The Social Process of Art

The two films that I chose were: Uncertainty: Modernity in Art, and Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. I chose these films because as a Sociologist and artist, I am more interested in the social aspects of art. “Art” per se, as something that one derives meaning from, does not exist. “Art” is a social construct. Social forces motivate art to be constructed socially. Therefore, I could not bear watching another film on the interpretation of a specific artist.

The first film I watched, Uncertainty: Modernity in Art was phenomenal! It did the one thing that the textbook refuses to do in any chapter: present art within a social construct over time. The film talked about the social forces, some very dark forces, that created a social milieu in the art world. It talked about colonialism, Nazism, the cultural values of western society over time, cultural diffusion, the economics of art in the marketplace, and every aspect that the textbook misses.

In other words, instead of treating art as a “humanity” within the academy, the film intersected art with social science; which is where art truly belongs. The narrator makes the case nicely, without ever really saying it, that art is a social process. There are lots of other interactions that people have with their environment and social milieu that is also a series of social processes; economics, socialization, group dynamics, just to name a few social processes. However, if everything else is a social process, then so must be art.

The narrator almost takes a Marxist approach toward the end, where he suggests that modern art is a medium in which people can realize who they really are, both individually and as a member of society. Marx posed this idea of realizing who one really is as class consciousness. Marx also posed that idea that man had become alienated from himself, others, and “nature” due to Capitalism as it represented itself during his time – the industrial revolution. The narrator also suggest that man has been alienated from nature as represented in modern art.

The film was excellent in placing art as a social construct, and representative of social forces over time, squarely placing art into the social sciences, instead of some abstract interpretive enchanted thing that magically appears because of a random thought.

The second film, Abstract Impressionism and Pop, was completely devoid of anything meaningful, and boring. The narrator took a social construct of “abstract impressionism” and tried to force his own interpretation. The whole point of “abstract art” is that it’s supposed to be “abstract.” He was very technical in analyzing the techniques of various art works. The problem with this approach is that it speaks nothing about a social construct. This film speaks to everything that is philosophically wrong with the fine arts; that it never poses any ideas of meaning for the larger social context.

Burchfield Penny Art Gallery Visit

Step 1

I went to the Burchfield Penny  Art museum where they currently have an exhibition entitled “Biological Regionalism” by Alberto Rey.

Alberto Rey is a scientist who visualizes biological science, and presents it in a way that impacts people on an emotional level. If there was a function of biology called “Visual Biology,” this would be a good representation. This is very similar to my work in Visual Sociology, where I use images as data to represent social life in various forms and theoretical frameworks.

 Step 2

The lighting for the presentation varies depending on the medium. For some paintings, individual lighting is used. Some paintings are groups onto a large wall, and track lighting is used to illuminate the entire wall. There are items in cases that represent a type of “archeology” to the Scadjaquada River and its pollutants. There were also paintings with cases underneath them, where each garnered its own lighting.

The walls were plain, off white. In one instance, in a large gallery area, the upper portion of the wall was painted with a map of the creek, with corresponding paintings displayed under the map (see photo).

Movement through the gallery space was confusing. There was no consistent flow between this exhibition and others. There were side rooms with displays for this exhibition, but they were unknown, and not labeled. I only discovered them by wandering.

Step 3

The artworks were organized in a very linear pattern, with each painting either occupying its own space, or set directly next to each other from a left to right pattern. There was no originality in organization. While the exhibition may have been intended to be viewed in a linear pattern, I could find no requirement to do so. Also, the other exhibitions were organized in the same linear manner.

The artwork that was different from the pollution aspect was separated by space, being placed across the room. There were paintings of fish and other water animals, while the pollution aspect had its own area. There were other areas where video images were being displayed showing current photos of polluted waterways in Western New York.

Each artwork was labeled with a placard next to the painting on the right. Each placard was informative, including a science summary of chemicals found in the water, with corresponding water sample with pollutants in it.

Steps 4 &5

As there was no Art Criticism Worksheet in any of the modules on Blackboard that I could find, my description of the art is off the cuff.

The presentation was unique in the sense that it combined art with science. The texture of the paintings was largely oil on canvass. The colors were largely aqua and green, with elements of reds mixed in, as in the case of the fish and dead animal in the water. While diagonal lines were used in two of the paintings, it is clear that there is no movement intended – the animals are dead. Dead animals cannot move. The diagonal lines are thus representative of special significance.

Cubism and Expressionist art

The films that I chose were picked completely at random.

The first was on Cubism. Unlike the textbook that portrayed cubism as only having 2 artists, Picasso and Barque, this film added more!

As a French speaker, I learned that the narrator likes to over-accentuate his nasality when speaking French, in an effort to make himself sound more proficient than he is. I also learned that the narrator likes to use $50 words for absolutely no reason. While I have a very extensive vocabulary, and have published writings, I see no need to use $50 words in narrated videos, other than for pomp. The problem with pomp in an educational environment is that it’s not very conducive to education.

In the section of the film about the painting “And Englishman in Moscow,” the narrator assumes what the artist is thinking, and spends too much time analysis what might have been in his mind, instead of focusing on the art. Then, after making a ton of assumptions about the thought process of the artist, he asks: “What does it all mean?” It was as if the narrator forgot his own assumptions that he had just made.

The film was entitled “The Impact of Cubism.” Yet there was absolutely nothing in the film about the actual impact of Cubism upon anything! It’s clear that Cubism had an impact of Futurism and Expressionism, but instead, the film focused on “case studies” of specific artists. I learned absolutely nothing about the impact of Cubism on anything more than artists that lived in the shadows of Picasso.

The second film I watched was simply called “Expressionism.” While this film again focused on case studies of particular artists, it was informative in the sense that the artists were not “stock,” and that it explained the difference between Expressionist art and other art from the beginning. Expressionist art was about the human condition; portraying interactions between people and their social environment. Even in the darkest forms, there was interactions between people, revealing social processes in sex and gender, socialization, internal reflections of a social world, and interactions with natural environments. Art was truly more sociological in Expressionism.

I found little correlation between the films and the textbooks, other than a slight expansion of Cubism.

Cultural Appropriation and Exploitation

I chose the video on Buddhism and the African legacy of oppression.

I chose the two videos because as a Sociologist, they are descriptive of social institutions of both mechanical and organic societies (Durkheim)

For Buddhism, there wasn’t much that I didn’t already understand in my studies of social institutions. I did however, not know the history of the schism that exists within Buddhism. And while I understood that asceticism was a mainstay in Buddhism, such as Max Weber’s analysis of Capitalism in asceticism within Christianity, what I did not know is that Buddhism sought to balance asceticism with desire.

For African Art, I find several similarities to Native American Art, which I am sensitive to and familiar with. There are 562 Native American tribes in North America, each with their distinctive cultures, and not a single one of them ever created “art” for aesthetics. African art wasn’t considered “art” until someone was willing to pay for it. The same holds true for Native American “art” as deifned by western European culture.

Also noteworthy in the film, is that much of Africa suffered a holocaust as a direct result of colonization. This is not ever acknowledged within the art world, because consumers of art often do not think about why another culture would create something. The same hold true for Native America. Native America also suffered a holocaust that not only isn’t acknowledged by the art world, but also not acknowledged by most governments. Anthropologists estimate that by 1492, when Columbus “discovered” a land that was already populated, that there were 30 million Native Americans in North America. According to the 1930 Census, there were less than 200,000. Populations have picked up to just under a million by 2012.

This is the backdrop under which cultural appropriation occurs. Cultural appropriation happens when one group take cultural objects from others, and appropriate them for their own purpose – be it museums or laboratories. Most Social Sciences now forbid cultural appropriation – returning artifacts found to the original people. The Art world, including Art departments on college campuses, still engage in cultural appropriation and see nothing wrong with exploiting other cultures.

It’s frustratingly comforting to see that both Africans and Native Americans are being exploited by their colonists, in the sense that at least Americans and Europeans are equal opportunity exploiters.

Renaissance Art

Two videos that I watched were the drawings of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci: The mind of the Renaissance.

I chose both films because they were both iconic in completely changing western civilization. Michelangelo is still debated today on his works, their interpretation, and invoke strong emotions. da Vinci's work culminated in current technologies from helicopters to clocks, and created a whole new artisanship around mechanical objects.

Both used similar techniques. They observed the world around them, and found function as well as meaning in what they saw. da Vinci especially would be instrumental in the creation of the scientific method of observations. By observing the world around him, da Vinci would create almost everything modern for his time.

Both artists used 3 dimensional aspects to their works, along with hatching, shadows, and light.

Both films added much greater insight into the creative process of two artists that were the most influential on social forces to present day