“Court Rules in Artist’s Favor” by Randy Kennedy – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE

“The appeals court, which heard the case last May, ruled…that ‘the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture,’ but only that a reasonable observer find the work to be transformative.”

COMMENT

“Secondary use” of material is re-using someone else’s material in what is hopefully an original way. There are schools of art (e.g. postmodernism) that rely heavily on using second-hand material. And on the one hand, as I mentioned in my QCQ response to the article on plagiarism, using second-hand material (as Richard Prince does) can be a valid form of creativity. On the other hand, appropriated material does belong to someone, and that original creator might or might not be okay with their work being used in this way. In this case, Patrick Cariou, the original creator of the photos Prince used in his work, took Prince to court, and Cariou initially won. The case was later appealed, and the appeals court overturned the original ruling. From a legal standpoint, this appeals court has set a precedent where the court gets to decide whether or not a piece of art with appropriated components is “transformative” or not, and that seems like a slippery slope.

QUESTION

When is it okay to use second-hand material? Under what conditions? What would make a piece of appropriated art “transformative”?

“Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age” by Trip Gabriel – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE

“[S]tudent writing exhibits some of the same qualities of pastiche that drive other creative endeavors today — TV shows that constantly reference other shows or rap music that samples from earlier songs.”

COMMENT

This quote effectively expresses how, according to some experts on plagiarism, students in our generation tend to mix and match material that others have written rather than coming up with original work. This of course is a blanket statement that does not apply to all students, but this “remixing” is a trend that has been observed not just in academia but in the arts, entertainment, etc. The article suggests that because students in our generation grew up with the Internet, and because the Internet has a certain anonymity to it, we have less of a concept of authorship, or less of a sense of written material “belonging” to someone, than previous generations did.

QUESTIONS

Isn’t “mixing and matching” a valid form of creativity? We don’t have to re-invent the wheel in order to be creative; what is wrong with recombining ideas from pre-existing works in a unique and original way, or adding to those ideas somehow? Where do you draw the line between this and plagiarism?

Rejection Therapy in the Tivoli

by Amber Carlson

Here is a video of my attempt at rejection therapy. I did three things: 1) give a stranger a genuine compliment, 2) ask a stranger for his/her first impression of me, and 3) give a stranger a hug. I filmed this in the Tivoli building on the Auraria campus. 🙂

“Cheerful and Heroic Failure” by Bazon Brock – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“[Artists] discovered that a general discrepancy between a mental construct and its objective realization in pictorial language is obviously inevitable, because for human beings it is not possible to produce identity between intuition and concept, content and form, consciousness and communication…[they started] exploiting the discrepancy in order to produce something new that cannot be thought out hypothetically…being innovative meant forgoing from the very start the enforced identity of normative concepts of art and their correspondence in the work. The failure of the works became the precondition for making the theme something new and unknown.” (p. 181)

COMMENT
Brock talks a lot about the idea of succeeding through failing, or “heroic failure”. He suggests that an art piece is successful to the degree that it fails to meet predetermined ideas and conceptions about what art is supposed to be. Challenging existing ideas of what art is doesn’t always have to be the end goal of art, but it certainly seems to be the goal of what Brock calls “experimental art”.

Brock also seems to be saying that the choice to experiment or be radical–for better or for worse–arises from, or is fueled by, failure. He talks about how artists who start experimenting face social stigma and are driven to become increasingly radical, causing their “bourgeois lifestyles” to fall apart and the artists to take up drinking, drugs, and crazy behavior (which leads to them becoming even more “out there”). I wonder if that’s where we get this stereotype where artists need to be somehow dysfunctional in order to be artists. Personally I’m not sold on the idea that artistic success (or even willingness to experiment) has to arise from pain, suffering, brokenness, or other forms of “failure”. But that is a pervasive idea that a lot of people seem to have about artists.

QUESTION
Is “failing” a prerequisite for being successful with our art? Or is it just being willing to risk failing that makes all the difference?

“The Importance of Changing Mediums: Why We Need More Polymaths in the 21st Century” by Jeff Goins – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“The great artists, it seems, get bored with just one medium. They don’t want to be pigeonholed, no matter how successful they became…It seems we are never done creating, never done working, never done expressing what we have to share with the world.”

COMMENT
I like the practical wisdom of this article. When he mentions “changing mediums”, Goins isn’t just talking about pursuing different forms or methods of creating, which is worthwhile in its own right. He’s also talking about how artists can benefit from branching out and learning about something seemingly not related to art (e.g. business). Artists can be really prolific with their craft, but without a little business savvy, they might have a hard time making their art into a career. Taking up different pursuits and learning about different things also contributes to being a well-rounded person with a broad perspective on life. But Goins does offer a word of caution to would-be Renaissance men and women: “don’t be a jack of all trades,” he says, “become a master of some.” Trying to do it all is futile, but picking a few different skill sets and mastering them can be hugely beneficial, not just to artists but to anyone.

QUESTIONS
How do we prioritize which skill sets we want to learn? Which ones seem to complement each other? Is it just a matter of our personal goals?

“Beyond Pong: Why Digital Art Matters” by James Bridle – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“The cadence of the internet [is] a process of revealing and understanding and not understanding, which echo the rhythms of argument, love and life, as they are reflected back to us by the technologies we build to understand them…technology itself is always a period piece, inseparable from the times and politics that generate it.”

COMMENTS
Essentially, Bridle argues that technology is art because it is both a record of history and a “context in which new social, political and artistic forms arise”. It is ephemeral, it is continually evolving, and it is always shaped by the times in which it is created. He raises a key point about how corporate interests and big money sway the production of technology, and as such, they are changing the way that history is being recorded. They are shaping the way future generations will view this time in our history. Bridle also speaks to the universal impact of technology when he talks about the double-edged sword of globalization, how this technology is interconnecting us and yet also creating a greater need for accountability for our actions.

QUESTION
If technology is an art form, who are the artists? Might these people think of themselves as artists? Why or why not? What makes someone an artist or not an artist?

“The Creative Act” by Marcel Duchamp – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“In the creative act, the artist goes from intention to realization through a chain of totally subjective reactions. His struggle towards the realization is a series of efforts, pains, satisfation, refusals, decisions, which also cannot and must not be fully self-conscious…The result of this struggle is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of…[There is] an arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.” (p. 2)

COMMENT
The main message I see in this article is that the spectator of art actually plays a role in the creative process, because the spectator decides whether that art has value and whether it will become known for posterity. This has nothing to do with what the artist herself thinks of her work because, according to Duchamp, there is always a gap between the artist’s intention and her final product. Duchamp believes that artists are not aware of what they do or why they do it because their role is more like that of a medium, channeling messages from one plane to another–therefore the spectator, who is at the receiving end of these “cosmic” messages, is the only one in a position to evaluate the work.

This makes sense to me, in theory–but I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that the spectator ultimately determines whether a piece of art is worthy of consideration. Why is the spectator accorded with so much power and authority? The implied message seems to be that art is only valuable if it’s recognized by others. What if these messages coming from another plane are not fully understood by those who are viewing them? Is that the fault of the artist, for not providing a clear enough “translation”? Maybe, but I suspect that it is equally possible for spectators to misinterpret the messages, or to evaluate art based on factors that have nothing at all to do with the art, and everything to do with their own subjective experience, culture, biases, etc.

QUESTIONS
As artists, is it reasonable or realistic to try and become more aware of our intent? As spectators of other people’s art, how can we evaluate art in as fair and unbiased a way as possible? What factors need to be taken into consideration?

“Make Place for the Artist”, anonymous author – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“Make place for the artist. Do it now. For you, as well as him, tomorrow is too late…Give him the right conditions. Here are the conditions. This breed requires freedom. Cages kill him. Restrictions constrict. This animal is forever at war with his own limitations by nature. The rules others try to impose usually only baffle and, finally, either destroy or else disinherit him.

“The artist must be given more than enough rope. He often hangs himself for the experience, however this creature has a tough neck, give him time! He is perhaps more aware of time than any other type of individual. He is an explorer of his own dualities. He embarks on as many adventures as there are in a day. These are the components of his witch brew.” (p. 1)

COMMENT
Ooh. This article gave me chills. There’s something jarring and yet resonant about the language this anonymous author uses. He conveys the magic and mystery inherent in making art by likening the artist’s craft to the casting of spells. “My profession is transforming,” he says. He also refers to artists as “animals”, a commentary on how artists have a wildness and freedom about them, and because of it they can feel a bit removed from a society that does not value or understand them. His plea in this article is for society–particularly the academic world–to hold space for the arts and create conditions where artists can thrive because their work matters so much.

QUESTION
How are artists seen by society and how has that image changed over the years? What are the biggest challenges that artists face in modern society?

“In Defense of Amateur” by Robert Haller – QCQ Response

by Amber Carlson

QUOTE
“An amateur is one who really lives his life–not one who simply ‘performs his duty’–and as such he experiences his work while he’s working…and the amateur, thus, is forever learning and growing thru his work into all his living in a ‘clumsiness’ of continual discovery that is as beautiful to see…as to watch young lovers in the ‘clumsiness’ of their lack of knowing and the joy of their continual discovery of each other…” (p. 164)

COMMENT
This quote, to me, encapsulates the beauty of being an amateur: it’s all about having that willingness to make mistakes, learn, and grow. Personally, I am on the fence as to whether we should think of ourselves as “amateurs” or “professionals” when doing work we inherently love–whether that work is art or something else. According to Haller, amateurs work for love of what they do, not for money or fame or any other external reward–which is true. They are also apt to not take an overly-serious approach to their work. But, by the same token, amateurs don’t have to face the day-to-day reality of needing to make a living off of their work. In his book, “The War of Art”, Steven Pressfield argues that amateurs don’t love what they do enough to make it their day-in, day-out livelihood. For professionals, their work is their lifeblood. They get up and do their work each and every day, whether or not they “feel like it”, because they must. There’s a grittiness and a level of commitment here that you don’t see in people who think of themselves only as amateurs.

QUESTION
When doing work we are passionate about, should we think of ourselves as amateurs or professionals? Are there ways we might embody the qualities of both?