Is the medium the message?

On Monday my seminar talked about the public sphere and what role the media play in creating a sense of it. My TA, Elysia, brought up a lot of interesting questions regarding our readings for this week, but what I found most compelling was her question of 'is the medium the message'? Also, she went on to ask what we thought was more important; the message itself, or how the message is conveyed -- the medium.

Our society has become completely dependent on our vision; what we see and what is shown to us shapes how we think, feel, and progress. Because of this visual dependency, I fully believe that regrettably, the medium is the message to us, and subsequently the medium has come to mean more than the message. A possible example of this would be Shelby Lee Adam's work. Even though Adams has made vocal statements about his pieces, claiming them to be an exploration of his heritage and Appalachian life, people still draw their conclusions from the images alone. Regardless of his words and written proposals, people see these unedited images of realistic life and immediately label them as exploitative.

Another example would be how over-the-top commercials have become. Instead of having a woman with nice, in-airbrushed hair stand beside a bottle of Pantene shampoo and simply tell us it works really well, we have to have gorgeous beauties prance around our television screens with nothing more than a bikini on, and hair more luminous than the sun itself. We've become susceptible to flashy, in-your-face visuals. Billboards plague our streets and bus stops, and every time we watch a program we're thrown at least 5 different ads every 10 to 15 minutes. Without the medium of a message we lose interest quickly, perhaps this is because of our dependency on visuals, or because we're incapable of paying attention to things that hold no visual medium. Either way, the medium has undoubtedly become more important than the message; now I wonder, is this a good thing?

"The Gaze" and the photo's from Abu Ghraib Prison.

"The Gaze", as defined in last night's lecture, is how practices of looking function within different social relationships. Basically, who is being looked at and why? Last night's lecture was based on how images, power, and social control are connected, and in regards to that, I found the question of "the gaze" to be a vital one. Even more specifically, nearing the end of the lecture when we began to talk about the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, that question of how we see things within different social relationships, resonated in my mind and begged to be pondered.
When the abusive pictures from Abu Ghraib surfaced, so many things came in to question; fundamentally, what is wrong with us, but also, what's the big deal? Personally, I felt sick to my stomach. I hated seeing that North American soldiers would do such things, but what I hated even more was that people around me didn't think it was a problem. My own family and close friends shocked me almost as much as the pictures themselves; they would say things like "they do it to their prisoners, so we can to" or "whatever, they deserve it...damn terrorists". I could not and still can not understand the ignorance of some people, and it drives me crazy for I believe tolerance and open mindedness are essential when listening to others' opinions. What's wrong with us, North America? - please, tell me.
Anyways, recalling those past arguments and throws of opinion brought me back to the idea of "the gaze", mostly because there were so many thoughts connecting the idea of how we look at things to differing social contexts. The pictures of Abu Ghraib raised issues we as a western society didn't even know existed, and those issues were raised because of perception. People saw the abusive images and went crazy; feelings of injustice and guilt spread like wildfire. We as a society share a social relationship with these images -- we are the onlookers who do nothing, the cultural brothers or sisters of the torturers. When we saw these images, we felt horrible because our subconscious questions were being answered; our instincts were being justified. Our practices of looking, our initial perceptions, were boosted by pre-inspired guilt so we reacted. We gazed at these images, and brought forth a unified meaning, we said 'this is wrong' and remedied the mistakes.
I'm not sure if much of this has made sense, however this entry is my attempt to understand 'the gaze' and try to apply it's meaning to an issue brought about in lecture. Hopefully, I've achieved this.

David Hockney's Theory.

Last week we watched an incredibly interesting film by David Hockney; it was riveting. In my opinion, Hockney's theory of great master painters using the camera lucida to better their work, really makes sense. Granted, a lot of his evidence was circumstantial, but I strongly believe after the entirety of the film, that optics were used to some extent.

A lot of controversy was raised by this film; some people felt that Hockney's thesis was completely wrong, some felt it was completely right, and some felt cheated - as if the camera lucida's possible use made the great masters of the past 'cheaters'. I don't feel this way. If the camara lucida was in fact used to the extent Hockney supposes it was, it only helped in accuracy, not talent. I found this qoute from Hockney on this website ( http://painting.about.com/od/oldmastertechniques/ss/camera_lucida_4.htm ) and it explains my point perfectly;
"The lens can't draw a line, only the hand can do that ... look at someone like Ingres, and it would be absurd to think that such an insight about his method undercuts the sheer marvel of what he achieves."
There's really no way to say it better; even if the camera lucida was used, you can not call our master painters cheaters. They were still masters of their craft, still impecable artists with great insight and talent. If anything, their great use and mastery of the camera lucida itself can be seen as an accomplishment if it was in fact used so much.

In short, I found Hockney's video to be enlightening and interesting. I took no offence from it, and hope those who did will be able to look at it positively and see that no injustice was done.

Nuit Blanche.

This weekend I went to Toronto and attended an event called 'Nuit Blanche'. Nuit Blanche is an art festival that is becoming a yearly tradition for Toronto. To sum it up quickly, you're given a map at the beginning of the night when you go to the first exhibit (located at OCAD - the Ontario College of Art and Design) and then you're expected, or at least encouraged, to spend the entire night, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., walking around the city looking at different displays of art. Initially I was excited for the event; my friend had been telling me it's a huge night with all different kinds of art for all different kinds of people and this idea appealed to me. However, I regret to say my time there was, well, regrettable.

I didn't encounter a single piece that spoke to me - I found every piece of work to be at least one of three things: irrelevant, poorly done in a technical sense, or simply shallow. This was very disappointing.

When I look at past great works of art, I see technique; I see beauty, thought, point, purpose, representation, significance and creativity. Last night, all I saw were flowery pots, over-the-top performance pieces, extravagant but shallow installations, lazy paintings and uninspired quilts. This all sounds very cruel and perhaps I'm completely off and this is all uncalled for; maybe what I encountered last night really was magnificent art and I just didn't get it. This is very probable because I tend to be overly critical, but at the same time I feel what I'm saying has at least some validity. People have just lost 'something', whether it be creativity as a whole or just the flare of originality, that 'something' is truly gone and I don't like it.

I think there are a lot of things that have happened to the artist's of today to make them the way that they are. One is that my generation is completely coddled; you cannot tell someone these days that they are wrong. We're all just meant to be tolerant and open-minded in every situation no matter WHAT is being said, unless of course it offends someone: what a vicious cycle. This has made the new artist a pompous breed; a collection of people who are simply right just because they have to be. How can you be composer if you can't hear the scales? You can't, and that's my point.
Another aspect is that we're a media driven age. Yes, Andy Warhol and many like him devoted their work to the media and used their art as a critic and illustrative device as to how the world was changing. They already did it, so why is EVERYONE doing it? Yes, I get it, media is bad, but it's not THE ONLY THING that's bad...in fact, there are A LOT of things going on right now that are much, much worse. Paris Hilton is a horrible role model, yes....but you know what's worse? World hunger, pollution, twisted governments, endangered species, unfair trade: there are a bundle of bad things in this world...why is all of our artists' attentions going towards something as fickle as the media?...Because we live and breath it, therefore we paint about it.

Artist's seem to ignore the use of social constructivism or mimesis nowadays, and I don't see why. The work they produce now - it's stagnant. The work at Nuit Blanche depressed me - all I saw were cookie-cutter copies of things I have seen before, and I don't want that. I want to be provoked; any emotion would be good, I just want to feel something and unless the artist's of today step out of their comfort zones of recycled ideas and fabricated artist statements, I fear a lifetime of perpetual disappointment awaits me.

Brian MacKay-Lyons

The Brian MacKay-Lyon's lecture was over a week ago, actually it was close to two weeks ago, but I feel it serves as a good blog topic. A lot of the concepts he spoke of really stood out to me which is really something since I have never been intrigued by architecture before. Firstly, his concept of sustainability struck a cord. I really appreciated how MacKay-Lyons looked at architecture and that the environment as well as cultural aspects were constantly taken in to consideration. He spoke of social agency - urbanism, humanism; he claimed that buildings should be 'custom made', so to speak, for the communities that will be using them. His concepts of the community working together with it's structures spoke volumes and it was refreshing to see that people still harbored such concerns.

Brian MacKay-Lyons also touched on his design techniques which were also interesting. He claimed that his vinacular buildings were extrememly functional unlike a lot of modern architecture. He explained that his buildings were/are made to use up as much space as possible within the structure while using as little land as possible around the structure. Again I loved this concept of space and it's importance. MacKay-Lyons described his work as ship-like, ghost-like and generally 'diagonal'. He said that he started out by making very simple vinacular structures and then proceded to build upon his initial ideas and go for a more abstract approach. This notion of metamorphasis made me appreciate his work even more, for I truly respect artists that are open to change and forever continue to grow.

Usually I find flaws in what is presented to me; basically, I'm generally quite critical. However, in light of this aspect of myself, I genuinely liked and appreciated Brian MacKay Lyon's work. His concepts and finished products impressed me greatly and I'd really like to see more of his work around me in the future.

Visual culture - my first reaction.

Thus far Visual Culture has been an interesting class -- we have already talked about the meaning of it and the different ways in which it is represented. The meaning of 'visual culture' is basically what we see during any given day; it includes artwork, advertisements, photographs, symbols, signs etc. Though the definition seems vague, I have found already that it changes from person to person. I have noticed this mostly in seminar, but I'll talk about that more later.

Representation in regards to V.C. (visual culture) is basically the use of words and imagery to create meaning and give insight in to the world around us. This is important -- we all interpret things differently so how can we truly understand some thing's representation? We do this by seeing, I believe; looking beyond the obvious and analyzing the subtleties of what we see.

Alright, now for what I have noted in seminar; we all have different ideas of what art is. I have already commented about this on the blog site, but I find it really fascinating and want to elaborate on it. One of the girls in my classroom argued that we must see everyone's creative work as art. This includes all mediums - painting drawing and even digital photography. Digital photography stuck with me for I believe there is a grey area there that must be addressed. I have two images I would like to show to illustrate my point.

This is the mona lisa painted by the great Leonardo Di Vinci...



This is a classic 'myspace' image. It has been edited. Colours have been intensified, parts have been airbrushed and features enhanced. Very little effort was put in to this...how can it be art?



I believe there are a lot of digital artists, however, I don't believe everyone deserves the title of being an artist. People spend their lives devoted to their craft and work to bettering themselves day in and day out...you can not tell me my friend here is an artist just like Leonardo Di Vinci.....you just can't.

That's my post for now, more to come soon!
-Ariella