FINALLY! I’M BACK!
Hello everyone!
After an extremely long hiatus, that being successfully completing my Masters Program in Art History from UCD, I have decided it is time to reinvigorate my blog. The funnest part of doing the blog was being an informal art critic of local art and artists as well as reporting back about my curatorial adventures. I plan to do the following:
Review local, current, art exhibitions as honestly as possible. Since I don’t have a newspaper or employer I am not worried about, I am free to be as gushy or as critical as I please. Hopefully this will lend itself to possible attendance to the exhibition, a comment or an eyebrow raise?
Additionally, I want to renew a project I tried to take on before starting my Masters Program put on hold: an investigation, documentation, and exhibition of the late, yet popular and influential, Sacramento art gallery of the 1960s and 1970s called the Belmonte Gallery. This is a much longer effort but I plan to report on and post information along the way.
Hope to re-interest some viewers with some action:) Sorry for the two-year delay!
Kristina
Natalie Bookchin
After a fruitful weekend, I think I found the case study/new media artist for my thesis that embodies the ideas I have about the changing roles of the 21st century artist, art, institutions, art viewer, etc.: Natalie Bookchin (http://bookchin.net/). Her newest works are a change from her previosuly internet based works to a Duchampian appropriation method of found media on the internet which can be displayed in both on and off line spaces. I think I will focus on…
Testament series (including ‘Laid Off’, ‘My meds’, and ‘I am not’) (started 2009, ongoing) http://bookchin.net/projects/testament.html
Mass Ornament (2009) http://bookchin.net/projects/massornament.html
and Trip (2008) http://bookchin.net/projects/trip.html
I have included the net.art introduction link below for anyone interested in written by Bookchin and another new media artist, Alexei Shulgin, in 1999 as part of an art work:
http://www.easylife.org/netart/
Shameless Plug: Lecture I’m giving Nov. 10, 2009 at 4:10pm, UC Davis (Art Department, 210D)
Regarded/Disregarded: The Reception of “Body/Culture: Chicano Figuration” from 1990-92
Nationalism (maybe modernism?) for thought…
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 1991, 2006
& John Smith, Nationalism and Modernism, 1998
Tough week for the social theory and comparative history seminar! We had to read two books and compare/contrast the two. Interestingly though, it was one of the most interesting concerning our seminar’s questioning of modernity and how it should be defined and whether or not the ideology is still useful. The first book was by Anthony Smith called Nationalism and Modernism and the other (far more exciting, interesting, and provocative) book was by Benedict Anderson called Imagined Communities. Smith’s book was a review in most ways of nationalism discourse and its many branches. It was prescriptive in the sense that he did try to give a basic definition of nationalism and argue that more cross-discipline partnering is necessary but he played it very safe. Anderson, in contrast, made a very specific claim about nationalism, how it should be understood, and how we can apply it to twenty-first century notions considering the advent and proliferation of technology/transnational ideologies. Reading the two together made for a great contrast in methodology and they really did complement each other. The following is my comparison and analysis of the two readings more closely.
Both Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith attempt to define nationalism by illustrating the complicated, paradoxical nature of nations, nation-states, and cultures associated with such. Nationalism, for Smith, is, “…a modern movement and ideology, which emerged in the latter half of the eighteenth century in Western Europe and America, and which…is now beginning to decline and give way to global forces which transcend the boundaries of nation-states.” (1) Also, a nation and nationalism by default are particular types of communities which are conceived by the collective patriots. Smith tries to lay the battle ground of nationalism scholarship and argues for an overall generalized definition and transdiscipline approaches in the future. Smith is very careful to not pass too many value judgments but sees the diametrically opposed perennialist and modernist approaches to nationalism as valuable. Anderson also believes that one succinct definition of nationalism is difficult but he does offer that a nation is, “…an imagined political community- and imaged as both inherently limited and sovereign.” (6). Thus nationalism since the 18th century has been created, distributed, reinvented, constantly narrated via history, and very complex. If we consider the two definitions together, we can deduce that maybe Smith’s definition is potentially too restrictive and Anderson’s allows for a universality that underlies the political entity itself.
Smith categorizes Anderson’s approach to nationalism as “modernist”. Maybe there is some truth to this if we summarize, thus far, our working definition of modernity and then consider how this relates to Anderson’s approach to nationalism. Modernity is self reflexive/critical, self fashioning, participates in “othering” (continually dialectic with both positive and negative outcomes), is an interplay between paradoxical inherent opposites (inherently pluralistic), constantly looks back to move forward, could be considered a universal human experience (on the basis of humanity), and continually negotiates individual autonomy versus the collective in question. Similarly, Anderson’s nationalism is constantly self reflexive, which can be seen in borrowing from the modular nationalisms provided initially through the print-capitalism of the French Revolution; self fashioning in the sense that boundaries were demarcated (census’, maps, and museums, oh my), histories were narrated and re-narrated, and language was the main tool of unification; this self fashioning was also instantaneously in a sense a way of “othering” (especially Anderson’s discussion of Imperialism and nationalism, colonizer versus colonized); through self fashioning and borrowing from past models, looks back to move forward (see Walter Benjamin’s quote on 162); and through defining nationalism as “imagined communities” instead of associating it with a specific time and place, allows for these communities to continue to be imagined in the twenty-first century (thus, the mass proliferation and appeal of his book in the first place). Smith was indeed right that Anderson used a modernist methodology to describe nationalism. Anderson’s approach in consequence, provides yet another example of modernity in action as does the nationalism he discusses.
Example of some of the first visually constructed imagined communities….
Battle of Sociology Indicative of Modernity
Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology
Wolf Lepenies, 1985
Lepenies states that the purpose of his examination of French, English, and German sociological scholarship from the 18th – 20th centuries is to layout the battleground and disunion of the social sciences. Lepenies does this to show that this battle was actually indicative of the contentions between, “…the Ancient Regime and the modern age, Restoration and Revolution, Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment” (12). The danger of polarization that we can trace throughout Lepenies book is at once the warning to the social sciences but modern society overall as well. Bridging the individual and collective goals, emotional and rational bases, is what the German sociologist’s eventually achieved in the 20th century through their critical sociologic approach. Exemplary of this, Hans Freyer argued that it took, “…struggle and exertion, asceticism and renunciation” (345), to create an ideal sociology which both is of and serves society. We may consider whether glorifying German sociology over the French and English versions is an inherent bias of Lepenies, as he is German and so was the original text.
Besides the assumptions that the reader could read both French and German language, had previous contextual information for the time period, historical events, and sociologists/authors discussed, and understand undefined terms (such as modernity), Lepenies does in fact illustrate the sociological battles of the time and allows for a better understanding of how sociology as a discipline came into being. However, Lepenies alludes to relationship between sociology and modernity briefly but leaves most of the connections to be made up to the reader. It seems that Lepenies was more concerned with relating individual sociological works than clearly relating the overall implications of his work.
In the epilogue, Lepenies touches on Heidegger’s important point that sociology’s function should be a ‘knowledge service’ that would be universally applicable throughout the global society (345). Similarly, considering the direct correlation between the struggles of sociology and modernity, an underlying service to humanity and improvement thereof seems essential to defining modernity. Lepenies approach is much like Kern’s in that both use a particular period of time and case study to examine modernity’s process, struggles, and ultimate need for balance between modernization (cold rationality) and modernism (culture of feeling and man). The paradox inherent within sociology in Wolf Lepenies book seems to read as the contradictory nature of modernity itself. Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology, I would argue, could read something like: Between Modernism and Modernization: The Rise of Modernity.
The Culture of Simultaneity
The Culture of Time and Space
Stephen Kern, 1982
In Stephen Kern’s book, The Culture of Time and Space, he explores the simultaneity of advancements and progress during the period from 1880-1918 using a thematic approach. Kern provides two main categories under the overarching theme of simultaneity, time and space. Even further, Kern divides those categories into sub-sub topics: Time as past, present, and future and Space as form, distance, and direction. Technological advancements, most notably the telephone, telegraph, cinema, bicycle, automobile, and airplane, were the largest influences in producing change. In addition, Kern chronologically argues, in the last couple of chapters, that World War I was the other major force that completely flattened how traditional conventions of time, space, and life were previously considered. Kern considers time and space to be universal human experiences that are thus, the reason his thematic approach (and wide arrange of topics, disciplines, and fields of study) works.
Interestingly, Kern considers spatiality and relations to thereof more effective then time limitations or understandings. The past, present and future were fairly obvious and well known divisions of time thus were not as revolutionary as spatial relationships between people, places, and throughout the world that were radically changed by technology. The distances, direction and forms of communication and contact were dramatically shortened, sped up, and had positive and negative consequences. The telegraph and the telephone were much faster forms of communication than diplomatic tradition thus the failure of diplomacy and the speed of inaccurate information caused the quick decisions to go to war. Space between countries was decreased and the time of the present was thickened to the point of counting minutes, not days. Critically speaking, the jumping around in time within particular sub-categories or the repetitive discussions of the Futurists, Joyce’s Ulysses¸ or the Cubists became ineffective, for me. However, I really appreciated the simultaneous tying together of time and space within the final discussion of the ending force of the period, WWI and his individual conclusions per sub-category of time and space.
Kern touches on modernity in the preface and otherwise, argues in less clear language throughout the book that a sense of the past is essential as is the universal experiences that we share. He argues, like Berman and Toulmin, that looking back at the private and public pasts is a way to approach the future. By discussing the modernization and modernism of the thirty eight years, Kern ultimately sees modernity as a stage or one part of the overall process, just like post-modernity, that is interdisciplinary, based in universal human experience, and defined by particular times and spaces. Kern does not supply any future expectations, approaches or prescriptive solutions for modernity because it is not the main focus of his discussion. I think that maybe for us, we should apply Kerns’ work to our current age and that ultimately, we will always be governed by time, space, technology, and simultaneity. Within certain times and spaces, modernity will be rendered accordingly. In that respect, Kern and Wagner both historically and contextually organize their approaches to modernity (Kern not as purposely) as thematic, outside of the strict chronological or philosophical framework. Whether or not a thematic or more specific chronological approach is better, I do not know. I think Kern’s thematic approach, concerning a relatively small amount of time, was an effective way to consider modernity (whether he was trying to or not).
The Marxist Humanism of Marshall Berman
All That is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity
Marshall Berman, 1982, 1988
You may wonder: what is Marxist Humanism? The term has its foundations in Marx’s conception of the “alienation of the labourer” as he explained it in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Alienation, born from a Capitalist system, causes the worker to no longer functions as a free being involved with free and associated labor. Thus, the human who was disenfranchised by his own labor, becomes less human and objectified/commoditized. Instead, the worker becomes animalistic, primal, and survival-based. The worker becomes a slave. He must produce simply to meet his most basic needs. Therefore, anyone who uses a Marxist Humanistic approach is using this branch of Marxism, that concerns the connection between the individual worker and the capitalist system at large, to critique the same dynamic and the balance between the two. Most tend to focus on how the worker is affected negatively and how a better balance between the larger system and the individual can be achieved. Marxism or socialism or communism are not necessarily the answers here.
Marshall Berman, who wrote All That’s Solid Melts Into Air, uses Marxist Humanism to explore Modernity through three main phases: 1. 16th-18th centuries when Modernity is first experienced (uses Goethe’s Faust); 2. From King Henry’s death around 1790 forward into the 19th century when modernization is gaining steam and the French Revolution affects Europe (includes Marx here); 3. And 20th century Modernity when modernization has complete taken over the world and we have been fragmented by Capitalism. Berman believes that by using modernist principles of continual dialogue, critique, deconstruction, and reconstruction to improve the world and humanity overall, we can combat the 21st century focus on the wants and needs of the elite and return to the needs of the workers (people).
Berman, like Toulmin in Cosmopolis (see post below), argues that by looking back at the history of Modernity we can know how and where to pickup the fight for improvement. If you don’t initially get depressed by Berman’s assertion that we should constantly and infinitely strive to better humanity and that the “job” of Modernity is never complete, maybe you will when you find that Berman offers no remorse. The paradox and contradiction of continually striving to better humanity and once you think you have, you must start all over again, is exhausting. It does make you want to stick your head in the sand (or books in my case:). However, just by attempting, just by fighting, we are fulfilling Modernity and our purpose as modernist individuals.
Berman is very careful, however, not to specifically define any of his terms. “Modernity”, after discussion with colleagues (thank you Melanie), consisted of modernization and modernism. Modernization, which employs science, politics, and economics, is a false, superficial world where time marches forward and the illusion of progress is always growing. In contrast, Modernism, based on the arts, culture, literature, and humanities, is true, always in the process of becoming better, truthful, and a constant act of liberation. Berman argues that for Modernity to be successful and not end in failure or absolute destruction, a balance between the two branches must be achieved. Interestingly, Berman still holds an optimistic view of the world and the potential of Modernity. He stated that it is a universal way for the modernist individual to join the fight for the improvement of the collective humanity. By all the workers uniting under the constant fight of Modernity, “All That’s Solid” will not continually “Melt Into Air”.
nettime-1 Digest
I really like nettime-1 Digest. It is a filtered mailing list for net criticism, collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the net. It is a hub of political, artistic, and global information occurring in the world now. Every few days, I am updated with the current events via the 21st century of global communication (the internet of course). Of the many articles that cross my hotmail, twittering and how it affects the success of terrorist attack attempts being one of them, the following article regarding the Resistanbul Committee of the Ungovernables (http://resistanbul.wordpress.com/) is one of the most interesting since I began receiving the emails.
The following is the shortened version of the Conclusion report of 1-8 October [2009] anti-capitalist resistance days against the IMF and WB summit by the Resistanbul Committee [The poster for the event is provided]:
“We are announcing our own economic and social program which is both a
proposal for a libertarian anti-capitalist way of life that we have
already started to create in different sectors of society, as well as
a proposal for a way out of global capitalism. Our program consists
of a series of resistance and counter-struggle tactics that can dig
down the roots of the capitalist world system that has colonized all
parts of our life…
…In an age when life is being colonized and controlled by the powers,
ways of resistance are being multiplied through the development of
imagination, courage and solidarity. For this reason creation of a
horizontal network of all different social struggles and connection
of all resistances will be the goal of social movements for the
coming years” (nettime-l Digest, Vol 25, Issue 9).
There are political activist anti-capitalist groups attempting to gather and discuss new forms of assembling for the greater collective good. This I found encouraging. The main reason being that as it stands, with the world in debt to a select few powerful individuals (aka: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank), wars and violence in many portions of the globe (including our backyard), and continued severe poverty in Third world countries, we need another approach to how the collective needs of the people of the global community are met. The Resistanbul Committee can not hope to provide a clear solution but beginning, inspiring, and continuing the dialogue on such issues, is a start.
I plan on continually sharing the highlights, so to speak, as they peak my interest. For complete access to nettime-1 Digest, please see the link below:
http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
COSMOPOLIS
Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity
Stephen Toulmin, 1990
In Cosmopolis, Toulmin redefines the received and standardized view of “Modernity” that historians have up until now, agreed upon. He argues that instead of passively accepting the Modernity of the 17th century which “began” with the scientific and philosophic founding fathers, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, we should instead think of Modernity as having two distinct phases. The first practical, humanist phase began in the Renaissance in the 16th century with Shakespeare, Montaigne, Erasmus, who thrived off of the Enlightenment theories. The second phase, which was more theoretical and scientific is what Toulmin describes as the standardized account. By redefining Modernity, Toulmin effectively argues that by looking back at the past and understanding what occurred and also what went wrong, maybe we can apply it to the present day.
Toulmin describes the 21st century world’s approach to issues as “backing into” them with eyes shut in denial. He adequately notes that we are not addressing the global issues at hand because we do not have a proper system in place to do so. Toulmin believes that by reworking Modernity and applying the newfound principles from it’s multiple beginnings and contributors (especially the first phase), we can potentially do the same for our century. The practical, humanist, and realist approach of the 16th century Renaissance Modernity is what is needed instead of the universal, removed, general and timeless tactics of the 17th century. As Toulmin points out, “Three sets of problems have attracted special attention- those of nuclear war, medical technology, and the claims of the environment: none of them can be addressed without bringing to the surface questions about the value of human life, and our responsibility for protecting the world of nature, as well as that of humanity” (186).
Toulmin prescribes that not only is Modernity not dead but has just been in a coma. It’s principles of activism, striving to improve the collective humanity, fighting against injustices and inequalities, and constant contradictory progress and regress, can be revived in the 21st century. They can be used to come together to fight for essential freedoms and rights that are currently not provided. I believe in free health care and education for all American citizens. While this may seem lofty, these should be considered basic human rights. Maybe through Toulmin, we can begin to see the need for a continued practice of Modernist principles or third phase that will focus more on the needs of local communittees as well as wider transnational functions while dispersing the authority held by few (206).
Interpreting the Reading Experience of “Modernity as Experience and Interpretation”
Modernity as Experience and Interpretation
Peter Wagner, 2008
Wagner’s discussion of modernity throughout different periods and context began with an examination of the social force itself. He claims that, “…modernity refers to a situation in which human beings commit themselves to self-determine their lives, their relations to others and their ways of being in the world” (21). The most successful part of section one, chapter four, examined modernity in conjunction with the project of emancipation. Wagner did this by using both philosophical (Kant) and sociological lenses, providing turbulent ‘1968’ in American history as an example. He concluded that, “…the commitment to individual autonomy is a fragmented part of the ‘1968’ heritage…” (72). Thus, modernity was in spirit, practiced but the question of what was to happen afterwards was left unanswered. Wagner argued for a necessary quest in finding the balance between focus on the individual and the collective.
In the second section Wagner calls for a historical-comparative approach to examining capitalism and modernity to accurately understand their purposes within different contexts. By narrowing one’s understanding of Capitalism as a sole definitive thing, the varied understandings and permutations are neglected. Wagner provides four main considerations of how modernity and capitalism have been interpreted which included a more capitalist dominant society, a more modernist dominant society, a complete intertwining of capitalism with modernity or with them as coexistent but still distinct (79). Wagner argues that these standard critiques of capitalism tend not to live up to the requirements of modernity (109) thus we must consider his new way of thinking. I enjoyed his discussion of American capitalism (110-114) because it really illustrated his point and seemed more relatable to a wider audience of potential readers. To argue further that his historical-comparative approach should be employed, he traces the use of “flexibility” within capitalist discourse (123-41).
Wagner’s objective in section three was to review the development of the sciences, including the social sciences, under modernity in order to point out the differing relations to either the epistemic problem or the economic and political problems on the other (148). Wagner seems to favor the social science’s approach to knowledge as being interpretive and not definitive. In fact, it seems he would like science to mirror it’s example by being more ‘flexible’ and less permanent in its claims to factual truth (187). In section four Wagner returns to “origins” of modernity. I really enjoyed this particular discussion, probably because it is the area of modernity I am most familiar with. He used Europe to really show off the strength of using the historical-comparative methodology to consider modernity.
Lastly, in section five, Wagner drives his point home by plainly (and thankfully) stating that because modernity has undergone so many major transformations since the 17th and 18th centuries, and within a variety of different contexts (as he has demonstrated throughout the course of the book), that now is the time for a different approach of interpreting those differing experiences. Wagner points to the separation between sociology, philosophy, and political theory as a problem that needs to be remedied in order to address the modern changes taking place. In addition to his personal methodology, Wagner argues for a renewed use of historical sociology to examine modernity, capitalism, and democracy. Then, hopefully, a common interpretation may emerge that can move societal progress forward.
Of the critiques I have of Wagner, on a semi-superficial level I have to complain about his lack of variation in verbiage when setting up his argument. “On the other hand…” or “First, Second, and Thirdly” were employed way too much. Additionally, his historical-comparative methodology was at times very clearly articulated which in turn, strengthened his argument for considering modernity in that way. However, it seemed that most of this clarification and advancement of his argument occurred in the later sections of his discussion. For instance, when Wagner referenced particular examples like American capitalism or modernity’s origins in Europe, Wagner’s argument was both clarified and strengthened. One could argue that most claims are constructed this way with the background, foundation first, examples second, and overall clarification of the main argument last to drive the point home. While this is true, it is also fine to clarify your main argument throughout your discussion and not just near the end.
Despite this main critique of Wagner, I really enjoyed his methodology used to explore modernity through a wide array of different approaches which included politics, sociology, and historical examples and contexts. In the end, this made his argument for a new approach (possibly his…?) to considering the quickly transforming modernity of the twenty-first century, quite convincing.
