On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Ai Weiwei and Altmejd
How does the work of these artists fit into Danto's notions about post-historical art? What was your reaction to their work?
Ai Weiwei's work illustrates Danto's notion that "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda." Weiwei clearly utilizes his choice of medium to convey a message. Even further, he creates art that stirs enough noise to draw attention to the issues within Chinese society, which can be seen in his Sunflower Seed installation. When I first looked at the work, I thought "Huh, that's weird; a million sunflower seeds are covering the floor. What does that mean?" I was blown away when I learned they were painted ceramics, handmade over the span of two years by hands other than the artist's. As we discussed, sunflowers give reference to the process of taking what you need then disposing of what you don't need. Combining the knowledge of the process with an interpretation of the final product, the viewer can see that Weiwei is taking a stand through his art on the issue of cheap labor and the consumer industry. Overall, I think it's incredible that Weiwei continues to speak out against issues within a country that is so controlling.
David Altmejd’s work similarly relates to Danto’s idea that post-historical art “does away” with the former concept that beauty is a very relevant factor to the “essence of art.” Personally, I do not find Altmejd’s art to be visually "beautiful." In fact, I was initially confused by his work entitled “The Swarm.” There are so many components that fill the space that can almost cause a feeling of stimulus overload; my eyes kept darting from one part of the work to the next, trying to make sense of the composition. In the end I decided, in agreement with Danto, that Altmejd’s work does not necessarily have to make sense or be aesthetically beautiful to be considered a good work of art. Besides, a work is much more interesting to me when I hear about the artist’s process anyway. In Altmejd’s case, I appreciate that he allows his art to almost take on its own form after an initial idea begins the creation. He is extremely involved in his art and allows his hands to directly manipulate the forms; he even said that “sometimes I feel like there [are] brains in my hands.” I can relate to his need of feeling connected to his work, and this connection allows me to admire his work. While I’m initially turned away by the unconventional composition, I can appreciate “The Swarm” for its details when viewed closely in combination with the knowledge that the artist carefully made the small intricacies.
Danto defines the term “Post-Historical” art, simply put, as art that is free from the past. In the post-historical era, artists did not have to conform anymore from the rules set before. Formal elements and traditional compositions did not need to be adhered to. David Altmejd’s work definitely falls into this category. He says that his works focus on being abstract from far away and getting clearer the closer you get rather than the other way around. His works aren’t made in with traditional mediums and compositions, and without having that freedom to have done so his works wouldn’t be as popular as they are. Nicole also points out how Danto writes that in a post-historical setting "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda." Ai Weiwei’s work is all about making a statement. In the Art 21 video it was pointed out that Weiwei’s piece are to make noise for a reason, not just to make noise. He has a distinct purpose for many of his works, like “Never Sorry” where he stacked thousands of backpacks to commemorate the childrens’ lives that were lost during an earthquake due to poor construction.
The work of Ai Weiwei and David Altmejd can be classified as post-historical due to the fact that their work does not fit an overarching theme or style. Weiwei’s works, while politically charged, have no general material or style linking them together and can, in some cases, have no general idea behind them. As is the case with the wooden spheres Weiwei commissioned his carpenters to create, the artist gave the project to his workers purely for their own enjoyment – not to serve any greater art historical purpose. Weiwei’s more purposeful works; however, may not serve the greater art historical narrative but they definitely serve a greater purpose through their message. By representing real political issues through both his process and his resulting works, Weiwei uses his art to further an activist narrative.
In the case of Altmejd’s sculptural works, they fit into a post-historical category because of their lack of unity and, as Nicole mentioned, the destruction of traditional beauty. His haphazard, brain-teasing sculptures embody the question: “Why am I a work of art?” while his lack of planning and sketching results in a sculptural jumbled conglomeration of different material and methods that can hardly be understood outside of the artist’s brain. These sculptural works are not aesthetically beautiful in the traditional sense; however, that is what connects them to a post-historical definition. The lack of an overarching theme or style and the abandoning of traditional beauty all work to classify Ai Weiwei and David Altmejd’s works as post-historical.
Ai Weiwei and Altmejd's work fits into Danto's notion about post-historical art because, as Nikki and Clareese stated, their work is free from art-historical themes or styles. The quote that Nicole pulled from the reading, "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda," describes Ai Weiwei perfectly. Although he cannot actually tell us the themes behind his work, they clearly address serious social and political issues in modern day China. The work that stood out to me the most from Ai Weiwei was the different ancient pots that he dipped in the flamboyant colors of paint. I think this work really speaks to how China, although they seem to be advancing faster than any other country in the world right now, is still stuck in the past and locked down by a refusal of social and political reform to match the times. I also really like this work because of how well thought out and artistically it says, "F you," to the Chinese government.
Altmejd's work definitely doesn't fit into any previous art-historical style. He doesn't follow any traditional techniques in creating his works and really has no idea what he's going to create until it is finished. I really admire Altmejd's personal style in this way. There is no planning besides a seemingly decent understanding of the materials. I believe this kind of style is one of the most artistically pure, because the artist is basing each decision purely off of his instinct at each specific moment.
I also agree that both of these artists share a separation from past artistic theories. It is through this disassociation that they are directly related to Danto's post-historical art theory. As stated above, Ai Weiwei works to press social limits verses those of art the form. His works question the government and capture a viewer's attention under different means than those of a Modernist or Realist nature. Rather than captivate based on form in his installation for the Tate Modern Turbine Hall, Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds are visually impressive for the large scale of the work and its message. The message is one of social critique on the disposable nature of Chinese labor. Ai Weiwei's work may not progress "art the narrative," but it uses art as a means of social change. Thus, the work fits into Danto's theory. David Altmejd's work is also post-historical. Traditional techniques are not employed through his structures. Rather than simple oil on canvas, his sculptures use a long list of mixed materials. Thus he steps away from a past view of art and its formalist qualities, and towards art providing a means to transcend a message. His pieces speak of identity and visually captivate through their use of unusual detail. Once again, it is the emphasis on the message being greater than the form that make these works post-historical.
Ai Weiwei and Altmejd’s works fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art because, as stated above, they lack a stylistic unity and do not fit into any past art movement. Ai Wei Wei’s works are interesting not only in form but also the meaning behind the works. As a Chinese artist, Wei Wei is challenged by the limitations and censorship set by the Chinese government. Wei Wei’s works address many pressing contemporary issues that most Chinese art lacks. The “political agenda” and commentary his works address also fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art. While I find Wei Wei’s works to be interesting to look at, I find that the concept behind the pieces and the process of making them (i.e. the Sunflower Seed installation) is what makes them so compelling and art worthy.
David Altmejd’s work definitely fits into the realm of post-historical art. Altmejd uses a variety of nontraditional media and process that do not fit with any past artistic style. As Nicole mentioned, Altmejd also “does away with the former concept that beauty is a very relevant factor to the ‘essence of art’” which supports his categorization as a post-historical artist. Personally, I find his work to be confusing and unattractive. While I admire the abandon in his works and think as you work process, his works are too complex and busy for my tastes. I find my attention pulled in to many directions and his concepts far beyond my understanding. Nevertheless, his contemporary media, style, and complexity of his works are admirable and art worthy.
On page 12 of "After the End of Art" Danto writes, "We could capitalize the word 'contemporary' to cover whatever the disjunction of postmodernism was intended to cover, but there again we would be left with the sense that we have no identifiable style; there is nothing that does not fit. But that, in fact, IS the mark of the visual arts since the end of modernism: it is a period defined by the lack of stylistic unity. That is why I prefer to simply call it post-historical art. Anything ever done could be done today and be an example of post-historical art."
Ai Wei Wei and Altmejd are great examples of post-historical artists. Ai Wei Wei works with thousands of Chinese carpenters and craftsmen to create large scale installations about Chinese culture and to criticize the Chinese government. However, because of the materials that he uses (handcrafted sunflower seeds, backpacks, broken pottery, chairs, bikes) someone could easily overlook the meaning behind his artwork at first glance. Luckily for the post-historical artist, medium is not important in the current art world, content is. Otherwise, artists like Altmejd would not be featured on Art21.
Altmejd's work is elaborate, somewhat creepy, and incredibly serious to him personally, but most importantly, it is all about the process. Altmejd uses literally ANYTHING (string, human hair, casts of his own ear...) to create his large-scale installations, and he never makes a single sketch of his work beforehand. This would never have been acceptable before the "end of art" because modernism was very focused on the aesthetics of art and finding meaning within the medium of art itself. Now that anything goes and everything is up for grabs, artists like Ai Wei Wei and Altmejd are able to use anything they want to get across anything they want. It's quite a liberating movement for artists.
Ai Weiwei is a Chinese artist who works with a variety of different mediums. I really liked the quote he had where he stated, “there’s no point in being quiet” and that he “makes noise” for a reason. He uses political overtones, and irreverent inappropriate imagery; almost creating a “cultural critique” of the Chinese governing system by making a statement.
He is known to be a conceptual creator, because he has workers that fabricate the work. He presses the limits so that his art is no longer modernism by pushing the medium to a certain boundary. This is similar to Danto’s notions of erasing boundaries of art to help define art in a way that was able to be looked at philosophically. His works using sunflower seeds is a commentary on consumerism, meaning you take what you need and disregard all else—with sunflowers you chew it and you spit it out. I found this work to be especially interesting, because at a first glance it looks like just sunflower seeds, but upon knowing background information, the viewer learns that in fact, each of the millions of sunflower seeds were hand-painted. He did not, however, accomplish all of this on his own—he has assistants.
Danto views the term “post-historical” to mean that it is free from the past, as Nikki said. David Altmejd’s work certainly adheres to this notion. His work is something new (from the past) and varies greatly, not to mention he does not know what exactly it is he is creating until he is finished. His work is considered post historical because it does not fit into one specific “category”. As was mentioned previously, his works also fit into this category because of his “destruction of traditional beauty”.
I agree with Caty that Ai Weiwei and Altmejd’s works fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art because they lack a stylistic unity and do not fit into any past art movement. I agree with Clareese that Weiwei’s works, while politically charged, has no general material or style linking them together and can, in some cases, have no general idea behind them. Also, in the case of Altmejd’s sculptural works, they fit into a post-historical category because of their lack of unity. I strong agree with Caty when she said Altmejd's work is elaborate, somewhat creepy, and incredibly serious to him personally, but most importantly, it is all about the process. Altmeid had a process where he was able to work with all kind of material, making him very diverse and crafty. He was about inventing languages. These two artist live and breathe their work. They truly believe what they are doing, making them understandable. They make what they know and it is all in our senses. Ai Weiwei had a concept being the core of his work. He was no longer about exploiting the materials but exploring to find out what worldly concepts are about. -Peter
Post-historical artists are freed not only from the burden of history but also from being bound to one particular artistic identity, manifested in one particular style. Liberated from the "tyrannies of history", artists are free to do whatever they feel and go their diverse ways. Ai WeiWei as an artist embodies the post-historical theory by challenging his government;s oppressive politics and culture (China). He makes bold and powerful statements by doing things such as smashing traditional Chinese pots, as well as other means of challenging Chinese government. However, although Ai WeiWei does whatever he feels, he does not always get away with it- he has been jailed many times because the Chinese government restricts the majority of what its citizens can do and say about their country (much of the reason Ai WeiWei so often revolts against it and is the subject matter of his work). Similarly, David Altmejd creates sculptural systems with what he calls "symbolic potential" and open ended narratives. Again as Caty and PC said the process is almost always the most important aspect of the work itself- it is all about making a statement and the lengths you must go to in order to do so. Ai WeiWei once said "It's about communicating. It's about how we use the language which can be part of our history or part of tother history, and how we transform it into today's language." This quote exemplifies this transition from restriction to being able to express yourself and communicate ideas and beliefs- the backbone of posthistorical art theory.
Ai Weiwei's work illustrates Danto's notion that "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda." Weiwei clearly utilizes his choice of medium to convey a message. Even further, he creates art that stirs enough noise to draw attention to the issues within Chinese society, which can be seen in his Sunflower Seed installation. When I first looked at the work, I thought "Huh, that's weird; a million sunflower seeds are covering the floor. What does that mean?" I was blown away when I learned they were painted ceramics, handmade over the span of two years by hands other than the artist's. As we discussed, sunflowers give reference to the process of taking what you need then disposing of what you don't need. Combining the knowledge of the process with an interpretation of the final product, the viewer can see that Weiwei is taking a stand through his art on the issue of cheap labor and the consumer industry. Overall, I think it's incredible that Weiwei continues to speak out against issues within a country that is so controlling.
ReplyDeleteDavid Altmejd’s work similarly relates to Danto’s idea that post-historical art “does away” with the former concept that beauty is a very relevant factor to the “essence of art.” Personally, I do not find Altmejd’s art to be visually "beautiful." In fact, I was initially confused by his work entitled “The Swarm.” There are so many components that fill the space that can almost cause a feeling of stimulus overload; my eyes kept darting from one part of the work to the next, trying to make sense of the composition. In the end I decided, in agreement with Danto, that Altmejd’s work does not necessarily have to make sense or be aesthetically beautiful to be considered a good work of art. Besides, a work is much more interesting to me when I hear about the artist’s process anyway. In Altmejd’s case, I appreciate that he allows his art to almost take on its own form after an initial idea begins the creation. He is extremely involved in his art and allows his hands to directly manipulate the forms; he even said that “sometimes I feel like there [are] brains in my hands.” I can relate to his need of feeling connected to his work, and this connection allows me to admire his work. While I’m initially turned away by the unconventional composition, I can appreciate “The Swarm” for its details when viewed closely in combination with the knowledge that the artist carefully made the small intricacies.
Danto defines the term “Post-Historical” art, simply put, as art that is free from the past. In the post-historical era, artists did not have to conform anymore from the rules set before. Formal elements and traditional compositions did not need to be adhered to. David Altmejd’s work definitely falls into this category. He says that his works focus on being abstract from far away and getting clearer the closer you get rather than the other way around. His works aren’t made in with traditional mediums and compositions, and without having that freedom to have done so his works wouldn’t be as popular as they are. Nicole also points out how Danto writes that in a post-historical setting "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda." Ai Weiwei’s work is all about making a statement. In the Art 21 video it was pointed out that Weiwei’s piece are to make noise for a reason, not just to make noise. He has a distinct purpose for many of his works, like “Never Sorry” where he stacked thousands of backpacks to commemorate the childrens’ lives that were lost during an earthquake due to poor construction.
ReplyDeleteThe work of Ai Weiwei and David Altmejd can be classified as post-historical due to the fact that their work does not fit an overarching theme or style. Weiwei’s works, while politically charged, have no general material or style linking them together and can, in some cases, have no general idea behind them. As is the case with the wooden spheres Weiwei commissioned his carpenters to create, the artist gave the project to his workers purely for their own enjoyment – not to serve any greater art historical purpose. Weiwei’s more purposeful works; however, may not serve the greater art historical narrative but they definitely serve a greater purpose through their message. By representing real political issues through both his process and his resulting works, Weiwei uses his art to further an activist narrative.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Altmejd’s sculptural works, they fit into a post-historical category because of their lack of unity and, as Nicole mentioned, the destruction of traditional beauty. His haphazard, brain-teasing sculptures embody the question: “Why am I a work of art?” while his lack of planning and sketching results in a sculptural jumbled conglomeration of different material and methods that can hardly be understood outside of the artist’s brain. These sculptural works are not aesthetically beautiful in the traditional sense; however, that is what connects them to a post-historical definition. The lack of an overarching theme or style and the abandoning of traditional beauty all work to classify Ai Weiwei and David Altmejd’s works as post-historical.
Ai Weiwei and Altmejd's work fits into Danto's notion about post-historical art because, as Nikki and Clareese stated, their work is free from art-historical themes or styles. The quote that Nicole pulled from the reading, "(contemporary) artists (are) bent on agendas having nothing to do with pressing limit of art...history of art, but with putting art at the service of this or that political agenda," describes Ai Weiwei perfectly. Although he cannot actually tell us the themes behind his work, they clearly address serious social and political issues in modern day China. The work that stood out to me the most from Ai Weiwei was the different ancient pots that he dipped in the flamboyant colors of paint. I think this work really speaks to how China, although they seem to be advancing faster than any other country in the world right now, is still stuck in the past and locked down by a refusal of social and political reform to match the times. I also really like this work because of how well thought out and artistically it says, "F you," to the Chinese government.
ReplyDeleteAltmejd's work definitely doesn't fit into any previous art-historical style. He doesn't follow any traditional techniques in creating his works and really has no idea what he's going to create until it is finished. I really admire Altmejd's personal style in this way. There is no planning besides a seemingly decent understanding of the materials. I believe this kind of style is one of the most artistically pure, because the artist is basing each decision purely off of his instinct at each specific moment.
I also agree that both of these artists share a separation from past artistic theories. It is through this disassociation that they are directly related to Danto's post-historical art theory. As stated above, Ai Weiwei works to press social limits verses those of art the form. His works question the government and capture a viewer's attention under different means than those of a Modernist or Realist nature. Rather than captivate based on form in his installation for the Tate Modern Turbine Hall, Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds are visually impressive for the large scale of the work and its message. The message is one of social critique on the disposable nature of Chinese labor. Ai Weiwei's work may not progress "art the narrative," but it uses art as a means of social change. Thus, the work fits into Danto's theory.
ReplyDeleteDavid Altmejd's work is also post-historical. Traditional techniques are not employed through his structures. Rather than simple oil on canvas, his sculptures use a long list of mixed materials. Thus he steps away from a past view of art and its formalist qualities, and towards art providing a means to transcend a message. His pieces speak of identity and visually captivate through their use of unusual detail. Once again, it is the emphasis on the message being greater than the form that make these works post-historical.
Ai Weiwei and Altmejd’s works fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art because, as stated above, they lack a stylistic unity and do not fit into any past art movement. Ai Wei Wei’s works are interesting not only in form but also the meaning behind the works. As a Chinese artist, Wei Wei is challenged by the limitations and censorship set by the Chinese government. Wei Wei’s works address many pressing contemporary issues that most Chinese art lacks. The “political agenda” and commentary his works address also fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art. While I find Wei Wei’s works to be interesting to look at, I find that the concept behind the pieces and the process of making them (i.e. the Sunflower Seed installation) is what makes them so compelling and art worthy.
ReplyDeleteDavid Altmejd’s work definitely fits into the realm of post-historical art. Altmejd uses a variety of nontraditional media and process that do not fit with any past artistic style. As Nicole mentioned, Altmejd also “does away with the former concept that beauty is a very relevant factor to the ‘essence of art’” which supports his categorization as a post-historical artist. Personally, I find his work to be confusing and unattractive. While I admire the abandon in his works and think as you work process, his works are too complex and busy for my tastes. I find my attention pulled in to many directions and his concepts far beyond my understanding. Nevertheless, his contemporary media, style, and complexity of his works are admirable and art worthy.
On page 12 of "After the End of Art" Danto writes, "We could capitalize the word 'contemporary' to cover whatever the disjunction of postmodernism was intended to cover, but there again we would be left with the sense that we have no identifiable style; there is nothing that does not fit. But that, in fact, IS the mark of the visual arts since the end of modernism: it is a period defined by the lack of stylistic unity. That is why I prefer to simply call it post-historical art. Anything ever done could be done today and be an example of post-historical art."
ReplyDeleteAi Wei Wei and Altmejd are great examples of post-historical artists. Ai Wei Wei works with thousands of Chinese carpenters and craftsmen to create large scale installations about Chinese culture and to criticize the Chinese government. However, because of the materials that he uses (handcrafted sunflower seeds, backpacks, broken pottery, chairs, bikes) someone could easily overlook the meaning behind his artwork at first glance. Luckily for the post-historical artist, medium is not important in the current art world, content is. Otherwise, artists like Altmejd would not be featured on Art21.
Altmejd's work is elaborate, somewhat creepy, and incredibly serious to him personally, but most importantly, it is all about the process. Altmejd uses literally ANYTHING (string, human hair, casts of his own ear...) to create his large-scale installations, and he never makes a single sketch of his work beforehand. This would never have been acceptable before the "end of art" because modernism was very focused on the aesthetics of art and finding meaning within the medium of art itself. Now that anything goes and everything is up for grabs, artists like Ai Wei Wei and Altmejd are able to use anything they want to get across anything they want. It's quite a liberating movement for artists.
Ai Weiwei is a Chinese artist who works with a variety of different mediums. I really liked the quote he had where he stated, “there’s no point in being quiet” and that he “makes noise” for a reason. He uses political overtones, and irreverent inappropriate imagery; almost creating a “cultural critique” of the Chinese governing system by making a statement.
ReplyDeleteHe is known to be a conceptual creator, because he has workers that fabricate the work. He presses the limits so that his art is no longer modernism by pushing the medium to a certain boundary. This is similar to Danto’s notions of erasing boundaries of art to help define art in a way that was able to be looked at philosophically. His works using sunflower seeds is a commentary on consumerism, meaning you take what you need and disregard all else—with sunflowers you chew it and you spit it out. I found this work to be especially interesting, because at a first glance it looks like just sunflower seeds, but upon knowing background information, the viewer learns that in fact, each of the millions of sunflower seeds were hand-painted. He did not, however, accomplish all of this on his own—he has assistants.
Danto views the term “post-historical” to mean that it is free from the past, as Nikki said. David Altmejd’s work certainly adheres to this notion. His work is something new (from the past) and varies greatly, not to mention he does not know what exactly it is he is creating until he is finished. His work is considered post historical because it does not fit into one specific “category”. As was mentioned previously, his works also fit into this category because of his “destruction of traditional beauty”.
I agree with Caty that Ai Weiwei and Altmejd’s works fit into Danto’s theory of post-historical art because they lack a stylistic unity and do not fit into any past art movement. I agree with Clareese that Weiwei’s works, while politically charged, has no general material or style linking them together and can, in some cases, have no general idea behind them. Also, in the case of Altmejd’s sculptural works, they fit into a post-historical category because of their lack of unity.
ReplyDeleteI strong agree with Caty when she said Altmejd's work is elaborate, somewhat creepy, and incredibly serious to him personally, but most importantly, it is all about the process. Altmeid had a process where he was able to work with all kind of material, making him very diverse and crafty. He was about inventing languages. These two artist live and breathe their work. They truly believe what they are doing, making them understandable. They make what they know and it is all in our senses. Ai Weiwei had a concept being the core of his work. He was no longer about exploiting the materials but exploring to find out what worldly concepts are about.
-Peter
Post-historical artists are freed not only from the burden of history but also from being bound to one particular artistic identity, manifested in one particular style. Liberated from the "tyrannies of history", artists are free to do whatever they feel and go their diverse ways. Ai WeiWei as an artist embodies the post-historical theory by challenging his government;s oppressive politics and culture (China). He makes bold and powerful statements by doing things such as smashing traditional Chinese pots, as well as other means of challenging Chinese government. However, although Ai WeiWei does whatever he feels, he does not always get away with it- he has been jailed many times because the Chinese government restricts the majority of what its citizens can do and say about their country (much of the reason Ai WeiWei so often revolts against it and is the subject matter of his work). Similarly, David Altmejd creates sculptural systems with what he calls "symbolic potential" and open ended narratives. Again as Caty and PC said the process is almost always the most important aspect of the work itself- it is all about making a statement and the lengths you must go to in order to do so. Ai WeiWei once said "It's about communicating. It's about how we use the language which can be part of our history or part of tother history, and how we transform it into today's language." This quote exemplifies this transition from restriction to being able to express yourself and communicate ideas and beliefs- the backbone of posthistorical art theory.
ReplyDelete