Ramon Riley Writing FIVE - Visual Culture’s Stronghold on Authentic Life

Ramon Riley 

Writing FIVE  - Visual Culture’s Stronghold on Authentic Life

The movie opens with a metaphor for us to consider.  White sheep being herded with a lone black sheep caught in the middle of the pack... The 1936 film Modern Times, written, directed and starring Charlie Chaplin directly and indirectly addresses many of the topics we have read in Practices of Looking...  by Sturken and Cartwright.

First, Modern Times was not very “modern” at all.  This is a silent film created and released after silent films had run their course.  Chaplin, however, was a master pantomime artist, so his resistance was an obvious attempt to promote his strongest attributes as an actor.  Voice was added in the film only as post-production to clarify the details of a scene through a phonograph, a radio and a television adding bit parts within the film.  Many people wondered why Chaplin resisted “talkies” when the technology was available. The expectation was that the world’s biggest star, the first million dollar movie star, should adopt current technology in order to stay relevant, and sticking with silent film was making Chaplin obsolete (1). 

Chaplin
Modern Times (1936)

Modern Times was also shot using an outdated film technique.  At 18 frames per second, a speed used for silent films, the action seemed more fast paced and animated when it was played at 24 frames per second, the new normal film speed of the time.  Like the lead character in the film the Little Tramp was trying to survive the world of industry, factory workers, and assembly lines, Chaplin was trying to survive the changing landscape of film.  Moreover, while Chaplin denied any messages beyond pure entertainment, many agree that Modern Times intentionally makes a statement about people’s insignificance in respect to the “machine” of industry.

Throughout Practices of Looking...  Sturken and Cartwright refer to us as a Western industrialized culture living in a multimedia environment, which stems from capitalism.  Discussed in chapter 1, social power and ideologies are are produced by images.  Navigating through imagery is not a passive process.  We influence the meaning and value of the marketable mass produced objects, images and experiences, or stuff, we buy.  This awareness is necessary in attempting to dissect our visual culture.  Not every culture is bombarded with images every second of everyday.  We are the connoisseurs of taste.  Our taste says much about who we are.  Through “representation”, we are like gods seeking visuals in our likeness and refining our taste.  This determines what we buy, whether literally or conceptually.  Buying gives us power, both actual and perceived.  Buying power (or surrendering buying power) is the canvas on which mass media attempts to understand and shape our habits, so they can sell us their stuff.

Radio and Television made “information” available to non-literate people, and this made capitalism more prevalent in daily life (p. 153).  Prior to radio and television, we could not put our trust in mass media to teach and give us “our” opinions.  Many never really question information from “trustworthy” faces of a trusted source of news, like FOX or CNN.  Our hearts, minds, and souls are the battlefield for the war between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces.  Does George Bush being marketed as the president one could have a beer with versus Al Gore, the pretentious snob, make Bush a more effective president?  Then, why are candidates personalities and temperaments reportable “news” for network “debates”?

Trust is important in the ideology of our consumer culture, and this trust can be easily manipulated.  In chapter 5, the idea is presented that films like JFK masterfully convince us of the film’s accuracy by incorporating television news footage or imagery to look like vintage news footage.  This is evidence at how deeply layered and in-grained visual culture is in the Western industrialized psyche (p. 157).  Perhaps, trust can be easily misplaced because the viewing audience convinces itself that viewing television replaces participation (p. 165).  We think that by “paying attention” to social and political issues we are informed and active.  And maybe we are.  Maybe “tuning in” provides data for the market researchers.  We use our buying power as political power.  

In Modern Times, our hero the Little Tramp can not escape the trappings of consumerism.  Whether he is falling asleep on a job, as a night watchmen, in a comfortable bed of a department store, the dream is to have the desired lifestyle.  During a scene with the Little Tramp and the Gamine resting their weary souls on the lawn of a well-to-do house, the two fantasize about what it would be like to have that house as a home for themselves.  They imagine a stocked refrigerator, fresh fruit from the tree outside their window, milk straight from a cow outside their door and having to give little effort for anything.  Coming back into consciousness, they decide to “give it a go” back to the city hoping to make a living.  Work hard to “take it easy”.

Chaplin and Goddard
Modern Times (1936)

Marx thought ideology brought “false consciousness” making the masses vulnerable to coercion.  Familiarity brings marketability which births sell-able products, projects and even political candidates.  Someone is getting powerful, and thus someone is getting rich by manipulating the masses.  Those who own production control ideas (p.51).  This also gives some insight to the widening income gap in America.  The rich keep getting richer because there are more ways to control media and thus more ways to gain capital.  In Modern Times, the omnipotent, omnipresent boss changes the speed of production from his big office removed from the sufferable realities of his men in an attempt to increase production and thus profit.

Althusser’s modifications of “ideology” (p.52-54) plays throughout the movie by the Little Tramp’s many failed attempts to conform.  The Little Tramp reads the newspaper about new opportunities to become a successful person and live the good life, and off he goes for the next humorous adventure.  Every time Tramp fails, however, he is jailed by police, and no one questions the inhumanity of the conditions, only Tramp’s incompetence.  We are interpellated.  We are so bombarded with messages and images that make us feel powerful, only to be disempowered by the magic trick or the dominant-hegemonic forces (p.57).  The Little Tramp was a failure for his humanity in context of the system.

Sex is the wildcard.  In Modern Times, Paulette Goddard was the object for the male “gaze”, as explored in chapter 3, which can manipulate the viewer, though she manages to contradict typical gender roles and sexual stereotypes to do so.  Chaplin, in his real life was known for objectifying young women to the point of questionable legality regarding his young muses.  The beautiful Goddard, Chaplin’s much younger wife and co-star, is one of many in the long tradition of beautiful screen women of desire.  In the film, Goddard as the Gamine is strong, savvy and able to survive.  She supports herself and her family.  While the Little Tramp is imprisoned, she gets a job and a house for the two of them upon Tramp’s release (4).  I would also argue the androgyny of Chaplin’s pantomime contradicts the stereotype of masculinity, which, in many ways, seems to champion gender equality.  Perhaps, the comedy genre allowed such contradictions to be tolerated or overlooked . Ultimately, the beautiful Gamine is successful as a dancer hired by an overweight club owner.  

In politics, the prowess and good looks of Barack Obama, was played up to get the first black man elected to the white house.  Our “gaze” was a target of manipulation during the 2008 political campaign.  More men would rather be Barack Obama, and more women would rather be with the democrat Barack Obama than the republican John McCain.  Not to be outdone, the republicans introduced America to Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate.  The lower the republicans were in the polls, the shorter Palin’s skirts became.  A vice-presidential candidate actually wore leather boots and leather skirts.  In addition, comparisons were made between Barack Obama and Will Smith, the top selling movie star at that time and a world savior in most of his films, to soften initial skepticism toward Obama’s race based on more than 80 years of under-representation and misrepresentation in mass media (that is putting it very mildly, too mildly).  Michelle Obama even went on the Oprah show comparing Obama’s and Smith’s pertruding ears.  This calculated comparison could be categorized as propaganda. 

But the most extreme example of the power of persuasion in visual culture is the misuse of the famous toothbrush style mustache of Chaplin by Adolf Hitler.  Clearly with this look, Hitler stole people’s trust by likening himself to an established friendly face (2).  Through the distorted filter of history, the mustache is often mistakenly referred to as Hitler’s, and many wrongly question why Chaplin looked like Hitler.  In addition to the historical impact the Natzi atrocities, Hitler claimed ownership of Chaplin’s look and changed the meaning of the swastika (originally a symbol for peace) simultaneously.  This was tragic to Chaplin.  As a result, Chaplin satirized Hitler in The Great Dictator, shortly after Modern Times to warn against blindly following leaders.  Before its release, the film was marketed as a brave and important film for it’s attack of Hitler (2).  Hitler’s propaganda was counter-attacked by something “propagand-ish”.

Chaplin and Hitler
w/ trademark toothbrush mustaches

The film climaxes with the speech that is now famously referenced in commercials and appropriated in hip-hop records.  The speech has even been posted to youtube with contemporary film images to further enhance and illustrate Chaplin’s words and meaning, in a posting called, “The Greatest Speech Ever Made”:  

Surprisingly, In its time, Chaplin’s speech was criticized as anti-climatic and flat.  My relating it to events that have happened over 60 years later, or by seeing black and white film as nostalgic, which was simply the standard for film at the time, is viewing the work out of historical context in some ways (p.109).  However, Chaplin’s ability to seemingly step off the screen and address us, the Western industrialized culture does seems current.  This implies Chaplin’s awareness of the lasting power of media, so he chose his words carefully. 

Reading Practices of Looking...  by Sturken and Cartwright makes me question if such passion has been simply marketed to me.  This is a mass produced film for profit.  Does this film have a political intent, making it propaganda, as Walter Benjamin’s essay warns (p.131)?  Or are Modern Times and The Great Dictator works by an artist, using his savoir faire; his popularity, pantomime, creative control, and power of media, to fight the very machine that had made him rich, but also resulted in his likeness being used to brainwash and kill. 

The first five weeks of this course has brought to light for me the seriousness and complexity of visual culture.  It plays out like a game for some, but it is literally life and death.  The lines between our Western Industrialized culture and visual culture are intertwined as a result.  We must buy something.  We are consumers more than we are a democracy. This may contradict the plight of many artists.  However, after all the analyzing, the artist and the audience must leave a space in their heart to enjoy...Art.

Modern Times concludes with our hero the Little Tramp and the Gamine narrowly escaping the law.  They leave town realizing they are still in tact, and thus, they embark on Chaplin’s trademark ending.  The Little Tramp and his mate walk away from the camera toward the horizon... and that is my idea of aesthetic beauty.... Roll credits.  

1. Frank Nugent, "Modern Times (1936). Heralding the Return, After an Undue Absence, of Charlie Chapin in ‘ModernTimes’". The New York Times: Movie Review February 6, 1936–http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9403E3DE153FEE3BBC4E53DFB466838D629EDE
2. Bosley Crowther Wallace, "The Great Dictator (1940). THE SCREEN IN REVIEW; 'The Great Dictator,' by and With Charlie Chaplin...” The New York Times: Movie Review October 16, 1940–http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D0CE5DA103BE433A25755C1A9669D946193D6CF
3. The Great Dictator (1940)
4. The Gamin: Paulette Goddard, http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/biography/articles/221-The-Gamine-Paulette-Goddard

1. 
   

FOUR Reaction

Untitled 9/21/12
Ramon Riley

 I decided to reproduce my last drawing in a new context.  The projection is exactly the same, but by changing the background that the image was projected onto, the pieces are very different.  ART.

Untitled 9/19/12
Ramon Riley

Untitled 9/21/12
Ramon Riley

FOUR - Reproduction and Visual Technologies

FOUR - Reproduction and Visual Technologies

Untitled 9/19/12
Ramon Riley

Above is an art work of Braddock, my hometown, from a combination of 3 photographs.  I used photoshop and a projector as well as collage, paint and graphite.

I chose Braddock as the subject because I was fascinated by the idea Sturken and Cartwright presented in chapter four from "Practices of Looking..." that images of the past being looked at today is out of the original context.  This relates to gentrification of urban neighborhoods.  As Braddock begins this process whether it is welcomed or inevitable, it takes THE Braddock, which once breathed life through the first steel mill and first Carnegie Library, out of context for profit.  Buy low sell high.  What once produced 80 % of the world's steel (yes the world's steel) is being dissected and redistributed.  What it is worth historically can never be measured monetarily, yet that will be its fate.   ...like seeing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

I liked the metaphor that historically Braddock has been a place of production, and now its meaning/purpose has changed.  It's steel has built many of the worlds buildings.  This project was poetic, so I had to also include a song by my favorite poet.

"...Takes a life to make a life
Livin' in the world of crime tonightCan't find a better way to break youThis ain't livin', I gotta do what I gotta do"
...from "This Ain't Livin'" by 2Pac

Writing Three - Group C Reaction

Writing Three - Group C Reaction

Ramon Riley

I found James Battistelli’s description of his work fascinating!  Is there a blog with pix?  The idea of science fictions impact opens a new discussion that I hope the book gets into further.  I think how we are portrayed in science fiction sometimes tells us more about our culture than movies based in reality or even based on true stories.  Battistelli say’s, “What I plan to do in my work this semester is incorporate body extension and performance into these new creatures I am creating,” which hooked me in based on the concept alone. 

I found Michelle Coulbaugh’s take on the chapter and the impact of branding and labels compelling saying “Specifically, my paintings focus on creating new representations and relationships between the spectator and the fast food industry. I strive to break down the industry’s power over our buying choices by removing branding from their food packaging. What is left is a stark, blank slate upon which we can apply a fresh judgment on what and why we are buying.”   After seeing her current pieces in Kipp Gallery, I realize my mind had added the labels to the product. My mind completed the picture.  There is a difference in a McDonald’s yellow and a Wendy’s yellow.  My mind immediately saw that paler Wendy’s yellow and filled in the blanks.  These big companies are watching us and directing us.  We are the market in market research.  Repetition fosters familiarity, which is difficult to resist even if the result is unfulfilling.  I am trained to go back again and again.

Crystal Miller’s point that the scale of her work is very important to addressing/engaging people was well stated.  Having worked on illustration size drawings for the past five years versus putting work in a gallery environment is a daunting task because how it will ultimately be received  is dependent on variable I had not been considering.  The intimacy of holding a book is very different from luring viewers in to see you work.  What I thought was large can be dwarfed by the context of a wall.  Having been in class with the artist, I wanted to hear more about how she chooses her subjects for her photographs.  I wonder what makes something worthy of this creative treatment of printing and scaling to turn it into art.  I wonder is it being at the right place at the right time, or is there some part of the plan that is consistent when you are looking?

Crystal’s paper addressed the sexual undertones of the “gazing” process that I focused on in my writing, but I thought  Eric Brennan’s stating “Men may like to imagine they are in control but women love knowing they DO control men’s gaze,” was addressing the elephant in the room.  As he states in his blog, (we are) “Surrounded by people and society that are always trying to influence us,” I am finding I grow impatient with people who are unwilling to take a stance, state an opinion or aren’t willing to acknowledge their emotions and feelings.  Ironically, many art students try to adhere to unreachable standards of purity.  I feel this is out of fear of having to defend one’s self.  Brennan’s paper also references the the repression of feelings seen as inappropriate.  My question is inappropriate by who?

Why do we have this standard that any and every question is worthy of answer?  Group C re-evaluated their work based on Mulvey.  Why?  I would have to commit time to see her work as a filmmaker before I put so much stock in her criticism.

“She instead stated that she intended to use Freud and Lacan's concepts as a "political weapon." She then used some of their concepts to argue that the cinematic apparatus of classical Hollywood cinema inevitably put the spectator in a masculine subject position, with the figure of the woman on screen as the object of desire...

Mulvey argued that the only way to annihilate the "patriarchal" Hollywood system was to radically challenge and re-shape the filmic strategies of classical Hollywood with alternative feminist methods. She called for a new feminist avant-garde filmmaking that would rupture the magic and pleasure of classical Hollywood filmmaking. She wrote, "It is said that analyzing pleasure or beauty annihilates it. That is the intention of this article..."

That just sounds sterile and bitter.  Are her films void of beauty and pleasure?Why would I want that for myself?  Before I punish myself, I will consider and analyze the source.

Writing THREE - My Visual Pleasure

Writing Three - My Visual Pleasure

Ramon Riley

I am guilty of looking...  

Mulvey’s article proclaims that it intends to destroy pleasure and beauty by analyzing it.  Nice try.  Not even close.  

This week I combine the writing of Mulvey “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” and Chapter Three, “Spectatorship, Power and Knowledge”, of the Sturken and Cartwright book “Practices of Looking...” to discuss my own practice and process.

In my work, I am driven by muses, or goddesses of inspiration.  My earliest memory of this was seeing the replica sculpture of Nike of Samothrace at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, who, like the origin of the word “muse”, is also Greek.  The female body draped with thin fabric clinging in a way that accentuated her curves, especially between her thighs, motivates me still to seek out moments of visual pleasure in life, thus blurring the line between art and life. That this sculpture in its current form is headless is reason for some to criticize me.  Oh well.  

Nike of Samothrace,
 2nd century BC marble sculpture of the Greek goddess Nike

A sculpture, even more than a painting, because it is three-dimensional is the highest form of looking because every curve is studied and touched intimately.  In my latest works, I wanted to bring my drawings close to this level of intimacy and study.  I treat the graphite like a chisel to reveal the image from the paper.  This involves a long hard look.  My intention is to get the viewer to also take a long hard look.

"Untitled"
Ramon Riley 2012

The concept of the “gaze” in both articles was well presented and focused on the voyeur having power, at least at first.  The negative connotation it puts on instinct to look as an abuse of power, however, causes me to distance myself from such a definition.  To look is powerful.  One does not have to make another weak to make one’s self powerful. Mulvey talks about a world of sexual imbalance between the “active/ male and passive/ female”.  Reading this article conjured feelings from my youth as the sympathetic male who was missing the boat.  I spent too much time listening to insecure self-haters who want others to hate themselves too.   

I seek to articulate the power the muse already has, so one may be inspired as I am.  The Winged Nike of Samothrace is powerful.  She is the symbol of victory for goodness sake and not just in title.  She is not passive.  Her stance is strong and assertive. That she is actually an object immortalizes her, and makes me wonder who was the muse that inspired the sculpture. To see her image, likeness or qualities in women is cyclical because I am not sure which came first.  

   

I do believe there is a vast difference, despite subtle distinctions, between the look, the gaze, the scope of an individual predator or the panopticon theory as discussed in the Sturken and Cartwright chapter (p. 96 -100).  The distinction is in the access and motive of discovery.  It should not be a violation of ownership.  The half-cocked can argue that they are one in the same, but I argue in the subtle distinction... there is the art.

The metamorphosis of our capitalist culture to give cheap (not necessarily inexpensive, but cheap) easy access to everything, lowers our standards despite the illusion of “high definition” being the so-called standard.  Putting cameras in everyone’s hands and convincing them they are photographers and directors sabotages the artist, model and potential audience because the work and the venue is tainted.  This results in poor representation of a given medium.  But it makes me more confident and determined as an artist.  I like being me, though it comes at the price of constant self-examination.  I constantly ask myself difficult questions.  My art work stems from the remaining questions I am unable to verbalize that probably have no set answer.  This process makes me the proud co-owner of my discoveries and my art.  

I believe in muses, and I appreciate beauty.  I will not surrender my passion to follow the uninspired nor the uninspiring .  Karen Rosenberg wrote in an article for a Matisse gallery show, “Matisse and the Model,” about the power the model had over him quoting the artist’s words from a 1939 essay:  ‘“I depend entirely on my model, whom I observe at liberty, and then I decide on the pose which best suits her nature.” He continued, “And then I become the slave of that pose.”’(1)  Coincidentally, Matisse’s Large Seated Nudes were inspired by Michaelangelo’s “Night” sculpture at the Medici Chapel in Florence, which was not a flesh woman, but Matisse understood the power of the model was the first critical part to the art work, stating about Michaelangelo’s sculpture:   “Forgive me, I’ve been completely ensnared by a woman.”

...ditto.

Henry Matisse Seated Nude [lithograph and sculpture] 1925-1929

Michelangelo
 Night on the Medici Tomb




(1). Karen Rosenberg, "Matisse and the Model". The New York Times: Art and Design November 17, 2011–http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/arts/design/matisse-and-the-model.html

Writing TWO Group C Reaction

Writing Two Group C Reaction

Ramon Riley

This is the second writing by Eric Brennan where I found reading to be enjoyable because the writer’s points are clear and well stated.  Not that I always agree or even disagree.  There is a strong writer’s voice I hear, and that makes it enjoyable.  There was one point made, however, that sounded too academic, void of personality.  Brennan says that because viewers often misinterpret the producers intent, “This is why advertisers always consider viewers when producing images. Marketing firms are very successful because they acknowledge viewers as individuals.This is why advertisers always consider viewers when producing images. Marketing firms are very successful because they acknowledge viewers as individuals.”  Call me a pessimist, but I think there is a process of creating consumers, so that marketing firms don’t get it wrong because they have trained us.  When quality visuals are hard to find we “make do”.  The word consider implied some altruistic context.  I liken it more to manipulation.  

Michelle Colbaugh’s statement about how propaganda posters from World War II Germany and Stalin’s Russia to “brainwash the minds of the people through school, religion, and imagery to the point where their individual sense of looking was diseased by inherited slander that skewed their perception of reading the posters,” was profound, and made me think about republican and democratic conventions currently taking place... the camera angles, panning to the black guy or the senior in the audience tactics to target demographics.  It seems transparent, but apparently, someone knows that the stuff works. 

James Battistelli says, “We as individuals in a digital age have the resources to produce anything we want digitally and then comment on it and other media like it.”  I agree with this, but, being a teacher, I hear the praise but I read complaints.  I think when people are happy, they go about their day happy.  I question if this age of rating makes us seek to knit pick instead of thinking enjoyment first. I don’t know.  Also, the mentioning of youtube made me think about what ends up getting attention is childish stuff, but thank goodness for the inventions.  The resources are powerful.  Battistelli sums up the readings by stating that the viewer is given power as producer. I am questioning in my head if this is the same as empowering viewers.  I wonder.

I also enjoyed what Brennan wrote about aesthetics and a hierarchy of taste.  The power of those in charge of declaring what is valuable should always be questioned, so I was completely on board with this portion of the writing.  Crystal Miller’s summaries, “When viewing a representation/symbol, we have evolved our thinking to that the object and its’ representation are now visual equals, even though functionality renders them different.” It is this statement that connects taste.  I think understanding, or being, in tune with what we really are seeing refines our taste.  Miller goes on to say that our individual taste has more widely acceptable standards because it belongs to the individual.  That said there is still acceptance culturally based on that hierarchy Brennan was referring to in his paper.  

After reading everyone’s statements, I thought about how our taste changes or evolves, and I wondered if we mature or if we simply become worn down by the culture.  I also thought about the chosen one’s whose job it is to be in the front of us, our tastes, visually.  Where do they get their taste, or how are their sensibilities formed?  My inner pessimism says it is all to change the direction of the sheep...

Writing TWO: Visual Culture and Historical Research

Writing Two - Visual Culture and Historical Research

Ramon Riley

I saw an exhibit at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh entitled “Impressionism In A New Light: From Monet to Stieglitz”.  The show was a look at how Impressionism had impacted photography.  As an art student, I was taught photography changed the need to render realistically, and Impressionism and Expressionism grew from the camera relieving the artist from the role of documenter.  This show made the case that Impressionism created “Pictorialism”, where photographers were using techniques in both the taking photos and the development of photographs to show photography as art and more than “point-and-shoot” (1).   

But there were two photographs that made me return to the museum a day later.  The subject of this paper is a photograph of Georgia O’Keeffe by Alfred Stieglitz and the art of O'Keeffe.  I will intertwine my findings with my understanding of the assigned readings:  Chapter 2 of the Sturken and Cartwright book “Practices of Looking...” and the article “Welcome to the Cultural Revolution” by Krauss.

In the photograph of O’Keeffe, Stieglitz knew how to capture the beauty of the woman he loved.  This portrait shows a side profile with the artist’s (O’Keeffe’s) nude shoulder seducing the viewer and her uplifted hands playing the air like an instrument.  Stieglitz displayed O’Keeffe’s elongated and elegant fingers and portrayed her skin as fair against the stark contrast of a black background.

Alfred Stieglitz "Georgia O'Keeffe" 1920

As I sat for hours cherishing the opportunity to see O’Keeffe as Stieglitz might have seen her.  I thought about O’Keeffe’s art work which added greatly to the power of the image.  I was looking at an American Master photographed tenderly by the man who loved her before the stardom and before her legacy had been overanalyzed, bastardized and regurgitated.

Thinking about the Sturken and Cartwright reading and the concept of the dominant-hegemonic reading theory (p.53-57), I recalled a professor during my days as an undergrad “informing” me that O’Keeffe’s paintings were seen as subconscious images of tribute to the vagina.  And the more I looked at her work, I saw it too.  I accepted this as truth, and I carried that deduction with me... until I saw the photograph of in the show at the Carnegie.  It’s accepted that the artist doesn’t always “know” the symbolism in their own work, and this is where critics and historians can help to uncover the subconscious of the artist.  So I accepted my professor's statement despite O'Keeffe's public denial.  There is nothing wrong with seeing the flower paintings by Georgia O’Keeffe in the way the love of a woman can soothe the angst man.   Plus it contrasted the chaotic work of the time (2).  

Georgia O'Keeffe's Black Iris Series 1926

It was not until I witnessed the oversimplification and immature giggles toward her work that I felt perplexed.  I heard other undergrads, “...she just paints vaginas.”  There was that damned word “just” to reduce the significance of something, and the loaded word “vagina” which carries much more baggage (both selfish and commercial).  This is the opposite of rappers trying to validate the “n-word” by saying they are re-purposing its meaning (Sturken and Cartwright p. 63).  This is our culture claiming ownership of something intangible and trying to sell it, thus, cheapening it (Either option is misguided), and these idiots were allowed to speak that way, let alone think that way.  The context of OUR culture was contaminating this fresh experience of looking at O’Keeffe’s art (Sturken and Cartwright p. 57) for me.

Maybe Georgia O’Keeffe did paint vaginas subconsciously.  Then the definition or connotaion of “vagina” must be refined to align with the impression made upon me by the art and image of the woman in Stieglitz’s portrait.  Looking at the photo of O’Keeffe by Stieglitz, one could see in her image the contrast of strength and vulnerability, seduction and unawareness, sophistication and informality... I saw it in Stieglitz’s photograph.  So, if the artist IS the work, and the work IS the artist, to say Georgia O’Keeffe paints vaginas can still be accepted (if YOU need to label things), but one best get their understanding of the vagina as symbol correct first and remove the marketing baggage, bastardization, prostitution and pimping of “pussy” out of the equation.  

This is not some up-skirt shot of Brittany Spears on TMZ, but unfortunately, many “intelligent” people among us use knowledge to sell garbage to the majority of us to make themselves rich.  When it comes to visual culture, or culture period, there should be required courses in visual art, symbolism, and ethics.  This is where the Krauss reading comes in.  It seeks to critique and expose “unexamined assumptions about representation” (p.83). There are too many “smart” people saying stupid “shit”.  Sturken and Cartwright might say people “make do” because our introduction to most things come from a passive state of boredom (p.59), which would fit in with Krauss stating that our capitalist culture prepares us in order to sell TO us (p.84).  We kinda, sorta channel surf through life, and in that sense, I hate when people disrespect or don’t get the things I find inspirational. I guess, by living to be inspired, I am a bad consumer.

So, as I draw my own comparisons, through conversations with other inspired people, I compare O’Keeffe’s hands in the Stieglitz photograph to the artist Rodin’s sculpture “The Hand of God” using the symbol of the hands as the original Creator.  Rodin, also saw hands as being able to express the emotions of the entire body (3).  The similarity of Rodin’s sculpted fingers and O’Keeffe’s fingers is uncanny... or is it?  The more I am around creative people, and the more photographs of O’Keeffe by Stieglitz I seek out, the more I see there are common trait’s that artists have, and O’Keeffe’s likeness exuded many if not all of the best of these traits.  I am not proclaiming her to be perfect.  I am, however, applauding the value of O’Keeffe as creator and as muse. I do not want to reduce her or her creations.  It took seeing O’Keeffe in photograph form and revisiting her work as an adult to see the energy and power in her and her ART.  I would rather falter on the side of treating O’Keeffe as God-like than mistakingly reduce her. 

Auguste Rodin
"The Hand of God" 1907

Alfred Stieglitz
"Hands and Thimble - Georgia O'Keeffe" 1920

Our visual culture often uses the lowest common denominator to unite us or relate to us, but it only treats us like children devaluing what is important under the guise of simplifying information.  Simultaneously, our culture inflates the status of molesters who can sell and make capital.  Krauss’s article proclaims art both representational and non-objective to be language that needs to be analyzed to understand providing the tools to fight the hard sell and avoid being misled.  Conscious art education begins there.  When deconstructing visual language/culture, we must be careful not to lose the subtlety of the art in exchange for a fast explanation, or an explanation at all.   

Thankfully, through education, I am learning that there is so much more to learn.  Like Stieglitz and the photographers in that show, I can stand up for ART despite my fear that we will always be a “point-and-shoot” culture.  We tolerate the quick conclusion because it is catchy, and it sells.  I have to maintain my filter which will not allow my appreciation to be contaminated and penetrated by someone else’s disease.  Not without a fight.

1. Christina Rouvalis, “First Impressions,” CARNEGIE, (Summer, 2012): 13-17.
2. Author Unknown. “Georgia O’Keefe: About the Painter,” American Masters, 2006  <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/georgia-okeeffe/about-the-painter/55/> (28 April 2006).
3. "Auguste Rodin: The Hand of God (08.210)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/08.210 (October 2006)