Responses to Group 4 Readings from Thesis I

About the Birth of The big, Beautiful Art Market

This author begins by comparing the auto market and commercial art to the art of religion from days gone by. A very apt, and decisive comparison. As a former trained commercial artist, I can see the similarities. Yet, he goes on to say that the Whitney Museum, the art school at Yale, and the galleries in downtown New York functioned like General Motors, creating a desire for a product where there had been an obvious need, as in the car market. In other words, even though there is a need for transportation, owning more than one has to become a desire, brought about by the presentation of the product in a glamorous and dreamy manner. I would further add that this is the function of the advertising industry, since desire is their main focus, and creating it the art of psychological manipulation and coercion. He goes on to say that  embodied within this philosophy is an ideology of time and location, thereby increasing the options available to the advertising and marketing industries. He goes on to compare Harley Earl, who was the head of the design department at General Motors, to Leonardo Da Vinci or even better, Monet! Earl invented the winged Cadillac, which also was later translated to the Chevrolet and Buick, and sales increased immensely. Earl was a legend of creating desire. People would go on to improve on Harley, and others, designs, helping to augment the desire for said products even more. He goes on to compare the advertising and marketing gurus to a religion, of sorts. He references the Chicano culture of the American Southwest, where they began to cherish the auto industry almost as much as religion, and bring about the Enlightenment of the industry, helping create the impression that the automobile was the icon of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This enlightenment was the Founding Fathers of America's intellectual tenets, helping to establish a legitimacy of the culture of desire in society, and making this desire an approved way of thinking. He hypothesizes that all of these ideas were adopted by the art market, who helped create desire within art collectors for artist's work, and they adopted a strategy of keeping the amount of art work at a certain level that would avoid saturation of the art market with too many works by a particular artist, helping to further the myth of the promise of new work always around the corner, keeping a level of anticipation amongst the buyers and fans at a fever pitch, waiting for the next big "hit". This concept helped to continue to expand the art market, bringing about a homogenization that helped eliminate the "customized art" in a fury of self imposed resentment, mainly because the low lifes like Harley Earl (?) and Luis Jiménez became conversant with the economics of the game. Although I am no altogether clear on his point, it seems he is saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry now has access to the knowledge of how the art market works, and it has ruined the art field forever. I would disagree with this idea, because the better art available today is typically out of range of the average person due to the cost. Of course, the average person can VIEW the art, should it be placed in a gallery or museum. But to own it would be something that only the wealthy can do.

Who needs a White Cube Anyway?

Ok, so there are renegade art gallery owners who are trying new and different ways to display, promote, and sell art and the artists who create it. I am all for new and different. I think experimenting is the only way to discover a new way to work. As everyone in this school already knows, I, myself, and searching for new and different ways to make art. I feel that the mention of the "Painters without Paintings; Paintings without Painters" sounds absolutely ingenious; a humorous way of of presenting 2d art just sounds delightful! Sadly, there are no photos of these galleries mentioned in the article, which would help those of us who have never been there immensely to envision what they meant when mentioning the "scaffolding" at one gallery, and how it could help even the most mediocre art be a part of a successful show. I feel that unusual space, or space that isn't pristine and white, can be utilized for a successful art show. We did it last year at the Binz Building! Sure, white cubes are a great option for artists in general, due to the versatility it affords for displaying art. Yet, artists are inventive, creative, ingenious types, and they will always find a way of making their art available for viewing. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with displaying art in an old warehouse, or an old car dealership, or even in a person's home. I've hosted parties everywhere, even in an old auto repair garage. The same idea can be said about restaurants and other retail outlets. Some of the best restaurants I've eaten in were old, historic houses, replete with antique draperies and fireplaces. Others were more novel, such as an old train car, or even the back of an old delivery truck!! And any of these kinds of places would also be a interesting way to presenting art. Heck, if I had an old panel truck, I'd peddle my art out of it, by painting the side with garish, outlandish colors and themes, and putting a weird, old fashioned horn on it. Maybe even updating the sound system to do what they do with children's ice cream trucks, with interesting, unusual music such as Ned Rorem, or John Cage blaring out instead of fairy tale music. It may not resonate "high quality" to the audiences, but it will get some serious attention, by both press and those who encounter the vehicle on the road. So, I am all for any place where a person can sell art, whether it is a white cube, a black van, or an old whorehouse. Nothing should ever be out of the question. EVER!

Ignorance is Bliss

Well, I think many of us had already thought about this sort of thing. Many times, we feel we are doing well, only to find out we really are not. Of course, those of us who learned that our skills were not as good as we thought in our earlier years allow for that option, and admit we aren't quite as good as a matter of humility, just in case we aren't good in a particular situation. Testing and proving this would, in many ways, be almost impossible. First, you would need to be certain that your test subjects will be honest in their critique of a certain subject. Second, that none of them are involved personally with the subject. Third, that the subject is prepare for this test of performance, at least in a basic sort of way. Many variables remain, however, and overcoming them may be impossible, such as knowing just how polite the audience is or how critical they can be. A motivator could try to convince them to be critical, but there is no way of knowing just how critical they will be. 

Obviously, this concept applies to almost everything, from being an artist, to being a student, to being a parent. Modesty and humility would be a great way of preventing any such failure, to a certain extent. Society in general would be better off if more people were to practice humility and modesty in their lives everyday. Throw in some manners, and you might even solve a lot of the world's problems!

The Birth of the Contemporary Art Fair

This article was a revelation. I had never researched when the first art fair was started. I think the article was enlightening and encouraging for the market, making it obvious that future possibilities are always an option. It was genius the way Rudolf Zwirner and Hein Stunke decided to invigorate the Cologne Art market by aligning all the galleries and artists to participate in this first art fair. I am surprised no one had ever thought of it before. Frankly, I had felt that the art fair had probably evolved out of necessity from a market at a time when sales were low, and it seems a natural progression. If you'd asked me, I would have said it had probably started back in the 30's or 40's, not the 60's! Of course, understanding the market in Germany and London at the time helped to understand how these two gentlemen came up with the idea. Just as I mentioned previously, necessity was the mother of invention in this instance. The lack of collectors in London had forced Zwirner to abandon his plans of opening a gallery in London, and to return to Germany to help change things there. And to learn how this concept spread to other European cities is also a interesting read.  From Cologne, to Lausanne, to Basel, to Paris, people began to realize that an art fair was not only a novel way of presenting the art (in a new way, not unlike the other previous article about the White Cube) but it also alleged fears that an art fair like this didn't seem to reduce the value of the art, but rather helped raise it! Fortunately for us, this idea spread to include American cities, including Art Basel Miami, which for me personally, was a great way of taking in more art in one week than I had EVER consumed before! Let's hope that future developments have such a positive effects as the invention of the Kunstmarkt has had on the art fair circuit!

Response to "Transaesthetics" By Margaret Lovejoy

"Art: An Elusive Target"

- A Response -

By Alan Neal

To reading group 3 - "Transaesthetics"

By Margaret Lovejoy

It seems Ms. Lovejoy is trying to analyze the place for art amongst new technologies. Some of what she says seems to be very valid to the present technology we use in art and science. She seems to present both sides, the positive and the negative, of what technology can accomplish or achieve. Although this article is 39 pages long, I will try to keep this response to less than 500 words.


In the first chapter, she references a 1995 performance by Laurie Anderson titled "Stories from the Nerve Bible", who references Walter Benjamin, a German who fled the Nazi regime in 1940, and described it in terms that apply to technology today. This uncanny reference makes use of an analogy out an "angel of history", who witnesses what is perceived by humans as one unfortunate incident after another, but the angel sees it all as one giant tragedy, piling up in a heap at his feet. He wishes to awaken the dead to help makes things right again, but is overwhelmed by a storm blown in from Paradise, which catches his wings and blows him backwards into the future, while the heap at his feet grows larger and larger. This storm is what is referred to as progress.


While this entire episode seems rather pessimistic, it does ring somewhat true about technology. Today, if we buy a new laptop, for instance, the moment we leave the store with it, a new one has come out to replace it. The same can be said for most of our electronic devices: cell phones, video games, vehicles, even residences. Technology, it seems, moves faster than time itself. However, should we be this pessimistic about technology? can't we view these man made devices as tools? And aren't we taught that tools are only useful in the hands of a creator?


Artists in particular seem to straddle the divide between seeing technology as an advantage and as a curse. Further into this article, she writes that art students must learn "the new technologies, debate their roles in society, master their use, and renovate visual languages", and that they must "master the operations of [this new technology, and understand] artistic, scientific, [and] philosophical aspects of twentieth century history", in order, presumably, to allow for new methods of creating art which could have an impact on marketplaces worldwide. Many artists have done just that. However, many artist are somewhat skeptical about using technology in any way, much less to enhance their art. I feel that being afraid of a tool means you just don't understand it. All tools bear inherent dangers, either of being used improperly, and creating disastrous results, or, as in the case of power tools, causing physical harm. But fear must not limit us to using only the "safe" tools in our work. Fear is one thing that can destroy our ability to think, to explore, and to experience new things. I feel that this article contains useful ideas, but we must, absolutely, keep in mind that being pessimistic about the future is not going to be helping anybody’s cause! The glass half full always trumps the glass half empty. Without optimism, our society is doomed. Even though our politics and the pressure from religion can sometimes seem overwhelming, if we don’t keep our hopes alive, what are we here for?

Response By Alan R. Neal to Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics By Claire Bishop

“Audience Requirements: Interelational Art and Audience Participation”

Response By Alan R. Neal

to Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics

By Claire Bishop

Describing the Palais de Tokyo, Ms. Bishop explains that the renovation of the old Worlds Fair Exhibit space designed as the Japanese Pavilion has been reassigned as an “Idealogical Exhibition Space”, something that is becoming a trend in Europe, where they are trying to get away from the traditional “White Cube” exhibitions, revisiting the idea that the art should dictate how space should be used, not the architecture. Since architecture can vary greatly from location to location, this seems to reinforce the ideas set forth by the 1920 International Dada Fair and the 1938 International Surrealist Exhibition. This idea, although not a new one, obviously, has caught on with gallery owners and curators alike, who seem to be trying to set a new standard for hanging art. This approach seems to want to highlight the rebellious nature of contemporary art. Allowing for more interaction with the viewers, more honest dialogue between the viewers as they view the works, and creating a form of art that is more social experiment than a gallery full of paintings, sculptures, or installations. Artist such as Liam Gillick, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Phillippe Parreno, Pierre Huyghe, Carsten Höller, Christine Hill, Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan, and Jorge Pardo, are all seeking to explore ways of displaying new ideas and different ways of thinking about art in the context of social behavior and social interaction. Te space seems to be a integral part of the art installed, and it is designed to present the art in the manner in which the art was created/ Some artists record the reactions of the viewers. Others spend time observing or interacting with the viewers as if they were just another viewer. In such cases, the viewer becomes an integral part of the art. Without them, the art would just be “a bunch of stuff in a room.” Some explore the space between sculpture and functional design. Others are just happy for viewers to “just stand with their backs to the work and talk to each other.” This way of displaying art allows the artist to design for social, rather than aesthetics, and opens a way of interaction that effects both the artist and the viewers. Still others ask “Who is the public? How is a culture made, and who is it for?” Many of these ideas and questions are meant to be open ended, so that the discussion can continue indefinitely, even after the show is over. Bourriaud argues that “encounters are more important than the individuals who compose them,” I sense that this question is (for him) unnecessary; all relations that permit “dialogue” are automatically assumed to be democratic and therefore good. Some of these artists actually compare what people will do for money, as opposed to what people will do for no money, and how that effects the viewers. Of course, something like this has to be documented, which makes one ask “does the documentor experience the art in the same way as the participants? Or as the artist does?” The answer is probably not, since we are all different due to our different experiences. Individuality becomes a factor in art such as this, as well as environment and relationships. In fact, everything becomes a factor, such as the weather on the days the work was being constructed, and the politics at the time, and anything else that may or may not be quantified. When art becomes a part of everyday living, or becomes a reason for exchanging and interacting amongst the viewers, the possibilities are endless as to the results. It brings into play the random, childlike innocence that Dadaism belies, as well as the positive outlook on the future that Futurism belies. It can also be argued that it brings a surreal element to the work, in as much as some interactions may go horribly wrong, since it is, after all, involving the public. And we all know how surreal the public can get sometimes!

Responses to Reading Group 3

“Mixing it All Up”

Response By Alan R. Neal

to Challenging The Literal

By Daniel Chandler

I find this article extremely fascinating. Explaining Metaphor and Metonyms in such a way explains a lot about language, thought, theory, and practice. It brings into focus the esoteric ideas of reality, which state that nothing is real. Things SEEM to be real because we have been told, all of our lives that, they ARE real because we can feel a thing, or taste a thing, or smell a thing. But in reality, everything we experience is nothing more than vibrations. Many esoteric theorists put forth the idea that our entire universe is nothing more than a collection of vibrations, and that it is nothing more than our interpretation of these vibrations that make them seem real to us. Much of our reality may very well be programming supplied to us very early on by our parents and siblings. One persons reality may be completely different from another persons, and we have no way of understanding their reality because we can’t be them, we can’t get inside of their heads. All we can do is empathize with them, and we can only hope that our feelings are a reasonable facsimile of theirs. It is, of course, true that we are all the sum of our experiences. And that each of us have vastly different experiences. As we live our daily lives, we become accustomed to a certain geographical or spatial area or region, and we accept that our reality is similar to those who experience their lives with us. But how do we really know?

Even identical twins have different experiences, because they do not occupy the same space at the same time in the same way. Rosicrucians teach that a candle, when lit, is not really a candle at all. And if you were to meditate on that candle for an extended period of time, trying to force your mind to believe that it is something other than a candle, then you can convince your brain to believe that it actually is something other than a candle. When I was a kid, I had a friend who was a certified genius, and he used to challenge me by asking what if my parents weren’t really who they appear to be? That maybe they were secretly extremely wealthy, and had paid each and every person I see every day to play a role in my life, even if it is just as a passerby or a face in the crowd. And what if everything that had happened to me had been planned by them, according to some grand design that had been laid out for me before I was born, in order to achieve the results that is me now. How would you know? We see in movies all the time that reality can be something other than what it appears to be. The movie “Inception” is a prime example of it.

This article explains that language is all metaphor, and that even explaining metaphor has to use words that are metaphorical in nature. That there is no absolute way to portray accurately any idea or concept without comparing it to something else; that each sentence is relational to some other sentence or idea. I believe this is true. And applying these ideas to our art is only natural, or even necessary, thanks to the nature of truth in representation. If art is another language, one full of emotion and fear, of desire and repulsion, of every feeling humankind has ever had, then even art is a metaphor, or a metaphor of a metaphor, and can also be described as the “suspension of disbelief”, thereby rendering it only an expression of the artists language, which may not be the same as yours, but is, nonetheless, a language of validity, since all language is actually a lie, an untruth that we create the concept of truth with. 


Existential theories aside, if we touch a table, are we really touching a table? Or are we touching something that we’ve been told is a table our whole lives, and we just THINK we are touching a table? Just because it looks like, or feels like, or taste like a table, doesn’t necessarily mean it IS a table. Essentially, it boils down to energy being transferred via your network of nerves, arriving at your brain, telling you that you are correct to think, with all your knowing, that it is a table. Yet, it is nothing more than a metaphor of a table, as is everything in our present reality. Since nothing is real, what is keeping our imaginations from creating new realities, new existences, and new dimensions that we people with our own creatures and things? Understanding this is actually vital to understanding everything in the universe. We were all made the moment the big bang occurred. We are made up of the stuff that stars are made of. We are our own universe, living inside of a universe, that may or may not be a tiny part of a much larger universe, that may be a part of a much, much larger universe, that is really in the midst of an even larger universe….where nothing is real, and everything is just a vibration of energy!