Critical Art Ensemble Analysis
The Critical Art Ensemble is simply fascinating to me and I have never really heard much about ‘tactical media’. And for some reason these topics are super exciting to me. I think that because of this class I can really relate to this method of working. I think that we are not really utilizing the technology we have today to its fullest potential. It is like there is this entirely separate and completely unused portion of existing technology that we can use to push boundaries, educate and voice opinions. I feel this is exactly what tactical media is and what the Critical Art Ensemble is doing.
There is an almost seamlessness in the different approaches of the CAE in the exploration of art within critical theory, technology and political activism. Upon reading about the CAE I became really curious about what their work looked like and really included. I visited their website and explored all of the different tactical media on the page. I absolutely love the Useless Technology newspaper insert. I think that this really plays on my thoughts about the use of technology not being fully fulfilled. I think that the idea of technology that has no function but to exist is comical but is also a very true thing. I think that we have created all of these gadgets and technologies just purely to have created them and to have them in our daily lives.
I think that this quote is very interesting: “Tactical media is ephemeral. It leaves few material traces. As the action comes to an end, what is left is primarily living memory.” This makes perfect sense since tactical media utilizes technology like television and radio or even mass media production like newspapers and pamphlets. And even though there is an existence that is in some way traceable it is so minute that it fades away over time. I like to think that tactical media pieces are almost like a ‘hit and run’—it’s quickly there and then it’s quickly gone. It is ‘in the moment’. I think that this quote and idea becomes even more interesting because I can relate it back to the first project of this class—the ephemeral site project inspired by Goldsworthy. It really opens up my eyes to the fact that there is a great multiplicity to this type of working. It can be more of Earth works like Goldsworthy or like the tactical media of the Critical Art Ensemble.
I find it odd however, that the Critical Art Ensemble did not want to be named. I understand that naming something is like branding or creating boundaries but it is also what distinguishes one great work or group from another. I think that it is important that in order to be accredited to such monumental ideas and practices that there be something to link it to. Obviously they did come up with a name, I just find it weird that they didn’t want one to begin with. I also didn’t quite understand the comparison to the Avant Garde movement. The article spoke about how it ended; but doesn’t everything have to come to an end at some point in time? But I don’t really think that it is considered an end but more of a beginning to something else far greater than could be imagined.
Infernal Noise Brigade Analysis
Reading about the INB again really got me thinking about the ideas of private and public space. Where exactly is that line? In the first article, Jennifer Whitney talked about the band’s experience in the local Starbucks as the band’s first ‘act of mischief’. This peaked my curiosity about this topic because although I understand why it would be considered mischief, Starbucks is a public place where many people go. There is this weird line, because the store itself is private property and there is the right to refuse service to anyone but then again it is in a very public atmosphere and anyone and everyone belongs there. People spend endless hours just sitting in the coffee shop long after their cups are empty but I suppose this is part of what a coffee shop is for. But I also can’t help but think about how many coffee shops have live music performances. This got me even more interested because that is essentially what the INB is if you reduce it down to its most simplistic form—music performance. So if there is other music played in these private/public spaces, what is the difference of the INB? I also realize that there is a stylistic difference between the INB and other coffee shop type music—but is it just because it isn’t planned that it’s not accepted? And what about in the streets? Streets are public property. Anyone can walk on them. Sure, store owners can ask people who are outside of their store to relocate if they are doing something that detracts from the environment of the store—but you can’t exactly tell someone that they can’t be on the public street. So what is it about the INB that tends to be unaccepted? What is the difference between the INB and any other marching band—on the surface anyway? Is it the level of planning? If the members of the INB scheduled a time to go play in a public place would they be sentenced with tear gas? I personally think that that would defeat the purpose of the INB but it is an interesting concept to think about.
I really think that it is essential that the INB performs in these public spaces because it allows viewers to not only observe but participate. I think that with this in your face approach allows for this participation. After the shock value of holy cow there is an entire marching band inside Starbucks—one can’t help but to dance or at least bop their head along with the music. I think that this public space is also important in the sense of how it differentiates the INB from any other band that plays on a stage. With those types of band performances, people must choose to go listen and are strictly an observer. In these auditoriums there is a line that separates the performers and the public in which it is frowned up if it is crossed. However, with the INB there is no boundary. Anything goes. These band members are literally standing right next to the people of the public they are performing for. This transforms the public from a pure observer to an active participant in the experience. And there is of course the always that completely unexpected aspect of having a full on marching band in a place you wouldn’t dream of. I think that once these viewers get over the shock value of what the INB presents in their daily life they really have the ability to become part of their performance.
Although I liked having multiple sources to learn about the INB and this type of performance I really disliked the article “Affective Composition and Aesthetics: On Dissolving the Audience and Facilitating the Mob”. I think that articles like this that are overly wordy with highly technical words really just don’t seem worth it to me. It often times is covering a topic that is not really that complicated but with word choice and sentence structure combined it is over-done. It’s like trying to teach a child to tie his or her shoes but using words and complicated structures that are beyond their capacity. I understand that there may be some really great point being made or that I can learn a lot from them—but when I have to work unbelievably hard to get a surface understanding of these points I get frustrated. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and well read individual but there was something about this article that just irritated me to death to read. I think it has something to do with the act of having to practically translate each sentence into something I can understand a little better and then having to go back and relate all of these sentences to each other to really get the meaning of the article. It downright pisses me off. But I’m over it now.
The concept of aesthetic politics is a rather interesting one to me. I have never really thought about an aesthetic based on experiences and processes rather than content and artistic composition. I think that this is what the INB focuses on and successfully creates this space in which the ‘art of politics’ can be pursued. The INB using these spaces is what allows them to not only get their point across but also the involvement of the public is enhancing the aesthetic of politics by guiding or allowing these connections and discussions of the communities in which they perform. I think that this is really only the jumping off point for the INB—I think that even after they have left of space their thoughts and purpose still linger, possibly forever. Those people that had the chance to experience what the INB has to offer will always remember it and then they will pass it on to those who weren’t there and so on. This is a lasting effect.
After viewing and reading all of these sources on this topic I can’t help but wonder what kinds of different things can be done to enhance the whole purpose further. In the first article there is the reference of the warrior type song when the INB was being gassed. This makes me wonder what other situations could relate to their possibly music choice. Could they say different things with different types of music? Overall, I just wish I could have experienced the INB in the flesh—maybe I’ll see something similar someday.
Style Wars Analysis
I always find it interesting the differences and new things you see in a film once you have watched it a few times. This was possibly my third time watching Style Wars and I still find it interesting to watch and I take new meanings from it each time. I think it depends on where I am on my own personal journey and so many other factors in my life.
I believe that these “hip-hop” kids are a crucial part of the city. They are important to not only to culture but also to its aesthetic. I suppose in their eyes the world around them is like a blank slate or even a place to build upon. It is through their graffiti bombing that they are changing or resurfacing their surroundings. Although many individuals of society think that what these kids are doing is unthinkable, it is clearly everything to those who make these markings. It is their way of expressing their aesthetic values. These values are taking those of previous graffiti bombers that exist deep down in the tunnels of the city and changing them to suit their needs, whether it to be to deliver a positive note or to duel in a graffiti bombing war. No matter what the specific reason, there is always a purpose for these kids, although invisible to the authorities and elders of the area.
This culture of these graffiti bombers is definitely considered as a powerless demographic. And it is among the rest of society that these kids remain powerless. As I previously said, the rest of society doesn’t typically care for the graffiti. There are individuals who find it wrong and “disgusting” in a manner of speaking. It is most likely this disdain for the graffiti that makes the bombers do it even more. However this is not the core reason that this culture does what it does. They describe it as getting their name out there and “going all city”, which to them is one of the highest achievements. This act of putting their name on every available surface is a way of remapping their surroundings and is an attempt to take control of them as well. Although, graffiti isn’t the only way the hip-hop culture bombs the city. Break dancing is also a form of self expression for this group of individuals. It is expression in a different sense however. Rather than leaving their mark literally on society through graffiti, they are using their bodies as a way to express their individuality.
There begs the question if graffiti is an attempt at ownership; however I don’t feel that this is the case. These graffiti bombers don’t necessarily want to “own” the city in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, they want to leave their mark as being part of society. As I stated before, these kids want to “go all city” meaning that they want their name to be all over the city so that everyone around sees it on a daily basis and knows it well. They are literally writing their name on everything they can get their hands on in this attempt. I think it is a different interpretation of the idea of owning something. I think they just want a space to belong or to exist within a society which would otherwise gobble them up and look them over if it was not for these tags everywhere within their space.
There is a point in the film in which one of the graffiti bombers says “yeah, I vandalism (sic), but I did something to make your eyes open up, right? So what are you talking about it for?” Society is telling him that what he does is vandalism, is a crime, and is wrong but this attention to his work just validates everything he does. He wants his name to be out there. He wants people to recognize and remember. The very act of putting his name on things is making people aware of his existence. I think it is this very recognition that legitimizes his acts of “vandalism”.
I think one of the most interesting aspects of this film is watching and listening to the white kids participating in these graffiti bombing acts. I think that what they say is very true. There is definitely a stereotype that a kid who is black or latino or basically any other race than white, with some spray paint cans is definitely up to no good. I think that these affluent white kids are attracted to graffiti for a few reasons. Maybe they want to rebel? Maybe they want to break the norms? It is interesting because they do the very same thing that the other graffiti bombers in the film do – yet they seem to be out of place in the mold that society creates. I think that it is just as likely for a young white man to be a graffiti bomber as it is for any other race.
I think the gallery scene is almost sad in a way. Although I am sure that more people would approve of this type of graffiti it just is not the same to me. I feel that there is something about the place that graffiti is done that adds the most importance. There is nothing quite like seeing graffiti on a wall or a train. Graffiti on a canvas is not really graffiti in my opinion. It is a graffiti style, yes. But I think that the site or location of graffiti is what validates it and distinguishes it from this “style” that mimics actual graffiti. I also don’t think that there is the same amount of feeling or passion with graffiti on a canvas. Maybe it isn’t necessarily amount, however. I think it is just a different type of passion. For the graffiti bombers it is about getting their name out there and being known. For artists who paint graffiti on canvas, it is still about being known, but it is more for fame and money. I think the other reason that graffiti on a canvas just isn’t the same is because anyone can purchase it. No one can go out and say I want to buy that wall, or that train car and put it in my living room. Although graffiti on a canvas does have it’s place in society it is just not equivalent to that of the graffiti bombers.
Dr Michael Bull: Sounding Out the City
I must admit that the last time I read this article I must have skipped right over the preface—as I usually do when I read any book. There is something about a preface that just turns me off entirely and make me not want to continue reading. I think that I have learned my lesson on this because for once I actually read the preface and I seriously laughed my ass off. I think it is sad and ridiculous that Sony would not allow the term “walkman” to be used in the book except for to describe what was meant by a “personal stereo”. Are you joking me? Now, I didn’t necessarily need to know this to understand what was meant by “personal stereo” since in the very first section there is a quote from William Gibson that uses the term “walkman”. I guess I just kind of caught on. But this background information just makes me laugh especially when I think about the fact that the Walkman has been completely replaced by the Ipod.
I find the description of how individuals use personal stereos to be very interesting. It seems to describe just about every college student out there. Every time I turn around on campus I people with their ears plugged up with headphones. They are on their way to class, eating lunch, studying, pretty much anything and everything you can think of doing—these people are doing it with headphones. How can anyone experience life when they are constantly drowning it out? I understand that there is a lot going on around campus, or in life in general, that you don’t want to hear or be a part of. But since it seems like this habit is happening all of the time, it means that people are blocking out the good things too. And what about what mother always taught you growing up… be aware of your surroundings… this is impossible with these “personal stereos”. And we wonder why there are so many kidnappings, muggings, etc. People are freaking oblivious.
I think that the exampled of “Mandy” that Bull discussed is very powerful. It makes me think that you could compare personal stereos, ipods, whatever you want to call them an addiction. You could even go so far as to compare them to an addiction like cigarettes or even alcohol. There are those people who can’t do a certain task without having a cigarette, or can’t go to sleep without having a drink before bed—Mandy talks about her radio in the same fashion. Furthermore, I find it odd that she talks about how she likes to hear things going on around her, to make her feel like she’s not alone—but in turn her personal stereo usage is tuning everything she wants to hear out. How is the person on the bus next to her going to strike up a conversation when she is tuning them out? Also, wouldn’t the sound of the mechanics on her trip, the opening and closing of the doors all be the things around her that she wants to hear?
I’m not saying that personal stereos are bad. I have and Ipod that I quite frequently use. But when I was growing up, when I had a Discman, I was never allowed to listen to it in the car on a trip, or at home at dinner or anything like that. I was only allowed to use it on my own personal time—like the time I would use to read a book or play a video game. I guess that just makes too much sense to me since it’s called a personal stereo. I think that too many people use them as a crutch or become dependent on them—it’s very sad. And we wonder why we are having to coddle our newer generations. Bull referred to personal stereo usage as a type of “cocoon”, I think this is very accurate. But if we don’t know where the line is on when and where to use these technologies, no one is ever going to transform into a beautiful butterfly.
Wanderlust
Wanderlust is one of those readings that is just incredibly interesting from the very first word all the way to the very last. Every little detail is unbelievably interesting and thought provoking in a way that most things aren’t. Right away this piece of writing grabs my attention and absolutely refuses to let go. For example, the idea that thinking is considered doing nothing in today’s culture is fascinating. Thinking is the origin of everything that this cultures “does” and experiences in a daily fashion. Whether it is the cars we drive, the radio or ipods we listen to, or even the television we watch—every single one of these things we do all required a moment of “doing nothing” but thinking at one point in time. I completely agree with the idea that doing nothing is hard—especially in today’s culture. We have a myriad of gadgets that keep us endlessly occupied like the ipod, blackberry, computer—all of which are portable so that we can take this obsession of always doing something with us no matter where we are. There is an interesting comparison of doing nothing or thinking with walking. According to the reading, doing nothing is usually disguised by “doing something” and supposedly that something is walking which is the closest thing to doing nothing that exists, which is quite the interesting idea. This makes me wonder how successful the human race is at doing nothing in today’s society. Also, how do we compare to the generations from the past that didn’t have these fancy gadgets we do now? At some point in history, walking was the primary way of getting around—unless you rode a horse or something. Were the people of that time better thinkers than we are now, or just different?
One of my favorite ideas in this piece of writing is that walking should just be considered movement rather than travel. The point that someone could be walking around in circles so in essence they aren’t really traveling anywhere is brilliant in my personal opinion. It makes me thing of phrases like “I am running around in circles and getting no where”. Well of course you aren’t getting anywhere, you are running in circles! But the idea of being “immobilized in a seat” but still being able to travel really hit home for me. Again, this today’s culture has made it so simple for the human race to be completely detached from our environment (or to be just plain lazy depending on how you look at it). I think it is kind of a shame that we have come to this point. That when we go sight seeing it is only through a window and that almost no one gets out of the car and really interacts with the amazing thing or location they came so far to see. We live in a bubble—or something like that, that denies us any real relationship or interaction with icons of our past. It makes me think—what a sad world we live in.
I whole heartedly agree that when you are walking as a means of transportation it requires much more planning and interaction. When you are just going to hop in your car and go there are no second thoughts, no planning, you just get up and leave often in a rushed manner. I think it is possible that personal cars have made the human race less organized. I love the idea that walking makes you really get to know your neighbors. It is so very true! I remember when I would have to walk to the bus stop a few streets down. I passed every single house in my neighborhood and this was the roots of my knowledge of the people I lived by. Any time you are in a car you just zoom by them, maybe giving a small, quick wave now and again. But when you are walking, you aren’t cocooned in the comfort of your car. Not only that but it takes you much longer to pass by the house and the people out front. And you are more likely to engage in a conversation with them as you go by—or even stop for a few moments to chat. Sometimes I miss these days—I don’t know any of my neighbors where I live now. I am so very guilty of this whole not being engaged with your neighbors. I lived in the same apartment for two years and it wasn’t until the day that my neighbor moved out that I realized what a small world I lived in. I had gone to elementary school and part of middle school with him and it had been years since I had spoken to him last. Unfortunately I did not realize this until it was too little too late. I wish I had done more walking.
I had never really thought before how a pilgrimage is almost the essence of walking. However, that is the whole point of a pilgrimage—to walk. Often times they are for a specific destination, but it is not the destination itself that is import but the reason the people are going there that matters. As the reading states, it is a search for something intangible; therefore it really isn’t about any particular goal or destination but rather the journey and transformation along the way that is important. I had never really realized that walking for the individuals on a pilgrimage was considered work, but now that I read this article it is all so very clear to me. It is interesting to me that there is no real destination or tangible outcome of these pilgrimages. It is solely the idea and task of walking that is important. This is the destination—the walk. I don’t know that I would ever be part of a pilgrimage but I do wonder how it would affect me as a person if I was to participate in one. How would it transform me? What would my ideas and habits about walking turn into?
This American Life
This is the second time I have listened to the radio talk show presented by “This American Life” and I enjoyed just as much as I did the first time I heard it. The one thing that was different for me while I was listening to the show is that I could not help but wonder how things have changed since the last time I tuned in. Can the mechanical nose identify more scents now? Has it become cheaper yet—I mean they said they wanted it to be a household item for only $10. How close it is? And what about Dennis Wood’s maps, have they changed at all? Or are the houses that have the pumpkins at Halloween still those that the most influential or prominent people of the neighborhood live? And how could I forget about Pico Boulevard? What restaurants have closed? Are there new ones to be mapped?
All of these questions I was asking myself while listening made me realize that mapping is not only a continuous task but it makes maps almost a living organism of some kind. They are always changing, evolving into something different leaving a trace of their previous state around so there is still a connection. I guess in a way this can be said for anything and everything. The Earth in general applies to these ideas. Every single day the place in which we live changes a little bit more and then just a little bit more. Every day the sun and moon rise and set we there is a new section of the sky added for our viewing pleasure—but also a portion of it is removed until another time. Or will we ever see that portion of the sky the way it was ever again? I mean think about it, the Earth is traveling through the universe and it takes 365 days to get to the same spot again. That is a long time. Is that spot really exactly the same as it was before? I doubt it. There might be a new star or something like that—but it has to have changed.
Overall I think mapping is a very interesting idea. It can be so very practical but then at the same time quite obscure. Now that I have all the time in the world to make art at my own speed I really want to explore the world of mapping. Maybe since I plan to go to culinary school I’ll do something along the lines of Jonathan Gold’s mapping exercises. I could even turn this mapping exercise into something worthwhile for the public. I could make a map of tastes you must experience as a tourist of whatever area I choose to explore. Or maybe I could pick just one specific taste and compare it to itself in different spots all over town.
I find it interesting how this talk show has evolved in meaning for me. I remember last year this segment made me want to map the patterns in the carpet or the swirls of paint on the walls. But now it means something completely different to me and has influenced me in yet another way. I wonder what will have changed if I listen to it again one year from now. Which sense will I focus on next?
Infernal Noise Brigade Analysis
I loved reading about the Infernal Noise Brigade. I think it was particularly interesting for me because I was personally part of a marching band for five years in a row. Not only that but I also took part in parades. There is nothing quite like the feeling you have when you are a part of something like this. Now, by no means did the marching band I was a part of have the same purpose. We didn’t play for any cause like they did while protesting the WTO meeting. I think that this thrill occupies a certain private space within each and every person who experiences it. This includes not only the members of the INB but every individual who hears and/or see this band marching by. From personal experience there is something about a live marching band that ignites a tiny fire within a person and just flickers throughout the body and mind. I also believe that there is a link between the performers and the observers. After a certain amount of observation it’s like it consumes you. It seeps in through the pores on your skin, drains into your ears feeding your brain and pierces your eyes stimulating you. I believe it is in this moment that public space and private space are interchangeable and also when a connection is made and the observer becomes an active participant.
Another connection I made while reading these articles and watching the presentation was to a thing called flash mobs. If you aren’t familiar, a flash mob is a group of people that suddenly appear in a specific, public location and do some sort of random and crazy action and then vanish. Even though the INB isn’t a flash mob but rather sticks around and makes them seen for extended periods of time, it still reminds me of this because of the amount of people. Also, the way the article about the INB described the rapid growth rate of the group seemed significant in this connection. Finally, there is the whole idea of gathering to do something in a variety of public settings.
Overall I think there is something crucial to the combinations of sounds associated with the INB. First off, their band name utilizes the word “noise” which is generally does not have a positive connotation. But rather noise is something that is annoying and frowned upon. Yet, the INB is not just noise- it’s music. They are using something pleasing to the ears (and eyes even with all of their visual aspects) to capture one’s attention and raise awareness in a sense about their cause. I think that music is equivalent to art in that both are ‘performed’ in an upscale and generally high class venue. So for the INB to take to the streets seems as if they really want to get on a personal level and in another person’s space. I think this idea is a very successful one in that sometimes in order to get someone’s attention you have to make them slightly uncomfortable—aka—get in their space.
Style Wars Analysis
This was a very interesting film to watch. I have always loved graffiti and wanted to know more about it. Additionally, I’ve always wanted to be able to watch people making graffiti and the steps and thought process that goes behind it. So, this movie was perfect. I also got to learn a lot about the graffiti way of life behind the scenes straight from the source.
To start off at an interesting point there is a point in the film towards the beginning in which there is mention of exploring the tunnels with graffiti as tombs under the city. There is a sense of history down in these tunnels because there are maps and tags from when the first train line ever existed. There are layers and layers of paint making up the thickness of the walls. I think that even though you can’t see some of the underlying tags—they are still there and very much a part of this scene. These “hip-hop” graffiti kids are changing the face of the city with every tag they make. By leaving their own personal permanent mark they are reconstructing the aesthetic of the city. And furthermore, this aesthetic isn’t just a constant but always changing and improving in a sense. These writers are constantly trying to one up each other in the place, size, amount, and style of their tags. This is what makes this aesthetic a constant evolution within the city.
This particular ‘graffiti demographic’ is made up of adolescents and probably a majority of them are young black men. This culture is ‘bombing’ their city with their graffiti by putting their mark into their society. I think for them it’s a way of wedging their foot on the closing door of opportunity. I say this because without graffiti they may possibly never been known. But by marking their name or what have you—thousands and thousands of people are viewing it on a daily basis. The most interesting part of the film for me was the idea of these writers becoming famous yet no one really knows who they are. I would say that this act of writing your name in graffiti is indeed a form of control. This particular group really doesn’t have a lot of control in any other form. The majorities of citizens dislike graffiti and want to put an end to the acts of these kids. So in a way the simple act of it is what is keeping and gaining more control for these hip hop kids with each mark they make in their city.
Historically, this particular group of individuals that make up this demographic have had little to their name. This begs the question of if graffiti is an attempt at ownership. Personally I think this is a crazy idea. I don’t believe that it’s about owning the area being tagged but more of a way to get their name out there. Additionally it’s a way of being a true part of their society and culture they have created with these tags. I think that in comparison to Bansky’s work these kids are on a much smaller scale. I think Bansky’s work is absolutely brilliant. It is making such a statement. I say that the writers in New York are on a smaller scale because even though they are doing the same physical act, I think it’s for different reasons. Banskys is much more political and even more taboo considering it’s location. These kids in New York are indeed tagging on government property it is still a form of public property for the entire city to enjoy. Whereas the wall that Bansky utilized is designed to separate people. Personally I don’t think that these two groups and ideas can really be compared on the same level.
Honestly I think that stereotypes are ridiculous. Yet unfortunately everyone is subject to them and to making them. I think it’s a part of human nature to judge other human beings. I think that this particular scene is partly about breaking those stereotypes. There is a part within this film that mentions the makeup of these groups as being primarily young black men so when a white person makes graffiti it is very unexpected. I would say that these group members definitely defy societal expectations. I have no idea why affluent white kids are attracted to graffiti. Maybe it’s a way of rebellion towards their upbringing. Or maybe they just want to be different than their parents. Or maybe they are like me and watch graffiti artists in awe and then a little voice in their head say “I want to do that too!” But who really knows. I don’t think that there are any set guidelines to determine who should or should not be a part of this particular group.
During the film one individual admits to vandalizing but also says that it’s something that made “you” open your eyes and look at it. He also asks “what are you talking about it for?” Previously in the film one of these group members said he doesn’t do it (meaning tagging) for anyone else. He mentions he doesn’t care if people know who did it. These people only make these tags for themselves and other taggers out there in the scene. But honestly no matter what these individuals say I think that one part of them, no matter how teeny tiny does it for attention. This attention can be good or bad—just as long as people notice it. I realize that for the most part this form of art within their society is for themselves but the point of art is for it to be seen by others as well.
Overall I found this film incredibly interesting. I learned a lot about the society in which these young artists live in and how they are affecting it on a daily basis. With each mark they make, no matter how big or small, they are making a difference in their world.
Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life.
This article by Michael Bull dealt with the use of personal stereos within certain situations in everyday life. It discusses how personal music becomes like a personal soundtrack, noise blocker, or even a form of company on solo missions through life. It seems that people use some form of a personal stereo such as an ipod or other kind of mp3 player at any chance they get, whether it be during errands, working out, or roaming the local shopping center. For some people music is soothing and serves as a device to lull you to sleep and coax you through the night. Additionally music is utilized to wake you up and start your day.
I must admit that I too am a slave to these tactics of music usage. Every morning my radio wakes me up to start my day. I listen to it while I am traveling with the radio in my car. When I get out of the car no matter where I am going for the most part I pull out my Ipod to listen to as I walk to or through my destination. Often times I leave the music on when I take a nap or even for the entire night until it just shuts off from being in sleep mode. That brings me to another interesting point. The idea of a sleep setting exemplifies some of what Bull is saying within his article. We have standardized the function of the sleep mode into our stereos, mp3 players, and even televisions. We have been lulling ourselves to sleep with this constant noise until we are almost in a trance like state.
I found the part of the article that discusses the idea of music as background noise to block out the silence. The idea of fearing silence or even experiencing any form of discomfort due to it is just baffling to me. There is something very powerful about silence. I wonder where this fear came from for people since I would say that almost everyone has played the quiet game at least once in their lives. I distinctly remember being forced to play the quiet game as a child in school or other similar places. I would say that there are certain situations where silence can be one of the most powerful actions of a person or even a group of people. I remember in middle school people having “silent days” for some sort of cause. They would seriously go through the entire day of school and not talk to anyone. Yet another thing I’m not sure I completely understand.
The part that I think made the most sense to me was the idea of music affecting one’s mood. I can honestly say that I have certain mixes of music that I use for specific times of day or even certain tasks. For example, I have a workout mix, a homework mix, a relaxing mix and the list continues. It makes sense that my mood changes based on the type of music I listen to. If I’m listening to heavy metal I seem to be more intense and focused. I like to listen to this kind of music while I’m doing a task that I need motivation to get done. But on the other hand if I’m listening to relaxing music with a slower beat I tend to be more lethargic and like to lounge around. I like to listen to this music when I’m taking a nap or making art.
Overall this article on personal stereos was very interesting to read. It gave me a new outlook on my own personal stereo usage. I noticed my music habits and its effect on my state of being. I think there could be many great pieces of art made about one’s mood or emotional state based off of different types of music. I think a comparison of different types of music and the artwork produced from it would be an incredibly interesting study.
Rivers and Tides
I was very pleased to be able to watch Rivers and Tides (even though no matter what I did the movie continually skipped) as this was not my first time experiencing this movie. I think that Goldsworthy is absolutely fascinating as a person and as an artist as well. The way he handles the landscape around him is incredible. It seems that he really treats it as a part of his own self and sense of being with every meticulous placement of nature. I feel he is very persistent too because not only does he spend an almost endless amount of time and effort into his pieces but the problems that he encounters with time and nature are almost self inflicted. Yet he always manages (or at least I think) to figure out a way through the obstacle and create a piece of art through nature that will not last. It is this specific aspect to Goldsworthy’s pieces that I find the most fascinating. For lack of better words he puts his blood, sweat, and tears into molding the earth’s surface and bountiful resources into something that lasts only a short while until mother nature takes it away and smoothes it back into the surrounding landscapes.
During the film Goldsworthy makes a comment about an obsession with forms that are repeated throughout sites yet when he travels he feels “uprooted” and becomes a stranger. Although this seems somewhat like an oxymoron it makes perfect sense because although these “obsessive forms” are constantly repeated throughout nature Goldsworthy himself becomes a stranger due to the change in time and location. This new time and place is unfamiliar to him and he must reacquaint himself with these forms within nature that he knows so well. He also talks about how he shakes hands with the place as to get to know it all over again due to this sense of unfamiliarity he encounters. I would compare this idea to that of déjà vu in a way because it is evident that something is very familiar yet there is an amount of uncertainty and newness to it. Therefore these forms and tides of the new site are triggering that familiarity within Goldsworthy’s mind and being yet he must pay particular attention to this new space as to not miss anything.
When Goldsworthy was building his ice sculpture along the stream he mentioned that he had a discovery during his work with something occurring that he had not originally planned when he began this project. He further discussed the potential that this little discovery, or accident if I may, was unveiled. I could completely sense this discovery of his because it was at that exact moment that I found myself expelling a small ‘gasp’ in awe of the beauty of the light hitting and shining through his ice sculpture. I believe that this is one of the many goals of art to make the viewer experience these little moments of awe and wonder. It is these moments that inspire people and truly unleash the potential of expression through art. I also believe that you can not force these moments but they must just naturally occur during the process of a piece as it did for Goldsworthy. Usually these moments of potential happen purely by accident or through a mistake made by the artist but as you can see by the example in the film some mistakes are good mistakes. They make you think in a way you had not thought of before.
Goldsworthy comments on the fact that many times that the thing used to create the piece is what ultimately ends it—or as he put it “the very thing that brings it to life causes its death.” I think that this concept is almost surreal and touches on thoughts of equal existence between life and death. Although I’m not sure they really can be experienced at the same time they can be experienced by the same factor, which is kind of depressing yet beautiful if you think about it. It is a way of living life that comes full circle and as corny as it made sound it is indeed the ‘circle of life.’ On one hand this idea of giving life and causing death by one solitary thing expresses and expands the idea of potential and yet at the same time it squashes it. I believe it is all a matter of how we as humans explore this idea in order to show its true potential in art and life.
Overall I would say the term “destruction” is a negative one and is associated with less than desirable objects or people. I definitely would not consider what happens to Goldsworthy’s pieces as destruction by any means but rather a form of recycling. In my eyes this “coming apart” of his pieces is simply a part of the art process. It demonstrates the different stages of his creations as it is melted away back into its environment. In reference to one of the pieces within the movie, the wooden cave by the salmon pit, I would classify destruction of that piece as putting explosives in the hole and blowing it to smithereens. However what Goldsworthy did was much more quiet and peaceful and was the exact opposite of destruction. The process of the piece was only continued as it floated down the stream slowly coming apart piece by piece and stage by stage of its life. I would definitely say that human life can be related to this idea. For starters we can really only live one day at a time, no matter how hard any overachiever/workaholic can try. One single twenty four hour period is a stage in our lives and our lives are obviously made up of several days one after the other revealing each stage of our being little by little. Granted there are those who manage to cause their own self-destruction but as far as destruction versus mutation go in life, well that’s just the individual’s own desires and choices.
Goldsworthy mentions that his failures teach him. I think that this makes perfect sense. There are so many different sayings about this exact idea about learning from your mistakes—or even those of others around you. Although failure is not exactly uplifting I believe it has the most impact on who a person is and how they work. Without mistakes no one in the world would ever learn because nothing would ever be considered “wrong” or not effective. Thus, the world would be a stale and boring place to live—I know I would not want to be a part of it because growth is achieved through experience, change, and most importantly, mistakes.
As far as Goldsworthy’s comment about how his projects are “markers” of his journey, I think that without the backdrops of nature in which they reside, the pieces would mean next to nothing. If I saw one of his pieces in a museum I probably would have no interest in it because there is no story to it, and without a story there is no meaning. In a museum, one of these pieces would be just an object rather than art, at least for me. This is because the core of Goldsworthy pieces is about the atmosphere in which they are created and the process it took to create them. Additionally, the importance resides within the cycle of its birth and death rather than just the object itself.
During the film Goldsworthy touches on the ideas of stereotypes and preconceived notions we have about things before we actually take the time to get to know whatever the thing may be. He specifically talks about the sheep in the area and how important they are to the landscape. He mentions that the reason there aren’t any trees is because of the sheep—though I wish he would have gone into much greater detail about that. Personally I feel that stereotypes hold the human race back as far as human potential goes—it holds us back from the truth. I find this ironic in a way because it seems as if most human beings strive for truth whether it is within themselves or through other people. So, the idea of stereotypes and misjudging a person, place or thing is painfully sad for me. Therefore, it was pleasing for me to watch Goldsworthy create this piece about this topic using a jagged rock wall lined with wool from the sheep. This unexpected juxtaposition seemed to say to me “take a closer look” before you judge what is going on. Watching this portion gave me the desire to make art about the flaws within stereotyping and forcing viewers to take a closer look—maybe if more work like this existed it would help alleviate all of the pain in the world caused by stereotyping.
The idea of recording the “absence” of what once existed in a location is very intriguing for me. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find a very good source of information of Joe Sternfeld or many examples of his work but what little I did manage to find was fascinating. I’ve never really thought about recording or documenting the past of something in that manner. I have personally used my own past experiences to create art yet it was still about the here and now as well as how I feel now about this past experience. I’m not really sure how one would go about recording what once was within a landscape other than a few obvious things such as the path that is carved out by water (the Grand Canyon is a huge example of that) or maybe even places that have drastically changed due to something that happened in the area. I think it would be very interesting to record the past or even the void of something. For me it is a very thought provoking idea and makes me wonder about documenting things that are indeed there but are not visible to the human eye.
There are so many more ideas from the film that I could continue to discuss but I think that the most important thing is the experiences I gain from this film every time I watch it. I seem to notice something different each and every time I watch it, whether it be how Goldsworthy approaches something or something he says. He always manages to make me think—sometimes without even talking.
