.

.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Questions

Place your two questions pertaining to the class readings for tomorrow here!!

11 comments:

  1. In one of the articles it is noted that qualitative research and the participant and an artist and the subject have a similar relationship. However, I feel that a third componenet was left out. The viewers or readers How do you feel that the relationship of the viewer and reader differ between the qualitative research and art project? How do they interact with the participant/subject, and researcher/ artist? are there differences? do you note any similariies?

    In the second article, it is stated that the biggest question both artists and anthropologists have to anwser is why are you here? and who wants you here? If, we were not welcomed into the community we are working in for CETA would our creations still be considered art? would it then be considered graffiti or litter if we did not have these connections within the community well established? Did previous CETA classes ever have these issues?? Is art and the study of culture not defined by those doing the work, but by the viewers and individuals that inspired the observation?


    ReplyDelete
  2. Kathleen's: Some of the collaboration mentioned in specific projects seems to form very close relationships. Do issues of authenticity often come up in dialogical art- collaborators not receiving the credit they deserve, the artist not actually being the artist, etc.? If so, how does this affect the perception of dialogical art?

    Lippard: Why aren't "real community artists" in vogue? Lippard says this several times, and it seems disheartening, especially to CETA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Burke's Article:
    Without the participant, the artist would be left without a presentable project. Clearly the relationship between an artist and his participant is vital to the artist’s progression, and I can see how the boundaries between the two begin to blur if the artist approaches the project correctly. However, is the audience not essentially the biggest piece of the puzzle in the completion of the artist’s work? After all, the point is to reach out to others through art. Perhaps the idea should be to blur the boundaries between all three of them.


    ReplyDelete
  4. Question about “Farther Afield”

    On p.26 of her essay, Lucy Lippard quotes Suzanne Lacy who has written that art that is committed to “social justice and public good” is “often unpredictable, rarely controllable.” Personally, I find the idea of art that is unpredictable—both in its making and in its life—exciting. Still, one question that Lippard’s article raises for me has to do with the evaluation of this kind of changing, uncontrollable art: How can we evaluate its effectiveness/power? According to what criteria? In the absence of criteria that are technique-based, what becomes a measure of the success of art? Lippard does say that when this kind of art works, it is “both beautiful and important,” but she does not articulate an idea of aesthetics.


    Question about Burke article:

    Burke’s article focuses on ethics: how to conceive of and practice dialogical art that is ethical? On pp 9-11 she brings up two models of ethics—utilitarianism and feminist communitarianism—and goes on to describe each of them. Because these are models adopted by qualitative research, considerations of aesthetics, beauty or emotional power play no role in either of them. My question here is similar to the question I asked of Lippard’s essay: what criteria do we have to evaluate the power of art based on feminist communitarianism? How do we know when it works?

    ReplyDelete
  5. On p. 26 of her article, Lucy Lippard brings up the question of responsibility, an issue to which she repeatedly returns. She insist, rightly so, that while artists have “a social mandate to take risks,” “aesthetic daring must be balanced with responsibility (accountability) to the communities with whom the creators are creating.” Clearly, responsibility should matter when artists work with living people. But Lippard goes on to describe community-focused art as unpredictable and, ultimately, uncontrollable. How to be a responsible artist, then, becomes a real challenge…

    Kathleen begins her piece with a quote from Claire Bishop who claims that “today, political, moral, and ethical judgments have come to fill the vacuum of esthetic judgment” (1). I would like to know if Kathleen herself thinks that there is a vacuum of esthetic judgment in contemporary art and art practices.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lippard:
    On page 25 Lippard states that she admires the artists "who don't just explore but hang in, who stay and help expose and perhaps even help solve problems." She says that this demonstrates the difference between "artists with and without practical politics." I also admire artists who are catalysts within a community they have become a part of. However, does this mean that in order for artists to practice practical politics they must either evolve into a "local" or enter into a community possessing a mind-set similar to a Missionary? What steps does an outsider artist need to take in order to "hang in" verses "explore" a community?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Burke:
    Burke's piece concludes with her desire for artists to consider ethical discourse when working in dialogical art in hopes that artists will "approach and collaborate with others in an ethically sound way." What happens when an artist disregards sound ethical discourse when creating dialogical art, yet claims otherwise? For example, photographer Shelby Lee Adams has gained notoriety for documenting Appalachian family life in images that emphasize some individuals' supposed freakishness or backwardness through unnecessary dramatic lighting or other creative effects. As an Appalachian himself, he boasts authority on the subject within the artistic world and easily gains his subject's trust. (http://anthonylukephotography.blogspot.com/2011/08/photographer-shelby-lee-adams.html) Should artwork like his continue to be respected as ethically sound dialogical art?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Burke's reading:

    What would you say to someone who did not buy the statement that in dialogical art, there is an "inherent moral relationship"? "Moral" really has many different connotations, depending on who you speak to.

    Lippard:

    It is stated on page 25, "The rather utopian notion of 'reciprocal ethnography' has been widely imbraced, but less widely carried through." What do you think is the most important step in carrying through this notion?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Burke article:Dialogic art seems to promote the idea that an objective multifaceted conversation is created with the work in which equal collaboration is necessary for the piece to be legitimate. Do you think that the article’s rhetoric surrounding dialogic art and the relationship of artist/participant by comparing it to a researcher/subject allows the first in each pair of relationships to uphold a certain amount of extra privileges that taints the legitimacy of the dialogue as an open and equal conversation for the purpose of art? Does this allow us to view the dialogue concept in dialogic art as a faulty term disguised a science experiment? At what point does the researcher/subject and artist/participant become equally mutually beneficial?

    Lippard article:
    "Artists have a social mandate to take certain risks. Yet unequal power makes unequal risks and aesthetic daring must be balanced with responsibilities to the communities with whom the creators are creating," Shouldn't any mandate on what art should be or what ethics should be tied to certain artistic pursuits despite their eventual outcome ( whether positive or negative in the eyes of the public) be seen as mutually defeating? Can rules and art be voiced in the same breath at this point? Although ethics in public art or community engaged art is seemingly progressive in the since of whats culturally acceptable to say and do in public, isn't it conceptually regressive in the overall question as to what art is and how it functions?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Burke:
    Ethics are a common source of contention or at least a common framework in which most disciplines are framed today, as Burke even notes with "The fields of social science and art have also begun to intersect..."(2) How can these ethical conversations be measured, as most discussion surrounding "ethics" are quite...well, qualitative. This can, of course, be answered with thoughts or academic notions that I am not yet aware of...?

    Lippard:
    On page 24, the author discusses a dichotomy that art is often placed inside of, either above the common intelligence of the common man, or simply decorative. Why do you think this dichotomy exists, if art is supposed to push boundaries? Additionally, can art be both aesthetically captivating and decorative as well as challenging or "beyond the comprhension" of the common man?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Burke:
    Near the beginning of this piece the claim is made that the line between anthropology and dialogical art is blurring. In the future do you see dialogical works not only being looked at by the scientific community, but also regarded on the same level as anthropological Works?

    Lippard:

    Lippard's piece had me considering the relationships between anthropologists and those they study and dialogical artists and who the study. Do you think that the artists have a more honest relationship or not. And do you think this helps or hinders their artwork.

    ReplyDelete