lucy hue

(this one is called, “everyone thinks you’re an asshole, carl andre”)

i read an article lately called contemporary art’s body language which posits that we are witnessing the return of the figure in fine art, the author john seed suggesting that more and more contemporary artists have begun to display their technical skill at rendering the human form as a reaction to the barren, minimalist abstract art that dominated the visual culture of the 20th century.  seed recognizes that while the proliferation of modes of media dissemination nowadays denies any one style of art to take on the weighty status of a “movement”- a singular, unified undertaking like the impressionist, surrealist, abstract expressionist movements which came before us- it seems as though artists across a broad range of mediums are concerned with the way the one universal trait we all share- having a body- defines us in contemporary life.





whether it is in glitch art, which explores how one’s conception of the limits of one’s body now extends into the digital universe, or in oil paint, where we now see the realist style of the 16-19th centuries employed in scenes of 21st century,  urban life, the themes and references proposed by the figure appear to be much more recognizable, much more accessible, than the esoteric modern art that has left art museums feeling cold and oppressive to the public for the greater part of the 1900s and early 2000s. as a.o. scott remarks in his NY Times article, "we are in the midst of hard times now, and it feels as if art is failing us." at a time when the body has become yet again an electric subject- charged with issues of race, as seen in the recent protests against police brutality, as well as gender and class and sexual orientation- i can state my opinion that re-addressing the body and the biases of looking at it is socially productive and necessary- not only for the survival of the art institution and its relevance to society but also to serve as a mirror of our current behavior, the public battle of our beliefs, of power relations.
while a similar push to re-integrate the body into art occurred alongside the civil rights movements of the 1960s in the form of radical performance art by the likes of marina abramovic, robert morris and carolee schneemann, popular belief that contemporary art is too academic or too removed from society has forced us to re-evaluate just how we should achieve such re-integration. after all, watching schneeman pull a scroll out of her vagina may not be as accessible to the public as a highly trained art historian might think. emerging artist kehinde wiley’s oil paintings, on the other hand, make us bluntly confront the politics of black bodies by presenting life-sized portraits of black men and women in contemporary clothing posing and staring back at us much like the rich merchants and generals of dutch portraits. the signifiers are there; even an untrained eye can dispute the relevance of their clothes, their expressions, their gestures; the scale of canvas, or the choice of background.
 
 
 

in this sense the return of the figure represents a sort of democratization of art, bringing the conversation back into the realm of the public forum where anyone- not just the art institution- can contribute and discuss ideas. we already see this happening on the internet, where art is being circulated, reviewed and commented upon more than ever, by people from art experts and dealers to those who approach the work from a different angle completely, perhaps simply interested in the subject depicted. if the right kind of curator brings the figure- like wiley’s work, or else something recognizable- back into the language of the contemporary art museum, could we see the same sort of interdisciplinary discussion occurring in person?

this opening up of the conversation or democratization, however, would not be groundbreaking, but would follow the same blueprint as almost every other game-changing movement in art history, from impressionism to the dutch golden age. dutch painters such as vermeer and jan van steen often drew the public into the conversation by depicting familiar characters of dutch life- of high and low social standing- in ever-so-subtly controversial ways. the dutch painters seemed to be obsessed with painting what seemed to be everyday, well-dressed housewives drinking and socializing with foreign men (assumedly soldiers from overseas) in their homes while their husbands are away. we see that the sun pouring through the open window in each image strategically illuminates the wine glass she is working on, provoking frank discussion on whether or not day drinking could be considered acceptable behavior in their society and what these strange men are doing in their “moral” upper-class homes.









contemporary artist Susan Copich in her series domestic bliss takes a nod from the dutch masters, using figures in her photos to similarly question the “normal” american household, what constitutes a moral housewife and the limits of what we would call “functional”.

 

in all of its in-your-face offensiveness, copich’s work ends up a bit more effective than this post’s opening artwork by carl andre, wouldn’t you think? dont get me wrong, i have always been a supporter of conceptual art and have painstakingly tried to explain its significance to my friends who may have less experience with art, academically or otherwise. while i and many art historians could argue that conceptual art contains more "reality", as it reflects one’s embodied, subjective experience of the world rather than just the way it looks, i could not argue the same for my friends, who view minimalist work and see nothing but steel on the floor.

maybe its my frustration that i have only a few people to talk "art" with, but i think including and encouraging the uninformed or "low-brow" opinion could bring contemporary art closer to what it strives to be - a truly open-ended, no-answer-is-the-right-answer type of practice which thrives on new approaches to the same problem. in order to do so, and to sum up the bulk of this post, we should value those artists that represent a world we can relate to, with all the substance and grime and bias that we see and deal with everyday. as a.o. scott suggests, we need to "to advance a discussion about what art has done and should do at this moment of political impasse, racial tension and economic crisis,” and allow as many participants as possible into the ongoing conversation.

~

outlaws, porn stars and ‘civilized’ sexual morality

    

 

 
 

 


 
in this post i present to you my final sexual ethics paper, written in february 2014. while what i write i find to be complete common sense, and despite an outpouring of support for the LGBT community on social media, i still find that these accepting values are not always carried over into everyday life. in other words, while most people preach for equality, they still treat the queer community as the social “other” in subtle, subtextual ways, mainly by allowing one's sexuality to define who he or she is as a person. to get anything accomplished we all need to be participating in this conversation, so, here is my voice-
 

Outlaws, Porn Stars and ‘Civilized’ Sexual Morality

 

On February 21, 2014 a Duke University freshman porn star wrote an open letter to the public in response to overwhelming online and on-campus harassment following the revelation of her identity or “alter-ego” to thousands of her peers via the fraternity network. Confidently claiming her right to choose and authorize her own sexuality, she states, “Let’s be clear about one thing: I know exactly what I’m doing. What about you?” (Lauren). Directing the question back at her audience, she begs readers to consider how they take part in the construction and marginalization of her sexuality. In doing so, she provokes readers to take on a constructivist perspective towards sexuality, to see sex as “a result of diverse social practices that give meaning to human activities, of social definitions and self-definitions” that they can participate in changing (Weeks 31). The constructivist position, which emphasizes the fluidity and illimitability of sexual desire, is counterbalanced by the nativist approach, which instead sees “that a given pattern of sexuality is native to the human constitution” (Connell 265). From this approach grows the adverse, underlying Western (Christian) assumption that forms of sexual desire which fall outside of “natural” or socially sanctioned sexual practices reflect moral deviance and, in popular belief, mental illness. Thus as nativism plays into the misguided oppression and discrimination against certain groups for the benefit of others, the Duke University student porn star and constructivists such as Sigmund Freud, Christine Gudorf and Martha Nussbaum advocate that we step away from the nativist model, insisting instead that social institutions and infrastructures take the embodied experience of the human being and freedom of choice as their main priority.

 
Freud was the first scholar to adopt a constructivist attitude toward sexuality, assessing in his essay “’Civilized’ Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness” that one’s sexuality is complexly related to one’s environment, and thus is never pre-social or destined. For example, a person may decide whether or not to be openly homosexual depending on what is or is not taken as “normal” within a given context, and how that context might react; in severe cases, “the man who… cannot fall in with this suppression of instinct, becomes a ‘criminal,’ an ‘outlaw’ in the face of society” (167). As such, Freud suggests that sexuality is a complex moral issue which shapes subjects into being and behaving. Further, he offers the idea that Western morality (i.e. sex only acceptable within lawful marriage) is unrealistic and detrimental, since it is dependent upon, and in constant tension with, individuals’ repression of their natural instincts and drives. Accordingly, he states that “it is one of the obvious social injustices that the standard of civilization should demand from everyone the same conduct of sexual life,” seeing that an individual’s reservoir of unsatisfied sexual desire is subconsciously channeled or “sublimated” into either socially sanctioned activities on the one hand (if lucky) or madness (i.e. “hysteria”) on the other (171). In this way, Freud perpetuates Victorian-age, nativist perceptions associating the constitution of one’s sexuality with neurotic illness. What future scholars take away from Freud’s work, however, is not this association but the groundwork of the constructivist argument, that sexuality is cultivated by the meanings society assigns to it.
 
Freud’s argument lies at the heart of Christine Gudorf’s assertion that the inherited, dimorphic (i.e. dualistic) sexual paradigm is becoming less and less intelligible to modern society. Developments in biological research, for example, have challenged the nativist, Christian assumption that “humans were ‘naturally’ divided into two sexes,” with unusual chromosomal patterns offering the possibility of third-sex or perhaps unclassifiable sexes (866). Alfred Kinsey’s sociological research complements these new biological findings with his discovery that “there is, in fact, a spectrum of human sexual orientation from exclusively heterosexual at one end to exclusively homosexual at the other,” denying the possibility of dualistic classification of sexual desire (873). As such, a polymorphic paradigm emerges out of our old dimorphic one, posing challenges to any simple identification of an individual’s sexuality and thus its import on that individual’s “moral” status. Accordingly, in their essay “The Unclean Motion of the Generative Parts: Frameworks in Western Thought on Sexuality,” Connell and Dowsett suggest that the polymorphic approach leads “to a more fragmented and multi-leveled account of sexualities” which unsettles binaries of regular/irregular, and thus acceptable/unacceptable, sexual practices and desires (280).


 
Notably, Gudorf acknowledges that the polymorphic paradigm is difficult to adopt or fully accept because of its complexity, because it denies us our desire to order the world around us in simple, knowable terms (865). She particularly focuses on the practical problems polymorphism poses for religious institutions, since the dimorphic paradigm is “foundational for the moral and religious rules and commandments of religions” (880). For example, Christianity’s foundational story of Adam and Eve teaches that man and woman embody specific gender roles which are created in the image of God, and are therefore incontestable. Emerging from this story is the belief that the woman’s sexuality is the origin of sin, and that in order to go to heaven a man must exercise control over his sexuality and thus over women (this is where our Duke University porn star’s problems begin). In other words, this story introduced the culturally engrained dimorphism that moral female sexuality must be passive and the male’s, active. As such, “new work roles and domestic roles for men and women clearly impact religious norms of holiness,” as women take on leadership roles and more and more men become “stay-at-home dads” (Gudorf 881). Such developments begin to make pious observers question: is believing in Christianity incompatible with modern demands and the new social “norms”? Whose interpretation of these rules are we reading? Is the Christian doctrine simply a discourse set to keep those in power with power?
 

 
Martha Nussbaum would say that in many cases it is constructed to do just that. To support her argument, Nussbaum points to the fact that in ancient Greek culture, “bisexual desire was assumed to be ubiquitous, and gender of object was simply far less significant than the choice of the active or passive role” (237). In contemporary Western society, however, bisexuality is presumed to be a transgressive and defining feature of one’s identity, a label of sin and guilt which denies an individual of his or her own self-definition. Through this contrast in moral signification surrounding gender of object in the two cultures we recognize that “our own norms and practices” are “ours rather than universal and necessary,” that the moral standards we hold people to are constituted by the intersection of social practices and political agendas rather than by a “naturally given” set of rules (237). Even if they were “natural,” Nussbaum suggests, “it would not follow that we cannot and should not change” them (237). Accordingly, Nussbaum takes on a liberal perspective, urging her readers to question passively inherited dimorphic categories- which do not account for the historical, cultural, and personal relativity of sexuality- by educating themselves in the ways in which, but more importantly why, these traditions came into being. Ultimately, she insists “that those who are aware of the differences manifested by history are somewhat more likely to be tolerant of the differences they see around them,” therefore the study of sexuality provides the building blocks for a democracy in which all subjects are given a voice and the freedom to choose (256).

 

 
By putting her letter out in the public for all to read, the Duke University porn star was attempting to achieve a similar impact. Using her identity as an educated, well-versed student on one hand, and a confident porn star on the other, she deconstructs what we thought were “given” categories to show that they are, and should be, malleable in practice. Like Nussbaum and Gudorf, she suggests that Western society learn to move beyond the active/passive, heterosexual/homosexual, regular/irregular dimorphisms which have too strong “a bearing on who we are as people -- as good people or bad people” (Lauren). The new polymorphic paradigm, seen as early as in the work of Freud, moves away from the unrealistic confines of the dimorphic structure as “a way of accounting for the sexual categories present at a particular moment in history…and for the sexual options available in a given setting to the individual” (Connell 280). In acknowledging the illimitability of sexuality and sexual identities, the traditional labeling of “good” and “bad” sexuality becomes obsolete. As such, the polymorphic paradigm allows oppressed subjects to take part in their own self-definition and representation, to actively participate in their own social, political and sexual futures.

 





Bibliography
Lauren A. " I'M THE DUKE UNIVERSITY FRESHMAN PORN STAR AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I'M TELLING THE STORY IN MY WORDS." XoJanecom RSS. 21 Feb. 2014. 23 Feb. 2014 http://www.xojane.com/sex/duke-university-freshman-porn-star.
 
featured artists: rafael sottolichio, elise wehle, karel vitezlav masek, shea deTar

dogclogs and glockshocks

i recently returned from my first trip to europe, where i learned a lot about the world and myself. even though each day was loaded with adventures travelling all over the netherlands to germany and back again, a few moments really stuck out in my mind. in berlin, it was the boy in the car window who drew a heart with his fingers, and pointed to me, and the TV tower emerging in and out of the clouds during a surreal sunrise the next morning.

it was the artist with blue hair selling his drawings out of a spray-painted black van parked in front of the berlin wall…probably illegally… who reminded me of the dark and complex history of destruction and creation in the city. that dualism was reflected again in the overturned t-rex figurine in the abandoned amusement park, who sat adjacent to a crumbling viking ship marked by traces of squatters and unwelcome visitors, and a creaking ferris wheel with the tags of the brave kings of the urban jungle on every car to the very top.

juxtaposing the deeply countercultural, troubled berlin is the surface-level city of amsterdam, a place where nothing has been destroyed but only created, like the adult version of disneyworld. it is a facade of a city- full of immaculate, conspicuously constructed shopfronts, restaurants, coffee shops, and boulevards- to the extent that it almost has no reality, but more so exists as an idea, a collective dream, a place where fantasies of escape and sex and indulgence can be played out in the material world, the world of capital. beautiful, by day, but deceiving- by night the city operates as a system in which the alcohol, weed and sex industries work together to bankrupt hedonistic travelers like myself, feeding people (like sheep) through the machine to make money on their desires. the idea of a distant getaway, a city without rules which champions ultimate freedom- amsterdam, in a nutshell- has been given a price tag like the rest of society, making me wonder what hasn’t been touched by capitalism, or if there even is such a place. amsterdam was a city in which everyone was in transit- making the fear of being run over by a bike quite real- but they seemed to have no distinct destination, nor an idea of where they were. does anyone even live there? or are those town homes along the canal just for show- empty spare mirrors, replicas of dutch art and golden chandeliers? even the young opera singer testing the acoustics in dam square...who put her there? is it all- the whole city- just a performance? a fun house mirror?

then there were my travels through germany, driving 200 kilometers per hour on the autobahn, standing in front of the massive, breath-taking cologne cathedral, spending quality time with my friend dani and her newborn son in their small town of ahaus, and our day trip to munster where the gold-gilded facades reflected the medieval city planning i learned about in school. sitting in her new apartment and soaking in her new life in a foreign place, i was able to reflect on myself and my relationships and my future. could i do what she is doing? could i be vulnerable enough to another person to share my life with them? could i give up myself and my identity for motherhood? maybe not yet, but it is more clear to me now the sacrifices i will have to make to get there. to be that happy old couple on a side-by-side tandem bicycle riding through the little town square, still very much in love.

while many travelers would say that their trips show them how infinitely big the world feels, i thought it made my world smaller. it did so by showing me that while places and people may change, desire, wisdom and the mundane stay the same across the artificial boundaries we have set up. everyone wants to eat, to belong, to feel important, and apparently everyone knows who bill clinton is, especially in berlin.

aaand a few media recommendations for the week:
movie: X-rated puppet show Meet the Feebles (brace yourselves)
music: artful, pensive music by my friend Jonathan @MorbinMusic
article: a well-written evaluation of the borderline psycho/sociopathic personality traits fostered and rewarded by the money=success paradigm

as simple as breathing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lately i’ve been considering the possibility that our energies are synced. do you think it is a coincidence that my mom and i both couldn’t sleep last night? do you think it is a coincidence when you think of someone random and then you see them later that day? maybe you can’t get someone out of your head because they’ve been thinking about you too. maybe someone shows up in your dream because you showed up in theirs. i mean to suggest that we’re synced in a way that we cannot perceive, reacting constantly to each other in a way that is not just through our words or through body language. “subconsciously” is perhaps the closest word i can use to get to the thing itself, but it involves an interpersonal network, somewhat of a “collective subconscious” which links us all.

 

 

 

 

yes, okay, i’ve been thinking about vibes (again), but don’t let this word scare you away. my friend jake suggested the alternate term “biorhythms”, if you like that better. on a practical level, i’ve been thinking that phone behavior magnifies the evidence. for example when you pick up your phone to text someone and they’re already calling you. or when you receive an unexpected text and you don’t have to look at your screen to know, to have this gut feeling of who it is. i’m pretty sure i’m not the only person this happens to. maybe if you start looking out for it you will start to notice it. maybe you think of a person because they spoke your name somewhere else, to someone else. maybe we cross paths more often then we think, in a metaphysical world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia O’Keefe (1887-1986) searched for the feeling of infinity through her clear, universalizing forms. Like traditional Japanese flower painters, whose art Van Gogh himself described “as simple as breathing,” O’Keefe explored the idea that art could be meditative, allowing the mind to contemplate the spiritual and philosophical truths which belie all natural ones.

 

 

 

 

 

“The universe lies outspread in floods of white light…There is no name for this life unless it be the very vitality of vita. Silent is the preacher about this, and silent must ever be, for he who knows it will not preach”

~Henry David Thoreau

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m having difficulty embedding this video, but it’s a part of this post, this music, this vita.

 

 

 

today’s featured artists: andreia gil, christian zander,ana pater

dot dot dot (when two mirrors face each other)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[…a struggle to render those truths in Nature which for Her are eternal, but are as yet for the multitude but new]

~Stephane Mallarme, 1876

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

carmel seymour

 

 

my uncle made a good point yesterday. he’s an author, and i was sharing with him my insecurities about writing fiction, my fear that there is already so much out there that it may be impossible for me to write something original. in addition to mentioning that whatever i write will become original as i write it- for no writer expresses in the same exact way, no matter how basic the plotline- he also explained that a writer never really knows whether what they’re doing is important or groundbreaking in the moment they’re writing it anyway. they’re just writing, because it is a condition, because they have to. when you think about it, most writers never achieve fame or success in their lifetimes. we don’t recognize what a writer has done until fifty, sixty years later, when someone wonders how we got to where we are today, and, in offering an explanation, goes back in time to pinpoint the critical texts which have changed the idea of what writing is, does and can be. in other words, we don’t understand a text’s effect, if it truly is an origin, until we see what comes after it. this notion is liberating, for it suggests that there is nothing to lose in writing- that all you can do is start, and keep going. after all words are free, you can’t ever use them all up, and the only limitation that exists is the crippling fear that you can.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

[Let two mirrors reflect each other; then Satan plays his favorite trick and opens here in his way (as his partner does in lovers’ gazes) the perspective on infinity…]

-Walter Benjamin

 

 

Gemma Capdevila

 

nothing is ever complete…