Now, however, I’ve been made aware of Posterous, a Tumblr-like blog service that you use primarily with email. It’s easy, clean and free. For now it’s low on features, but I’m sure that will change as the service grows.

I’ll be using my Posterous to aggregate all of those things I find that stand independent of my two cents. I’ll also likely post some things that are off-topic but still reflective of my interests.

In 2003, Heather Mallick of the Globe and Mail asked, “Why doesn’t this man have the Order of Canada?” and now, five years later, Dr. Morgentaler is being recognized for his lifetime dedication to the establishment and preservation of women’s rights in Canada.

Mallick’s article is a good overview of his life’s work that continues to this day. Canadian abortion-rights history would be virtually non-existant without the risk, courage and determination of Dr. Morgentaler. In fact, I think the global history of abortion could have potentially ended at abortion-as-crime were it not for Dr. Morgentaler’s tenacious fight. A brief timeline of Canada’s history is here.

Humanity owes a great deal more to this man than a national medal could ever convey. Congratulations, Dr. Morgentaler. And thank you, Canada.

Enacting Emancipation is A Space’s latest programming effort that examines the struggles of land, exile and home as manifested by the four Indiginous and Palestinian artists who share their work and experience in this exhibition. Curated by Tannis Nielsen and Vicky Moufawad-Paul, Enacting Emancipation combines the heartbreak of displacement and the hope for survival and probability of return.

Emily Jacir, Where We Come From, 2001-2003

I haven’t had a chance to see the completed installation yet, but I have walked by the gallery every day this week just to keep tabs on how it’s coming along. John Halaka’s larger-than-life “pounding” (called such, as opposed to a drawing, because it was created using a stamp that reads “forgotten survivors”) is exceptionally intriguing and I can’t wait to see it up close. Emily Jacir’s text-image diptychs are also moving pieces. The artist asks exiled Palestinians, “If I could do anything for you, anywhere in Palestine, what would it be?” The responses are documented in English and Arabic, and are displayed alongside photographs of her completing the request. Four diptychs are on display in the A Space vitrines, so even if you come outside of gallery hours you can still take in some of what the show offers.

What I find particularly refreshing in this exploration of the experience of disenfranchisement is the curators’/artists’ willingness to address how they (particularly Jacir) were able to create this work because of the mobility provided to them by their American passports (or other Western privilege). Traveling freely to experience and document the places that so many of their compatriots are barred from is a circumstance laced with tension. Addressing the fact of it enhances the power of this exhibition by virtue of being self-aware.

Provocative art has the ability to bridge gaps of knowledge and awareness. The simplicity of this show aids in communicating a strong message that is still firmly located in the present, despite its origins in the past. I think that Enacting Emancipation is presented in a way that makes it easy to understand the kind of dislocation that has occurred between people and their land — surely anyone who has an immigrant story (or anyone who is a generation away from one) can relate on some level to the struggles being addressed. Direct imagery, familiar media, comprehensive read-out material — the workings of an excellent cultural/social/political exhibition that will be felt by people, not just art-aware audiences.

Enacting Emancipation runs until August 2, 2008. A Space is open Tuesday to Friday, 11am - 6pm and Saturday from 12pm - 5pm.

]]> http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/06/enacting-emancipation-at-a-space/feed/ http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/06/interview-poster-boy-nyc-part-two/ http://www.marissaneave.com/2008/06/interview-poster-boy-nyc-part-two/#comments Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:26:11 +0000 Marissa http://www.marissaneave.com/?p=69 A few weeks ago I interviewed NYC’s Poster Boy, a mash-up artist who uses the subway system as his medium and gallery space. After admitting to functioning as several different personas in the art world and citing Cindy Sherman as one of his influences, I was interested in learning more about how his economic/political experiences shape his practice. The more answers I’ve gotten, the more curious I’ve become…

This is Part Two of an earlier interview, posted here.

Do you see your poster art as a sort of territorial thing? I was reading an article about Christopher Wool, and obviously the history of street art/tagging/graffiti implies some sort of interest in claiming a space, but in the article, Glenn O’Brien writes, “I fuck this space up therefore I own it.” Are you driven by the same sentiment? And on that note, can you say anything else about your own relationship between being poor and doing these mash-ups? Do you see the subversion of corporate space a rejection of or response to poverty? Or was it merely a resource thing?

Territorial, yes and no. I don’t want the poster art to be territorial in the macho sense. It’s probably why I don’t sign any of them. I think fucking shit up is good. There is creation in destruction. I just want to reclaim the intellectual territory that the media has taken.

Your economic status determines your relationship to things and people. I’d like to think my work is a shot at the capitalist machine. I grew up with TV showing me all the things I should have and be. When I took a step back and realized that it’s impossible to live up to TV’s standards, I got angry. Then I got smart. Sometimes I feel like I’m in the movie Fight Club. So to answer the question(s): It’s both a rejection of capitalist dogma and a resource thing. Some people feel that there’s always a right tool for the job, but I know better.

You mention growing up poor, not having money to paint. Is this what inspired your desire to create art for the masses with no authorship/no copyright? Or is it a rejection of institution?

The mash-ups should serve as a lesson to people: artists don’t create art, the viewers do. There was a time when Duchamp made us look at things. Somehow the “art” scene helped us forget that.

I was surprised to read that you are influenced by Cindy Sherman. It’s from a perspective I’ve never seen before. You’ve created real-life versions of characters and developed them beyond imagery — in fact, beyond character. You’re a series of ghosts who leave only a trace of the production and none of its producers. It’s an interesting extension.

You’re right about developing the characters beyond imagery, but you’re wrong about them being ghosts. They’re just as real as any other artist. Unlike Poster Boy the other artists I’ve created have bios and real live people representing them. I create these characters/aliases/caricatures/archetypes then hire people to represent them at whatever venue. As long as no one knows they remain as real as any other artist. Baudrillard “told me” there’s no difference between reality and simulation. Think about how long it took people to realize what Andy Kaufman was doing. I’ve been influenced by many people. Most of the time I don’t know what people like Baudrillard are saying, but It doesn’t stop me from listening.

War Is The New Black

So first of all, I’m interested in your process. Are the mash-up posters done at the site where they’re posted? Also, how do you arrive at a certain corporate advertisement and decide how it will be combined with another/collaged/deconstructed? Are these things that sort of occur to you through your own commuting? Or do you have certain ideas before you visit a station?

Always on site. One subway station/platform at a time. It takes between one and three posters to create a piece. On average it takes about two minutes to make a piece. the complex compositions can take about 10 to 15 minutes. Background and foreground colors, font/scale of text, logos, size and position of characters, etc., are all things I consider when combining posters. I try not think too hard in order to keep it as spontaneous as possible. Growing up poor has taught me to improvise and be resourceful. It’s amazing what one can do with a 50 cent razor. They’re mostly done while commuting to and from school, home, and work. Some days I’ll get off one or two stops before or after my stop in order to use fresh posters.

How long do your pieces stay up before they’re taken down/replaced?

Some pieces are taken down immediately. Some, if they’re done really well, will stay up for a couple of weeks because the MTA workers don’t notice the difference.

Can you explain your choice to remain an anonymous/elusive artist of subversive street art?

I try to remain anonymous/elusive, contrary to what some people have said, for three reasons and one of them is definitely not because of Banksy. One, what I do is pretty illegal. Two, because of Cindy Sherman. Her work addresses issues of identity in and out of the realm of art. I’m addressing issues of identity through my many alias’s/personae. Poster Boy is just one of the identities that I show and create under. The last being that I don’t want just one person to be Poster Boy. I’m hoping this trend of poster art snowballs into a movement for many people. No authorship. No copyright.

What led up to this type of work? What were you doing before you were Poster Boy?

It started with me not having money or a place to paint for a while and wanting to connect with people in NY. I love public art, but I couldn’t bear to pick up a spray can or wheat paste. So I figured the subway is a good place to do cheap art that appeals to masses.

What was the thing you saw, the experience you had, that gave you the ambition for poster mash-ups?

I’m not the first to mess with posters. I’ve always noticed torn posters and Sharpie art in the subway. I wanted to combine the two. By using the ready-made imagery/text I’m able to subvert these corporate advertisements and use them to my advantage. People have done subway poster art for years, but I definitely upped the ante in NY.

Shows I’d Watch (detail)

Do you see this kind of work as a full realization of your style/creative vision? Or do you have bigger things in mind? Or is that even besides the point?

I guess on some level it’s a realization of my work. Appropriation of images, icons, and symbols to the point where I’ve created many functioning personalities in the art world. I guess it’s my response to the myspace culture we live in.

What’s next?

I’m always creating. As far as Poster Boy is concerned I’d like to make a book at the end of ‘08 from the before and after poster pics. I’d also like to include all the publicity Poster Boy has received. The proceeds, after paying for materials, would go to some foundation.

Read Part Two: Poster Boy, NYC (Part Two).

What Add-Art does is use an ad-blocking plugin to first block advertising on most websites, and then uses the ad space to display curated art shows that change every two weeks. While the concept is obviously an excellent one, I think for a project that utilizes the web and open source development, Add-Art could be doing a lot more than it currently is.

The first shortcoming of Add-Art is that the art banners aren’t links. To me this suggests that the art is being displayed merely to act as a more aesthetically pleasing, less distracting advertisement that is even more elusive for some than most contemporary marketing techniques. Also, it runs counterintuitive to the whole purpose of advertising art — why bother spreading artwork onto desktops if users are viewing it completely out of context? What meaning (or mere reaction) could be gleaned from that scenario?

I can only think that more function was eschewed by Add-Art because of the assumption that no one clicks on ads anyway. Well, we’ve grown accustomed to ignoring online ads because we know that nothing interesting is on the other end of them. Consciously choosing to download and install Add-Art means we’re inviting new content into ad spaces. Adding more functionality to Add-Art means more than just website beautification. It means education as well.

I’ve thought of some ways that Add-Art could be better. Here are a few options, from quickest-fix to most elaborate possibilities:

1. A hover description with the artist’s name and title of work. At the very least.

2. Users should be able to click the art and be taken to a page that displays the artwork in its entirety. If you’ve ever designed a banner ad, you know how limited you are with space. The dimensions of a banner ad are so ridiculously unnatural that few (if any) artworks from the whole history of art would ever fit into the space. This means that the majority of works that would ever be curated into Add-Art’s project would inevitably be cropped and therefore, become entirely different pieces of art. In the case of Hiroshige, he’s not around anymore to say if cropping’s cool by him. (The inclusion of Hiroshige also makes me wonder how exactly Add-Art defines ‘contemporary’, since Hiroshige is kind of pre-modern, even).

3. Expand Add-Art to be a complete and dynamic database. When you click on an artwork, not only would you see the work in its entirety, but you’d be given biographical information of the artist, a collection of other works, political, technological, social and environmental contexts that influenced the creation of the works, and recommendations (with links to their own entries) to other artists you might like if you like the artist in the show. Users should be able to register and store their favourite artists and artworks. It could be like the Music Genome Project for visual art.

I realize that its developers didn’t necessarily intend for Add-Art to be a massive project. Its mandate is, quite simply, to replace ads with art. But part of their mandate is also “to help everyday web users to discover and understand contemporary art“. I don’t think understanding is possible just by looking, particularly for people who don’t have a background in art.

Open source, add-ons, plugins, the internet in general — all of these things offer huge capacities for projects like Add-Art. Why not take advantage?

One of the things I love about YYZ is their publishing chapter, whose impressive catalogue includes criticism and discourse about Canadian art and culture. One of their latest books, Decentre, is an anthology of short essays about artist-run culture in Canada and around the world.

It’s an excellent collection of opinion, experience and dissent from a diverse group of professionals.

Artist-run centres were created in the 1970s in Canada as a way for artists to function outside of the institutional mainstays of commercial galleries and museums. They were spaces for artists, by artists, and their mandate valued art before money. They remain an integral component of art systems in Canada, and their format has been emulated all over the world.

I don’t take for granted that I’ve grown up in a time when ARCs are well-established and practically ubiquitous. It must have been really something to watch Art Metropole emerge and flourish at a time when the concept was revolutionary.

Thing is, I still find the in-theory concept of ARCs to be revolutionary. The gap between theory and practice, however, seems to have widened despite the intentions of its pioneers.

The sphere of art systems in Canada has adapted to support ARCs through government funding. But that support has, in turn, morphed ARCs into an institution of its own. I do believe that any organization, in order to succeed, requires some sort of governance that (even loosely) resembles some aspects of a corporate model (and I see publicly-funded organizations as adhering to this model). The economic/financial concerns of ARCs can’t be ignored–they cost a lot of money to run, particularly when new media works are involved.

But I have to ask: What are ARCs doing today to push the boundaries as General Idea and Art Metropole did in the 1970s?

As I said, there’s a gap between theory and practice. Perhaps it was my own inability to sense nuance, but when I first started visiting galleries, when I knew nothing about art or spaces, ARCs never stood out as tremendously “alternative” spaces. Now that I’ve become more familiar with how these spaces function, I see that ARCs have indeed been stifled by bureaucracy.

What are ARCs doing to overcome this? What other challenges do they face? Decentre offers a pretty wide overview of where ARCs stand in Canada and around the world, and its contributors also ask a lot of questions that ARCs should consider in revising their programming and re-establishing themselves as truly alternative spaces.

Nan Goldin’s Heartbeat. At MOCCA. Soundtrack by Björk based on a Greek Orthodox mass. Haunting, passionate. Go immediately.

I was interested in the article Nina Simon wrote at Museum 2.0, wherein she proposes a new voice for museums to adopt in order to break down the institutional authority that exists within museums. In her article she refers to Radiolab, an educational radio show (available via podcast) that makes learning accessible through the hosts’ use of conversation. Simon asks the following:

I wondered: what if museums dropped the authoritative voice, the cultural voice, the friendly teacher voice, and adopted a novice voice? What would it feel like to read labels that challenge the information provided or acknowledge the questions in everyone’s head: How did they get this giant sculpture in here? Why does anyone care about this dead stuff? Why is there lots of snow if global warming is happening?

I had never heard an episode of Radiolab’s show, so I decided to give it a listen. What I found was a dynamic conversation occurring between two hosts and a guest. The two hosts asked each other questions, like Did you know… and offer each other points of information that are then expanded on by the guest expert and in some cases, corrected or challenged. Simon is right: it’s an extremely engaging format.

Museums have a terribly imposing and overwhelming responsibility to not only display histories, but also to impart on its visitors some sort of educational value. Within the industry, it’s well-known that museums have an authoritative voice that visitors interpret as an objective and truthful one. The only reason this is still a problem is that museums haven’t done anything to change this. I’ve considered this theoretically in more depth in my article about redefining the museum as a site of collective memory, which you can read here.

On a more pragmatic/application-focused level, there are a few things that museums could do to break down the barriers between institution-viewer and information-learning.

The most successful aspect of Radiolab’s show is not in their questions, but in their conversations. Wouldn’t it be great for museums to host lecture series that are actually a dialogue between a professional and a novice? These same conversations can happen live; visitors can witness and engage in real-time education. While the novice at the front of the room learns from the professional, we learn too. The novice can ask all of the stupid questions that institutions never encourage us to address.

I’m quite strong in my feelings about content and context and how this information is presented to the public. Any information in any museum should be able to be read and understood by a visitor who has no prior knowledge of the subject they are about to view. I’m also quite strong in my feeling that doing this isn’t enough. If education is truly a primary goal of museums, their exhibits and written materials should be able to offer something new to visitors on every rung of the education ladder. Information should be provided for the beginner, the amateur, and the expert. The great thing about this strategy is that a visitor may walk in as a beginner, but in their curiosity they can become an expert by gradually building their knowledge.

A huge challenge for museums is that their demographic is not so specific. Or specific at all, actually. While other companies with marketing programs can zero in on 18-24 year-old men who watch hockey on Monday nights, museums can’t take advantage of such a luxury. Their audiences can’t be tidily packaged according to age, gender, education or economic group. So how do you appeal to all of these people at the same time?

You don’t.

But you also can’t exclude anyone who comes into your space expecting to learn something. It’s well known in marketing that there are three major levels of literacy: critical literacy, literacy, and functional illiteracy. So how do you make sure your information is understood by people in all three groups? Provide the exact same information in different ways — paragraphs, lists, images — so that no matter who reads your document, your message is crystal clear. Museums need to understand this when preparing their written materials.

Let me switch gears for a minute.

I think eliminating the authoritative voice of the museum is as simple as being upfront about it with visitors. Really. Has no one thought of this before? Every exhibit should have an introduction that reminds visitors that the objects they are about to see were researched and arranged by professionals who, while experts in their field, were not necessarily present in the time that the objects were created and/or used. Therefore, their contemporary bias causes the exhibition to be REPRESENTATIONAL of a history and is not history itself.

Perhaps the authoritative voice of the museum could also be broken down by highly visible labels that ask questions or identify issues that visitors can ponder while they look through the space. I think this would change the institutional quality of the museum into a space that enjoys being questioned and challenged. The questions could range from fact-based questions to theoretical ones. Planting these questions with visitors would also encourage them to engage in their own curiosity and ask their own questions. And now that I think about it, museums should stop purporting that they provide clear, indisputable answers and start admitting that what’s really important is to keep asking questions. History does have a distinct location in the past, and we may know a lot about it. But historicization processes can change how we understand the past to have occurred.

The theoretical discourse surrounding museums contains ideas that can be communicated in simple terms. The more museums address these issues with the visitors, the more the institutions can engage directly with their audience and encourage further learning.

Many galleries accompany their exhibitions with essays (separate from curatorial statements) and I think this is a great practice that all galleries that show any work that sits on the expansive spectrum of conceptual art should adopt. One of my biggest frustrations in visiting art spaces is when I am given access only to a beautiful postcard, with nothing on it.

I’m sure that many people happily view conceptual work without wanting to ask questions or understand the full scope of the project. I support this and I do it myself, on occasion. Appreciating work merely for how it looks or for how it is installed is a perfectly acceptable practice. But spaces need to acknowledge that there are visitors interested in participating in their mandates that encourage discourse and understanding.

There remains a problem, however, in providing too much information. If an artist is willing to make their entire thesis available to gallery visitors, I think it should be available with one caveat: that it be available as a supplement to a shorter, more-likely-to-be-read article or statement that summarizes the thesis. No one is going to read 60+ pages in a gallery, nor are they going to leaf through the contents searching for answers to their questions.

Some of my favourite artworks are conceptual works that I have never even seen. This is because the idea behind the physical manifestation was verbalized in a way that made me understand how or why the piece was created.

Written material accompanying exhibitions adds value that can’t be provided by artwork alone. This value contributes to an overall understanding of the artwork and gives visitors the opportunity to formulate a more educated opinion about the work they’re looking at. If galleries indeed desire to foster understanding and discourse, I wonder how they think they’re doing this without giving visitors any basis for understanding.

The unfortunate thing is that I know a lot of people visit galleries wanting to “get” the work, and when they don’t understand, they assume it’s because they just don’t know enough about art. Art education does help, I won’t disagree, but it’s not necessary. Being in art school doesn’t help me understand conceptual work if there is no documentation. You just can’t guess what it’s about.

And I wonder… shouldn’t artists be insisting on this?