Which viewpoint do you agree with more? Do you think that it is even possible for the present to be completely free of influence from the past and future? Does influence from the past and future necessarily have to be a bad thing?
2) The article describes the present, especially contemplation of the present, as a barrier impeding the natural flow of time and the realization of ideas for the future. Part of this is due to our persistent boredom with the present. We tend to not be able to describe what the present means and look to the past and future with excitement.
Do you agree that we generally take the present for granted and do you think that this boredom interferes with the artistic process? Have you experienced this when it comes to your own work?
3) Groys talks about how in our time, because of all of the technology at our disposal, it is possible for anyone to be an artist and that because of this we live in a time of all artists and no spectators.
Do you think that it is possible for someone to be a spectator in a time when art is so participatory in nature? Do you think the ability to view art from the comfort of our own homes is a threat to viewing artwork in galleries?
1.) I really think the present is always somehow “corrupted” by the past. Especially with art.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with Jacques Derrida where he states: “that the present is originally corrupted by the past and future.” But, first of all, I think that the here-and-now is not always “corrupted” by the past, I think that the present can be influenced by past.
But yes, even if the artist does not create work that is associated with or representative of past art, the decision of that artist to veer from past history was a choice: And that choice was affected by previous works of art. Many artists want to do what hasn’t been done before, to create something unique, something new. In order to do that you have to know what has been done, you have to look at other artists work. And either way you go, whether you like it and want to do something similar, or whether you don’t (making a conscious decision to stay away from it in your own work)—then that past has already affected your present and future in some way no matter how small.
2.) One of the sections that stuck out in my mind was on page 25-26 when Groys states,“when we begin to question our projects, to doubt or reformulate them, the present, the contemporary, becomes important…this is because the contemporary is actually constituted by doubt, hesitation, uncertainty, indecision…”
Kirsten’s question reminded me of when artists desire to create something that is unique, but fear otherwise. Sometimes the fear of creating or doing something that has already been done can be a barrier for times in the future.
When thinking about contemporary art and how it pertains to the present, Groys comments by saying “We want to postpone our decisions and actions in order to have more time for analysis, reflection and consideration.”
This goes off from what question #2 asks but, in thinking about how art is evolving through time makes me wonder what the future will think when looking back at the world now. And I think Groys makes a good point on page 27 when he says, “But today, this promise of an infinite future holding the results of our work has lost its plausibility…The future is ever newly planned—the permanent change of culture trends and fashions makes any promise of a stable future for an artwork improbable.”
1) There is no way for artists to escape the past. They will always be influenced by past artwork, artists, artistic trends/movements. I agree with JoAnna that even if an artist is trying to create something new and separate from the past, they have to have some idea of what has already been done. This also means that they have some idea for the future and how they want to affect the future of art. So the contemporary is somewhat "corrupted" by the past and future. I feel that in order to create art only in present and "with" the present, would be to create art in a vacuum. Although, one artist that came to mind while I was reading this article, who I believe is successful in creating contemporary art in the here-and-now is Andy Holtin. On page 29, Groys gives examples of time-based art that "reflects the contemporary tradition" by capturing and demonstrating "activities that take place in time, but do not lead to the creation of any definite product". This reminded me of Andy Holtin's "Circle Time Machines". As the circle is being created, it is at the same time being erased. There is no end product (it never achieves its goal of creating a circle) and it is repetitious. I believe this work of art is a perfect example of how Groys connects modernity and time. "...the time of modernity is the time of permanent modernization, never really achieving its goals of becoming truly modern and never satisfying the desire that it has provoked."
ReplyDelete3)But also to tie in Lindsey's 3 and Meg's 1.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree when Groys talks about how in our time, because of all of the technology at our disposal, it is possible for anyone to be an artist and that because of this we live in a time of all artists and no spectators. Its not that people are actually artists, its that they think they are artists just because they create one decent thing that their friends like, or use picnik to change photos. This all has to do with the technology Groy is talking about that we have at our disposal all the time. This is also why it makes sense when he talks about the museums. On page 27 he says, "museums have become the sites of temporary exhibitions rather than spaces for permanent collections." Which is true, becuase less and less people want to go to museums because they can sit in their homes and look it up online. I am not saying this is right at all, because it is a completely different experience when you see art in person but people these days just don't care as much and are too lazy. Which is a part of how I see things to be in the next 10 to 15 years, is getting worse. Who knows what kind of new art will be out there and what people will be doing, but we can kind of see where it is going.
2) I definitely think that most people take the present for granted. Most people think about past events, whether it be looking at pictures, or past projects, or even just memories. People also have such high hopes and excitement for the future, for plans and opportunities that could come. I believe that in some respects it inhibits our ability to enjoy our present or take advantage of the present. There is a quote by Groys that states, "The present is a moment in time when we decide to lower our expectations of the future or abandon some of the dear traditions in the past," I think this quote explains how people always hold their past and future to a higher level than their present, like it is more valuable, but at some point your present was your future and then you take it for granted when it comes and then only cherish it again when it is in the past. In terms of my own work I definitely agree that these expectations are a major cause of boredom in my present work. I will have an idea that I am very excited about, but sometimes if it takes longer than I wished or intended I start thinking up future projects or ideas and become more excited about them than I am with my current project.
ReplyDelete3. I think we discussed this greatly during the last reading (about photography), but it obviously applies to this reading and to any current artist. Granted with all of the technology and resources at our fingertips, it is significantly "easier" for someone to create something that would be classified as "art." However, something that we've heard before is not to make art for art's sake. All of our art and art of great creators in the past and present, incorporate a theme/passion that adds much more to their art.
ReplyDelete3) "The ideology of modernity.. was directed against contemplation". This quote I believe rings true today. People are constantly consuming media from television, the internet, billboards, and more. This, I believe, doesn't make everyone an artist. Art is there to force the spectator to think, contemplate, and study. If the masses are all consuming media without contemplation, then they are not artists. Many many not even know what art truly is and may merely believe an advertisement is art because it makes them "think". This kind of thinking, where it creates the want to consume isn't art.
ReplyDeleteSure, technology is allowing more people to see more art (stumble, googleart, and more), but without knowledge behind it, are the spectators appreciating and learning from it, or merely glancing and moving on? Technology is also allowing more people to use digital media to create art, but that calls into question "what is art"? Is every person with photoshop an artist? Must more be put into their work?
I believe there are still many spectators, especially when media today is allowing people to be consumers with no to little thought.