be equally that a colonist judges the art in the colonial culture with their view?

Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, used to be a dependent territory of the UK in 1842, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China in 1997. If someone wants to see how western culture interpreted into Asia through colonialism, then Hong Kong is a mirror, a good case study to be conducted. We can strongly feel the impression of economy development in this region: modern architecture, modern mass transportation system, Western-style clothes, and at the same time, traditional culture imprint on each corner of this society. And what about the art? Is today’s art in Hong Kong culture the result of an evolution of traditional aesthetics? I didn’t see too much tradition aesthetics from it, what substitutes it is mass production of art (movie, music) driven by commercial purpose. Hong Kong is called cultural hub where eastern and western cultures meet, however, it’s hard to find out what is Hong Kong art. I don’t know if people in Hong Kong have ethnocentrism, or are they proud of living in a “hybrid” way?

Colonialism never stopped but exists in a modern way. The aim of colonialism is to plunder the fortune and it never give up finding new opportunities.

History is the process of the reason. It is hard to say or to give a conclusion why Red is a popular color to Chinese people. It is not because some people, it is not because a period, it is not because an incident, it is because the history, a history more than 5,000 years. Some western people judge Chinese culture a superficial one, they think in a way that they feel right. However, they just learn the surface of Chinese culture, or because the eurocentrism results from industrial revolution. But that doesn’t mean Chinese culture or China is superficial. Jack Cafferty, the commentator from CNN said the Chinese were “goons and thugs” and that their products were “junk” on April 9, 2008. If this represents what people in western world thinking about China, or it implies their wish that asking their audience to think about China in this way, then they are in big problem. I don’t 100% understand all what Minh-Ha says, but, any critique about another culture’s art should be built on the understanding of its objects and its culture.

This week’s readings boiled down to what we label as art, the lines we draw of what is and what is not. Mosquera wrote about eurocentrism and how the influence of one culture can extend throughout the world. The quote that really stood out to me was when this concept was applied to art in from non-western origins, “Today’s art in these cultures is not the result of an evolution of traditional aesthetics: its very concept was received from the West through colonialism.” I think this concept is one of incredible merit. I’m always looking at the world from a post-digital-revolution standpoint. Looking at the world that way, it’s clear how distribution of media in a digital world has made us all closer and more accessible. Yet since we are exposed to so much more these days, what do we call art? If a child in a 3^rd world nation makes a drawing in MS Paint in their $100-laptop, do we perceive that any differently than the same drawing made by a child on their PC in SoHo?

Minh-Ha talks a lot about this struggle from the perspective of the artist. Do we create to explore? Entertain? Some mix of both perhaps? Italian filmmaker Pasolini often wrote about his “firing line of controversy” in his work. Essentially he was always playing with the notion of how much art he can get away with, while at the same time making something the public is able to digest. My favorite quote from this article was, “Don’t forget the people in the media are all very smart and creative, but the audience is invariably simple-minded.” because I really identify with that struggle. As an artist, how do I make work that appeases 3 audiences: my peers, my artistic-colleagues, and myself? It’s something I really wrestle with today in my photography. How can I make images that are interesting to those 3 audiences? How can I do work that is intellectually stimulating, self-fulfilling, and works for a market?

I’d like to think I’m making progress in this struggle thanks to grad school. If a work is strong in both conception and execution, it will keep those scales of audience vs. medium balanced. But then the worry becomes if the piece is too bland because I played it too safe to maintain the balance—by not taking chances, are we hurting our work long-term?

As you can see, this week’s readings have dug up a lot of questions in me, and I think discussions should be interesting because there were so many different facts of these readings that one could identify with.

My outside source for the week is a piece of cinematic art that I feel somewhat maintains a balance of the scales. It’s an Italian film from the 1930s called The Leopard.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard_(film)

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcoAwC9r3Aw

The film is all about the emerging middle class in late 19^th century Italy. Yet with its massive budget and international cast list (Burt Lancaster!), the film struggles to find a way to balance its Italian-centered message on the world stage. It does this via spectacle. If the audience can’t identify with the film’s Italian-centered meaning, they can get caught up in the massive battles and dance-scenes. I think that’s fairly clear from the trailer.

As a final note, I hate this movie. It’s something like 3.5 hours long and extremely confusing. Also the ballroom scene in the trailer, in actuality, is over an hour of the film.

World now is a village. And it seems that all the countries and cultures tend to develop in the same way, especially after World War II. Western culture and value have penetrated into every corner in non-Western world. Just take a look at Japan, Korean, Hong Kong and Taiwan, where were used to be the most traditional countries or places in Asia, nowadays turn to be the most fashion, modern and Western-world- like places in the East world. People there drink coffee more than tea, fond of Hollywood films, longing for the life in Western world, talking about New York or Paris rather than their hometown, having Christmas and Thanksgiving or Halloween even if these festivals have nothing to do with their own culture and history. What has happened to this world? When we talk about culture and history, the diversity is the most important element, and also to succeed what we have from the past is also what we should do in order to keep a certain type of culture alive. But what if all the different culture and traditions are being taken place by a single one, like the one from Western? Should we be happy or should we calm down and take it seriously? In my opinion, it will be a disaster.

Just think about fashion industry. Every year, in Paris, New York, Milan and London, fashion shows would take place far beyond the right season, in the name of pre-telling or prediction what will be popular next season or next year, even if there is no reason. Ironically, almost everybody follows such kind of rule, which means they believe what is expressed through those shows and fashion clothes or colors. And the result is people in different parts of the world, west or east, south sphere or north, all dress the same. LV, Channel and Versace can be found every where. It seems that people like to be in the same suit, wearing the same hat, carrying the same bag with others. It is ridiculous, but that is true.

Also Hollywood contributes a lot to these.

The whole world is watching Hollywood movies and on some degree, people try to live a life like what it is in the movie, a kind of perfect, ideal, or extreme or overstated real life in Western world. Non-Western world people got to know America mostly through Hollywood films and what they thought America was is just what had happened in the movies, which shows that mass media is more than powerful than we thought. From the movies, even the people in the faraway village in mountain areas in China get to know St. Valentine’s Day, young boys would buy flowers for their loving girls, though they have no idea what St. Valentine’s Day is and its origin.

It seems that the whole world now agrees to the same concept of value, regardless of different culture, tradition, history or ethics standard. The essence of our culture is peaceful, deep and implied. We seldom talked about sex, wealth or money in public in such a natural or unconscious way in 1980s. But things all changed in these two decades along with the development and the coming of western culture. Meanwhile, the social aesthetic standard changed. The term “sexy” becomes popular, which was even not in our language until 1990s.

It not only influenced culture related activities but also other day life ones, like dinning. Many Western style club or restaurants showed up every where out side Western world and some upper class people treat it as a kind of honor, a symbol of wealth or status dinning out in a Western style club or restaurant. Foxes and knives also become important members of dinner set at home.

Actually, the influence is not a one way street, it is interactive. China Town, Chinese food, Mexican food, Indian culture also have become accepted by Western world and are already parts of American culture now. The thing is which one is in charge. Chinese food has changed a lot in order to survive in America, which means all those non-Western culture are still the minor parts and have been colonized more or less.

I hate to admit it (and I’m almost ashamed to share this with you), but Kuwait is considered to be a Third World nation.  But how can one of the richest countries in the world fall under this category?

Minh-Ha has failed to provide the “interpreter” with objective representations and instead has categorized the two classifications (“first” and “third”) based on the outdated ideologies of the geopolitical model of the Cold War.  The indices that classify Third World Countries include and are not limited to political and civil rights, human development and freedom of press/speech.  Given that Kuwaiti women were recently granted the political right to vote, I’d have to say we are still developing our nations political and civil rights, regardless of the fact that every household has an oil well in their backyard. 

Now that I’ve cleared that up, I can comfortably compare Kuwait (as a Third World country) to the Western world.  Minh-Ha’s comments on films made by or about members of the Third World struck me as very intriguing and surprisingly true.  She states that there is an “excessive tendency to focus on economic matters in ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘developing’ contexts,” thereby restricting these societies from experiencing their own evolution and progression.  These ideas being portrayed in film (whether they are made by or even about members of the Third World) are belittling, maybe even ridiculing the quantified progress taking place.  This made me think of a famous Kuwaiti play, called “Bye Bye London,” produced and performed shortly after the discovery of oil.  The play is in Arabic, but the one scene that I’ve attached to this post is in English (with a very heavy Kuwaiti accent – so it might be difficult to understand):  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVvkNC9397E

The scene portrays a nouveau riche business man who is trying to flirt with a British girl at a pub in London, England.  He barely speaks English, but attempts to impress the young lady by regurgitating all the words he learnt in school: car, apple, water, father, mother, donkey, monkey, rabbit, crocodile, etc.  When he realizes that she does not understand him,  he pulls out a “cheat sheet” in hopes that he could impress her with a phrase or two, “Me rich man me money, me home in Kuwait has petrol, me baby don’t drink milk he drink petrol.”

I thought this was a good example of a foreigner defining himself in terms of the economic development (or lack there of) of a nation in comparison to the “First World.” First, he portrays the condition of the educational system in a country whose main economic activity had been pearl diving and fishing, prior to the discovery of oil.  Second, he misuses the abundance of money in a way that highly compels the Western viewer, taking the situation out of the context in which it should be understood.  Third, he over-amplifies his inebriation in response to the illegality of alcohol in Kuwait.

I was more than a bit confused while reading Mosquera’s ‘Marco Polo’ article due to the plethora of seemingly contradictory and/or impossible scenarios he’d like to see happen in the art world.  To sum my interpretation of the writing, he’d like artists to be part of a meshed, international “community” (again, we encounter that un-definable idea) while still maintaining a personal “culture” (again…), then using the juxtaposition of these two to create art that represents neither one in pure form.  He wants individual cultures to have interactions and “vigorously adapt” to incorporate new, incoming ideas, but at the same time not using any of them in their art.  The reason for that is because it would be succumbing to emersion and the loss of a culture, but, conversely, basing all art on archaic stereotypes (for example, African art always being masks) isn’t progressive enough.  Huh?

            Mosquera goes on to state that, “The myth of universal value in art, and the establishment of a hierarchy of works based in their ‘universality’, is one of the heritages of Eurocentrism that continues to survive… (Kocur and Leung, 222)” Wait a tick. Doesn’t he establish a hierarchy when setting guidelines on what precisely is and is not quality art (as defined by its Eurocentric influences)?

            In regards to the presentation of art, Mosquera would like these pieces displayed based not on the artist’s demographic (gender, race, religion, etc.), but instead on the evaluative methods of curators, which, in turn, is supposed to be the universally inclusive and “correct” interpretation of anyone and everyone who might see the work.  But, at the same time, “…it has been demonstrated that the role of the viewer is fundamental in art and literature (Kocur and Leung, 223),” which assumes that these individuals all have their own interpretation and opinion of the work (otherwise, why else would their presence be so important?).  So, if viewers (be it a curator or a museum visitor) all of the same opinion on every piece, why have any curators or displays?

            I think I need the class discussion for a bit more clarity.

            In the meantime, here’s a site that outlines color symbolism in Chinese societies, relating to the second article by Tringh T. Minh-Ha.  Perhaps we could also discuss this, more of a point-of-interest than analysis.  I’m interested to know what classmates with experience living abroad (as in not the U.S.) might know about colors and their representations in other countries.

First, I’ll talk about China (America), then I’ll use red (non-reds) as a metaphor for cultural differences, next I’ll discuss film (politics) and the Third World (lower class), and lastly, I’ll wrap it all up with a discussion of women (men).  I hope to express to you how Westernization (the Master) and globalization (ingestion of my culture) have been the dominate, correct (incorrect) form of aesthetics since colonization (decolonization).  P.S. Read between the lines (parenthesis).

Okay, that was overly sarcastic and probably not necessary, but I found myself exhausted reading Minh-Ha’s essay.  I felt like I was reading a feminist Adorno in a twisted Benjamin-style: said and unsaid, red and white, life and death, men, women, good, pure, bad, blood, film, poverty… I’ll admit she got her point across with that opposition/reversal technique.  THE OTHER.  I had a hard time dealing with Minh-Ha’s accusations of the American and his/her sense of identity through the Other.  Near the end of her essay, she talked about America’s “goodwill” and the Vietnam War by stating, “the West … consists of granting itself the … rights to counteract its government and … to choose when to endorse … while the Third World must stand by its kinsmen” (Kocur and Leung 273).  I’m in an uncomfortable position.  There were things that I didn’t like about Minh-Ha’s essay (I thought it was aggressive), but some things that I appreciated (I tend to stick to the positives in my responses): I can appreciate Minh-Ha’s view point, and she has made me think about how I perceive art, especially art outside of Eurocentric aesthetics (segue to Mosquera!).  

Mosquera was easier to swallow and tended to win me over more than Minh-Ha.  Essentially, Mosquera claims that Eurocentrism (the dominate set of cultural values that perceives itself as correct) and the globalization of Eurocentrism has caused a universal dominance.  This amounts to a loss of culture, loss of identity, and a loss of nationality.  It creates a class system of First and Third Worlds, and promotes participation in a global capitalist market.  In the art world, Eurocentrism has been the dominate set of aesthetic values, creating a ‘high art versus traditional aesthetic’ discourse.  Mosquera argues for an expansion of ideals in Eurocentrism.  Rather than maintain Euro-aesthetics, one should understand how an artwork functions in its context, its contributions, and its values.  Art is not interpreted from one’s self and own circumstances as “reception is active and capable of expanding” (Kocur and Leunge 223).  He pushes for an understanding of cultural aesthetics instead of nostalgic representations (222).  I’m going to end my post with Mosquera: (in response to universality as a disguise for Western aesthetics) “this should not disable our reception of artwork beyond the culture which made it; even if that response is ‘incorrect’, it may still generate new meanings” (222). 

Lastly, the reading for the last few weeks have really opened the contemporary discourse:  modernism and postmodernism seem to be rather Eurocentrism and the Other, and/or Colonization and Decolonization.  I feel a bit overwhelmed.  After I graduate, I would like to teach in a university or work in a gallery: how can all of these issues be addressed??  

Here is a link to an article by CNN on contemporary Chinese artwork. The article provides a very brief overview of Chinese art history and its transitions to contemporary trends.     http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/inside.china/art.overview/

Here are two images, one from a Chinese photographer, Zheng Liu that I found on newchineseart.com, and an American photographer, Joel-Peter Witkin.  An artist statement wasn not available for Liu, but I responded to his images as a question of traditional aesthetics and contemporary practice.  He reconstructs some mythical histories by bringing props and models into the studio.  He reminds me of Witkin, who is a postmodern photographer that questions traditional European aesthetics by recreating some famous paintings and/or recreating traditional painting techniques in a cynical way.