Guidelines and paper attached will pay you for your time as well as advice... will compensate generously
AH 2101: Art Since 1945
Take-Home Essay Assignment: Due at the beginning of class on Mar. 10th
So far this semester, we’ve examined several artists, critics, and theorists who have explored the relationship between art and daily life. In this essay, you will discuss and at least two authors (not including Fineberg) as well as three artists who grapple with, take up, or address this relationship. How does the static and/or shifting nature of this relationship reflect modernist or postmodernist sentiments?
Write a concise, well-organized, and grammatically correct, 4-5 page essay, bearing in mind that your essay should include:
1. Introduction and thesis statement paragraph. (i.e. What will be you be arguing in this essay and why). This should be at least one (long) to two paragraphs.
2. Summaries the author/art critics’ main arguments.
This should be a detailed yet concise summary of the author’s key ideas.
3. Describe the work of art in detail including its formal qualities and the historical circumstances of its production and reception.
4. Proper citations.
Times New Roman
1 inch margins
I strongly encourage you to bring a draft of your essay to a tutor in the Learning Center to read through. If you do this, please attach the reviewed draft to your final paper.
Please see me ASAP if you have questions or need clarification, don’t wait until the night before it’s due.
MY PAPER THUS FAR... ACTUALLY MY GIRLFRIENDS for art school at Minneapolis College of Art and Design check her work out as well her name is Stephanie Friest... Thanks in Advance
The sixties within the United States underwent a reformation of ethical norms which to some degree, galvanized the sexual revolution that was beginning to take place. This cultural upheaval can be understood through the makings of artworks from this time period. As hegemonic norms persist, I will try and shed light on how the creation of artworks within this time period very much depended on who was creating them, where such works were being created, for own and what mode. Indications of how some of the work that was created sheds light on the patriarchal interpretation, categorization and display of art was subsequently depended on how western art theories verbiage ultimately dictated meaning and implication of such seeing’s. It then, to me, becomes somewhat about the different modes each artist communicative methods that further back this artist revealing.
In regards to the relationship to between the maker, material and meaning, a correlation between artistic occupation, gender and socio-political position can ultimately dictates the mean to which it is received. I am apprehensive with this paradigm and I will argue absolutely dictates how the work has been perceived and furthermore, its hypocrisy. Regardless of social ranks or nobility, the perception of the artwork is reflective of the artists sexuality, sociopolitical standing and means or mode of communication in its display ultimately prevail in interpretations of the artworks created within the 1960s.
I will try and uncover the consequence of such notions of the artist as genius and what may constitute that. Western arts traditionally and historically used devised rhetoric that is comprised of notions as to what it is to be great, powerful, “good” and what may be observed passively. The artist as “genius” is entirely situational in accordance to art historian, Linda Nochlin, the individual genius is innate… and is principle to the creation of its makings and perhaps indicates what gender the artist may be. Furthermore, this sets forth an impudence in its understanding. A placeholder is established and the work is then apposite to the audience, which ultimately defines the meaning. How the work is communicated, and by whom is entirely dependent on the context to which it has evolved. Within this text, I will explore the performative work of Japanese artist Yoko Ono, minimalist sculptural work of Andre Carl painting of some of the artwork that has materialized throughout this decade.
I am a figurative painter with a focus on the female form.
(Because) I am a painter, and throughout this short essay I want to focus on art that pertains to this medium… furthermore I want to highlight the era of the 1960s and how the art being created contemporaneously to that of the sexual revolution within the country and seemingly the world In taking a look into the arts that have spanned throughout that decade, my aim is to discover how the notion or nature of juxtaposed
The agency that I get when I create something as intimate of the painting of my body propels me find concentration on how the body is handled and received by its audience. Within the article by Anna Chave, Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power, such notions of power are seen to be handled with the rhetoric.
Minimalist sculptural, painterly and performative means within its decree exert a denotation of power, albeit through means that are very much sparingly.
Such artists vary from Yoko Ono with whom created performative and filmmaking works such as Cut Piece of 1964 to the minimalist sculptural works of Carl Andre, which utilized materials economically, and oddly leaned more towards rhetoric both I think, display notions of power; albeit approaching material in different ways. This communicated a contrast throughway what was made industrially, to what the natural female body withholds, ultimately allowing the proprietorship. This ultimately contrasted Yoko Onos Cut Piece but I think in many ways bear similarities in that both do not condone any claim to be outright politic in nature but in many ways ends up being. Both the physicality of the work, and its delivery in regards to their approach of communication, therefore necessitates its meaning byway of viewership. The idea that the tangibility of the piece involves the literal cutting of garments off the skin of a woman, or that a sculpture loom so immensely over its viewer, to me, speak to some degree about the juxtaposition between the industrialized commerce, politics and gender stereotypes. To me, each work I am examining withhold this overwhelming feel of power, just inversely.
Towards the end of the sixties the emergence of geometric and mathematical formulations not only were profoundly influential within sculpture but also evident with painting. This methodology used by artists, I will argue were the powerful nature to each Onos reductive, and very tanigle performace in a way mirrors the ideal of the minimalism as isolating an objects and then the exposition of it derived forms within painting, performance and sculpture. The simplifications of artwork within the forbearance of 1960s is evident of a time of contemplation, examination and interpretations of sexuality and gender norms and how such identities can dictate the meaning of an artwork.
The conviction to any implication of sexuality whether or not it is meant to encapsulates the expression of the artist intent – is further consequent to the sexual orientation and or gender of the artist. This bleeding into the work of 1960s working artists is than, regions, and medium mirror that of th
That the minimalist sculpture of (artist) and (artist) possess this stage front of power and greatness. How the power of the language that was used by many artists make for something that --- on the contrary can seem vastly different than the work of female performance work – where quite literally the crowd strips bare the clothing, cutting at times, forcefully, from the flesh of a woman.
Within both realms, communication is utilized in very different ways, and sometimes at all. And the power that I think both withhold byway of socio-political nature, medium and is dependent on the artist themselves to
Can objectification ever truly be avoided within representation?
Why Have There Been No Female Artists?
Is the meaning of an f art work/ piece/ something that is endowed by its maker? Or does the meaning sit outside and is left up to the audience to fulfill. Whichever it is to be, I am unsure, but I will highlight a period to which very differentiating works leave the audience with different meaning ---
I will undoubtedly argue this to be / feel genuine in that I do not think an artwork can sit afar from the maker: that influence is spewed throughout the making and the taking of such matter. There are there certain facets / components that vary / sway / meaning, perhaps. For instance, what are the implications of gender created it and what does it mean to be in between? How can one tell, is it throughway by performance, verbiage? Throughout ____ my interpretation of the matter sheds light on a time period within the 1960hat involves artists that span / contemporaneously
Is there a correlation with means of display and gender – can there be similarities that are made between medium and maker? I feel that is undoubtedly interconnected, comingling and (as of now)
underlying within my work is this nagging
I think that regardless of what the work may have been about expressing, gender and how that IS viewed within the society to which it is being created have more of an influence
is the question about woman as artist, one is to find the myth of the Great Artist
Chapter 10 – In the Nature of Material: The Later Sixties
Minimalist sculpture can be likened to an extension of abstraction. The very implications of such makings were created with the intent to be easily understood and void of the artist or It derives (majorly) from the 1960s in the United States. “ABC Art” an article written by Barbara Rose, wrote about the recent emergence of “an art whose blank, neutral, mechanical impersonality contrasts so violently/ forcefully with the romantic, biological abstract expressionist style which proceeded it that spectators are chilled by the apparent lack of feeling or content.”
- The new art asserted an unsymbolic – which I THINK / consequently / contradicts (because) the art that was being created,
According to what Anna Chave highlights in her article, “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power
Quote by Teresa de Lauretis describes
Conceptual art, an art which struck out for independence from the physical object all together
Subsequently, vastly differing from that of Yoko as she herself is the art piece – one that is to be endowed with meaning and that to which is to be consumed.
“Artists that are indicative of the minimalist movement sought to all together attempt to treat works of art literally as objects instead of as vehicles for abstract ideas or emotions, and yet, as evident in works by Andre and Flavin”
Minimalist work dependent on “prodigious amount of polemic- written largely by the artists themselves- to reveal the motives behind these apparent simplistic works”.
- Words like monolithic used to describe such works
- Carl Andre, created such works as the Pyre (Element Series) constructed in 1971, Minneapolis from a 1960 plan. Wood, eight units, 12 x 12 x 36in each: which is essentially a stack of timber.
- All the units within this work are of equal size and proportion. The medium is wood planks stacked to create a sort of geometric shape and that bares space within the center. The play with negative space and the three dimensionality of the work creates balance.
- Verbiage like th
- Sometime later in his makings, he encountered Frank Stella and eventually started the utilization of anaxial symmetry in which any part of the work can be replaced by any other part, as evident in his Pyre (Element Series)
In the article Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power, by Anna Chave, a great amount of the text circumvents around how the usage of minimalism as instrumental within a sphere, “aloof from politicsd and commerce and above personal feeling
such words like balance, gesult,
Within the text ideas that resonate: antagonistic relation to the viewer
- The cool displays of power that is exhibited through the artist creates a sort of ambivalence towards people of power and the dynamics between that and the un-power some possess.
‘the relations of power involved in enunciation and reception’, relations ‘which sustain the hierarchies of communication;
i.e. white men making work based on the universality of the objects being utilized – but not having commonality to the socio-political nature of the work or that it is viewing. By way of using minimalist dismissive / disunion / formalist language like – space and -composition it is in itself a political statement. That the artists utilization of such jargon is in itself a privilege – in that the artist is revealing blind spots // for them to say that their work is not a political statement // that it is void of this is indicative of privileged.
To make materials from industrial material that quite literally distances the viewer from it is evident of these blind-spots, the controversy of it. // Artist Judd ex.
- “unofficial spokesman for the new art throughway his “clear prose style” -Fineberg
- He coined the term for Specific object, in 1965 which refers to the literalness with which this new sculpture and painting revealed itself to the observer as precisely what is was in the physical sense rather than as a metaphor or representation.
Minimalist work reductive in appearance / juxtaposed with the literalness of Onos cut piece and its reductive nature to her performance piece. BOTH leave the viewer with the responsibility of endowing the work with meaning – BOTH reductive in nature – BOTH politically charged – BOTH shielding light on the gender norms and how art / the art perpetuates such notions.
Judd throughway of this usage of the [Plate 43] …” availed themselves of the cultural authority of the makers of industry and technology”.
Usage of geometric shapes = restriction within the language used/
Problematic, masculinist power is evident.
The “equating with power, rather than with feeling or communication, may or may not strike a reader as strange” – Chave
Art has withholding this quality that exudes the expression for the artist – what does it mean to not withhold these qualities… for instance Judd
his work can be read an intensely not expressive
common approbatory language in the description of work that is meant to be seen or is viewed as being powerful
I honestly cannot think of a venture/ endeavor more / or as bold than as to create a work that means nothing and is made from materials that the artist did not himself make and to call it balanced and compositionally astute because it bares not means.
Judd for instance, --- his work was read as to be quite literally powerful and dangerous. The authoritative nature to such structures as evident in the Shape and Structure exhibition, one of the very first minimalist exhibitions of 1965 at Tibor de Nagy. Carl Andre submitted a work that was so massive in size it caused the gallery floor to collapse which subsequently required its removal. White male artist(s) were obviously unapologetic about even the repercussions of such
- As the male body is understood in strength, measured by criteria of force // preoccupation with strength physically and through the military strength but with “fiscal, cultural, emotional, and intellectual strength…”
- In this the language of power becomes the authority and it always gendered to be male in these instances.
- Things that are “good” is dialogic
- “good” as autonomy/ autonomous IS ABOUT SELFISH MASCULINITE and based off of 16th century art historical notions of art. These are the kinds of ideas (about art) that shaped the western art history rhetoric.
- Monotony of minimal sculpture
Even if I were to sit there and think that because I am a human that identifies as woman, that I could, theoretically speaking, could have expended such materials as seen within the works of Carl Andre, or perhaps just Minimalist sculpture entirely, and expect for the meaning to not come off as pompous or pretentious that I have come to think the portrayals of the working gernerated and occupied a special sphere,” according to Chave created an aloofness to set it apart politically, economically and void of emotion --- WHICH IS FUCKING ABSUR