PowerPoint

This article, on the cover of today's New York Times, speaks directly to Christine Rosen's issues with PowerPoint - the shorthand it necessitates can often create issues on a macro scale.  The image below, taken from a real military PowerPoint presentation, seeks to "portray the complexity of the American strategy in Afghanistan," and the Times notes that it "certainly succeeded in that aim."

violent images and trauma...

A few of our class discussions were centered around violent images and peoples’ personal reactions to the 9/11 attacks, and we shared highly personal stories about where we had been, what the attacks had meant to us, and how we felt the media treated such an unspeakable tragedy.  During the course of our discussion, I recalled a study I had once read on the effects of media violence on individuals, which sought to link the exposure of study subjects to violent still and moving images with their ensuing responsiveness (or lack thereof) to their perception of a person in peril.  The researchers’ findings made clear that exposure to a violent film in an interview room made a study subject less inclined to inquire about the taped sound of a woman screaming in a hallway than a control subject who had not been exposed to violent media of any type.  The study essentially implied an inverse relationship between exposure to violent media and an individual’s ability to display altruism.

In thinking about the 9/11 attack, the images of jumpers (which have subsequently been all but eradicated from the visual archive of that day due to their highly personal nature), the live broadcast of the plane hitting the second tower, and other images that we could not possibly begin to understand were occurring on American soil, I wonder if we have been similarly desensitized to violence through our exposure to these highly upsetting images.    I have no answer for this question, and suspect that no one does.

I was not in New York on that day, but watched the second plane hit from the rather surreal perspective of being an American tourist in Milan, walking down a shopping street and seeing an electronics store with black-and-white televisions in the window tuned to CNN and broadcasting the events live.  The result was, for me, akin to watching a bad horror movie from the 1950s, and I could hardly piece together what was happening.  Do these images lose something in translation?  Did I interpret the events differently due to the fact that I initially believed they were all a tasteless (and special effects-heavy) foreign film?  Walter Benjamin would certainly assert that even viewing the events in color would be a poor substitute (or, perhaps, paradoxically, a good one) for experiencing the original, and for once, I agree. 

image complexity as beneficial?

In his book “Everything Bad is Good for You,” researcher Steven Johnson claims that complexity within a television show can have a positive effect on cognitive development.  This complexity does not necessarily need to be found in the content matter of a series or show; rather, it also can simply exist in the manner in which it was filmed.  John argues that even programs such as “The Sopranos,” notwithstanding their rather dramatic and often violent subject matter, can serve as an intellectual exercise for developing minds, enabling new neural pathways to form as a means by which to understand complex cinematography and plot arcs.  He writes that “the most debased forms of mass diversion…video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms…turn out to be nutritional after all.”  (excerpted from "Watching TV Makes You Smarter," The New York Times Magazine, April 24, 2005).  In considering Johnson’s claims, which I had been exposed to in a previous class at TC entitled "The Psychology of Media," I could not help but wonder if there are those who believe similarly that exposure to a myriad of images (or even a few highly complex images) can, in fact, positively impact cognitive development.  Do M.C Escher's nonsensical woodcuts and engravings improve our ability to make sense of the world around us?  Does looking at Andreas Gursky's obsessively detailed "99 Cent Store" photograph provide us with enhanced powers of observation and reasoning?

In doing some research about this subject, I happened upon an article published in the Journal of Psychological Science in September 2009 (again, I am fascinated by this intersection between science and art which I found so compelling during our discussions following the neuroimaging lab visit).  The article discussed how researchers at UC Santa Barbara had identified a connection between exposure to surrealist themes in films, literature, and the visual arts “enhances the cognitive mechanisms that oversee implicit learning functions.”  By viewing juxtapositions of images which are fundamentally illogical, the brain responds by “finding some other structure within your environment” to compensate for that which the viewer or reader does not understand – in other words, cognitive development and compensation ensues, and image complexity here has a positive result.  An article about the study can be found here.  

While the study focused quite heavily on the medium of literature in its demonstration of the above benefits, it nonetheless piqued my interest in the potential for images to enhance cognitive development (a fact with which I am sure Johnson would be pleased)).  Having written my art history thesis on Surrealist themes, I am intrigued by the notion that the seemingly strange juxtapositions of images created by such artists as Giorgio de Chirico, René Magritte, and Yves Tanguy (among others) bear the potential to actually improve the viewer's ability to make sense of the world.

brief thoughts on the mtv effect...

Ever since reading Christine Rosen’s article on image saturation and the potential (and as yet unknown) effects of the constant barrage of images to which we are all exposed, I have found myself watching television and consuming other media with an eye to the so-called “MTV Effect.”  When it was founded in 1981, MTV pioneered a fast-paced, “in your face” style of programming which privileged quick cuts, layered graphics, multiple messages, and random transitions.  While the network has moved away from the exclusive airing of music videos in favor of original programming, the network nonetheless retains this rather peripatetic style of filming which is often rather jarring, a style which has been appropriated by numerous other channels.  With the advent of the internet, this style of visual representation has become all the more apparent, even in print and online media, as advertisers purchase space on well-traveled sites in an effort to boost revenues.  I wonder - is "more" really "more?"  Do we neglect content due to the distracting nature of the images with which we are confronted?  

MTV.com screenshot

 NYTimes.com screenshot

visual archive

Visual archive has been posted!  See the 4 sets and 3 galleries here.

image manipulation outside the humanities

Since our visit to the Neuroimaging lab, I have spent quite some time thinking about the importance of images outside of the humanities (which is admittedly my comfort zone!).  As we discussed briefly in class, I found it fascinating that aesthetics do eventually play an essential role in the work of Dan Stettler and his colleagues, as that which is published must necessarily be in some way visually appealing in order to capture the attention of journal-readers and conference attendees.  I had never considered that “beauty” – as subjective an idea as that may be – could find its way into what I had imagined to be the much more objective arena of neuroscience.  

After reading Christine Rosen’s article “The Image Culture,” which I presented in class, I began to wonder if digital manipulation is ever a problem in science-based imaging, which can, as Dan indicated, be so important to the advancement of one’s career.  Rosen discusses how manipulation has been used for decades to “visually settle scores,” often in the arena of politics, and how the advent of Photoshop in 1990 has had significant implications for our ability to trust what we see.

In researching cases of image manipulation in the sciences, I came across an article entitled "The Ethics of Digital Manipulation" which crystallized many of the issues we discussed in class.  The author is a practitioner of digital astrophotography, a field in which photographers have a vested interest in developing photographs of faraway galaxies which are visually appealing for publication, and the site demonstrates the difference between an unedited image of the night sky (red) and one which has been digitally enhanced (blue).

I also came across an article in the scientific journal Nature News entitled "Science Journals Crack Down on Image Manipulation," indicating that occurrences of such manipulation have increased in the past few years.  The United States Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Research Integrity (ORI), the agency tasked with reviewing submissions for publication in scholarly journals, noted that image manipulation "has escalated over the past two years" and that it is a "growing problem that needs to be dealt with."  The executive editor of Nature notes that "people don't  understand the difference between the beautification of an image and fraud."  The following graph accompanied the article was quite illustrative of the increase in such cases over the years, raising some interesting questions for me:

As digital manipulation technology becomes more sophisticated, does our tendency to use it for insidious purposes increase?  How do ethics play into this issue? Because everyone theoretically has access to these technologies, does the use of them constitute "fair game?"

armory show redux

I had not been to the Armory Show in a few years, and it was a pleasure to return yesterday.  Art fairs can be overwhelming experiences, and this one was no different - it is a challenge to focus on the works on display while attempting to weave one's way through hundreds of visitors (and, in a few cases, former colleagues) doing the same; however, I did manage to identify a number of works that were of interest to me and enjoyed being in the presence of such diverse offerings.

To me, the show represented the ideal mix of work by established and emerging artists.  The Armory Show's focus is highly contemporary, and thus the works on display skewed rather heavily towards the latter group. Works by more established artists were relatively few and far between (I spotted a large Damien Hirst skull painting at White Cube, a few works by Vik Muniz, and a Serrano photograph), and I enjoyed discovering photographs, drawings, paintings, and sculpture by names which were entirely unfamiliar to me.

Our class discussion of Broys' Art Power, with its discussions of the role of curators and critics, brought up some interesting issues for me.  I came to realize that I tend to compare the experience of walking through the Armory Show to that of wandering through a contemporary art museum exhibition, though intellectually I am well aware that the functions of the two events are entirely disparate.  While the Armory serves an entirely commercial purpose, exhibitions such as the Whitney Biennial and shows at such contemporary spaces at the New Museum are mounted in the interest of capturing what is, in fact, the "art of our time."

I also find it interesting that critics consistently provide commentary on art fairs, as though they are comparable to carefully curated museum exhibitions.  A fair which represents the independent choices of over a hundred dealers showcasing the work of the artists in their stable is different from a cohesive exhibition in an institution which has employed curators to organize a group of works around a central purpose or theme.  Nonetheless, the press often treats them in a similar fashion.  Below are links to the New York Times reviews of both.

New York Times review of the Armory Show

New York Times review of the Whitney Biennial

armory show 2010 - initial thoughts

In looking at the works I selected to photograph at the Armory Show I was struck by how many of them were reminiscent (or overtly derivative) of works by other artists whose work I enjoy.

This Gavin Turk painting was a riff on Robert Indiana's "Love" (and certainly brings to mind the issue of whether Turk's appropriation constitutes fair use of Indiana's original)...

...this "Bad Beuys" painting is in some way critical of (or an homage to) the work of performance artist and sculptor Joseph Beuys...

...the milk-drop photograph by an artist whose name I did not record is simply an inverted version of Harold Edgerton's "Milkdrop Coronet" of 1957 (again, the fair use question)...

...this sculpture was a humorous take on Degas' "Little Dancer, Age Fourteen" (1881), and represented what might happen if the young girl were to stumble off her pedestal...

...Vik Muniz's drawing was derivative of one by 18th century Italian artist Giovanni Batista Piranesi.  Muniz is one of my favorite artists - I was fortunate enough to visit his Brooklyn studio last summer - and this work was unlike anything of his I had ever seen before in its demonstration of his extraordinary abilities as a draughtsman...

...In its barrenness, this small work reminded me of Ed Ruscha's lonely 1966 painting "Standard Station..."

...and even the Hirst skull painting from 2007, with its perspectival lines and rough surface, reminded me of a Francis Bacon I had recently seen in a retrospective at the Metropolitan.

Upon returning home and looking at the set of images with which I emerged from Pier 94, the following themes became evident:

- I apparently choose to engage with certain images more than others because they possess an aura of familiarity to me (the above comparisons make this quite clear!).  I admire the work of Francis Bacon as well as that of Piranesi, thus is stands to reason that I should enjoy works which are quite obviously derivative of theirs.  


Are the artists whose work I saw today consciously commenting on the work of their predecessors (or, in some cases, contemporaries)?  Or am I projecting my own preferences and misinterpreting them entirely?  I believe there is a continuum - in some cases, as in the Gavin Turk, there is a rather overt co-opting of the "original" artist's work.  Turk has appropriated works by Warhol as well for his own purposes, and refers to his own work as "highly clichéd."  In the case of the "Standard Station" analogy, however, I am not certain that the artist consciously sought to produce an image which evoked Ruscha's 1966 original.

- I appear to eschew abstraction in favor of realism.  I find it easier and more interesting to engage with works of art when they represent something which is comprehensible to me, which might explain my predilection for photography.  On the whole, there was quite a bit of realism to be seen at the Armory Show, a fact which I believe represents a shift from previous years, when abstraction appeared to be the norm.  

- I enjoy works which juxtapose the old with the new or the expected with the unexpected, imbuing them with an element of the surreal.  The below photographs were appealing to me for precisely this reason.  On the left, a church-like building contains plaster casts (or marble sculptures) of the human figure - while at the outset this does not seem surprising, it soon becomes clear that the primary visual elements are taken from two entirely different time periods.  On the right, the classical lion is covered in modern-day graffiti, resulting in the desecration (or adornment?) of this powerful figure.

expectations...

I am a second-year student in the M.A. Program in Arts Administration Program at Teachers College.  My academic and professional background is in the visual arts - I received a B.A. in Art History from Dartmouth and an M.A. in Modern Art from Christie's Education in New York, then worked for three and a half years in the Impressionist and Modern Department at Christie's prior to entering TC.  Over the past year, I have interned in the Marketing Department at MoMA and am currently interning in Development at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  I just completed my thesis, entitled "Creative Collaboration or Corporate Conquest?: A Study of the Art Exhibition Programs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America," and look forward to graduating in May.

My interest in this course stems from my desire to reconnect with the art historical theories I enjoyed studying during college and my previous M.A. program.  While working at Christie's, I interacted with works of art every day, and while learning the more practical skills of the arts manager over the past two years I have felt rather distanced from the art itself.  Ultimately, I hope to work in a museum, where I will be surrounded by images every day.  I have never taken a course devoted specifically to visual culture studies, and I look forward to learning about the ever-changing role of images in society.  I am particularly interested in the role of images in new media and popular culture.

While it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive list of my favorite artists, I am fascinated by the work of James Casebere, Richard Diebenkorn, Henri Matisse, Thomas Struth, Pablo Picasso, Gerhard Richter, Joan Miro, Jean Dubuffet, Damien Hirst (in spite of myself!), Liza Lou, Yves Tanguy, Wayne Thiebaud, Henry Moore, and Robert Gober.

me...