Robertson, Natalie, "The 10 Predicaments of Maui: Notes on Tricksters", Brian Butler ed., Volume 1, Auckland:Artspace & Clouds, 2008. 16-28
Magic Realism. Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction. 13 November 2006. 25 August 2009. http://encyclopedia.wizards.pro/index.php/Magic_realism
As a child attending church and being force-fed ancient biblical stories of some dude, his 12 mates and a God who killed lots of people was an arduous process made tolerable by lollies, felt-tips and colourful bits of paper. The mythology of the Bible was true because I was told it was. Although, it was something I could never relate to... and they didn’t have lightsabers back then.
Contemporary interpretations of biblical stories is common practice in the teaching of the Christian doctrine, a similar process to that which Natalie Robinson has used in her piece discussing the work of Francis Alys. She states that “...in my opinion these Tricksters demonstrate the kind of attitude that I think contemporary artists can learn from” (Robertson, 20). The difference being that Robertson’s motivation is far more self-reflexive and less ideologically driven. Mythologies that sit in the genre of “magic realism” have had traditional retellings and interpretations throughout history (20) and now the Trickster is getting a particular post-modern reading in the context of contemporary art.
Being a child of the global western culture neither seemingly absurd religious stories nor mythologies of indigenous cultures have had a particularly large impact on my increasingly sceptical mind. Although, the genre of “magic realism” seems to still be relevant in our culture. For myself growing up it was the Star Wars saga in which the magic of the force, practiced by the Jedi order, existed in synchrony with the fictional universe. A more recent incarnation of magical realism is the Harry Potter series. Suzanne Baker’s description fits well: “Normal, plausible, everyday events co-exist on the same level as supernatural, extraordinary and even fantastic events whose authenticity is never questioned” (24). Neither of these examples fall under the strict use of the literary term of “magic realism” so, while I use the term broadly (http://encyclopedia.wizards.pro), I am more interested in how these stories incorporate a use of magic into their mythology.
The fictional experience of everyday events involving the use of magic is a large contributing to the popularity and success the Harry Potter stories. The relevance of the “magic realism” treatment in contemporary culture is obviously still relevant as can been seen from the success of the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises. Although, the motivations behind the retelling of them do not seem to be only religious and traditional but also motivated by profit.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Hobbyist
Currid, Elizabeth, "The Economics of a Good Party: Social Mechanisms and the Legitimization of Art/Culture", Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 31, no. 2, Fall 2007, pp.386-394
Elizabeth Currid’s essay “The Economics of a Good Party” comes from the academic field of economics and offers an overview of the social processes involved in the formation of art/culture value. In order to define these social processes Currid has generalised the individual consumer as well as the cultural fields that are affected by these processes. Producers, distributors and consumers are masses placed into categories. This is to be expected from an overview of a social system.
From the point of view of an individual creative practitioner it is interesting to consider the categories and processes that Currid has described if only to take advantage of or subvert them. The reason for this is that the implications of the processes through which value comes to be defined appear to be overtly negative. Negative in the sense that the consumer is a passive individual whose taste is shaped by other people in positions of power over particular cultural fields. The generalised individual also needs their taste valorised by their peers or those they respect, i.e. celebrities.
The category that interests me is that of the “hobbyist”. Currid writes that “their sheer investment in and knowledge of the cultural field means their presence adds cachet to the very scenes that they participate in and later report and evaluate through a wide variety of channels” (390). It is interesting in that it is a category that gives the consumer power over their own taste. They are an individual who has developed their criteria for judging value by spending time with a cultural field and developing a passion for it. Currid also describes the hobbyist in a social framework, where their presence and opinions are valued in association with art/culture products. Their knowledge of a field validates the value they place on it.
The investment of time and building of knowledge in a particular field of art/culture is a key idea here as it draws a line between the passive consumer and a passionate consumer. The passive consumer is not a description any artist, musician, designer, or filmmaker would wish to be described as.
Elizabeth Currid’s essay “The Economics of a Good Party” comes from the academic field of economics and offers an overview of the social processes involved in the formation of art/culture value. In order to define these social processes Currid has generalised the individual consumer as well as the cultural fields that are affected by these processes. Producers, distributors and consumers are masses placed into categories. This is to be expected from an overview of a social system.
From the point of view of an individual creative practitioner it is interesting to consider the categories and processes that Currid has described if only to take advantage of or subvert them. The reason for this is that the implications of the processes through which value comes to be defined appear to be overtly negative. Negative in the sense that the consumer is a passive individual whose taste is shaped by other people in positions of power over particular cultural fields. The generalised individual also needs their taste valorised by their peers or those they respect, i.e. celebrities.
The category that interests me is that of the “hobbyist”. Currid writes that “their sheer investment in and knowledge of the cultural field means their presence adds cachet to the very scenes that they participate in and later report and evaluate through a wide variety of channels” (390). It is interesting in that it is a category that gives the consumer power over their own taste. They are an individual who has developed their criteria for judging value by spending time with a cultural field and developing a passion for it. Currid also describes the hobbyist in a social framework, where their presence and opinions are valued in association with art/culture products. Their knowledge of a field validates the value they place on it.
The investment of time and building of knowledge in a particular field of art/culture is a key idea here as it draws a line between the passive consumer and a passionate consumer. The passive consumer is not a description any artist, musician, designer, or filmmaker would wish to be described as.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Clifford's Categories
Clifford, James. “On Collecting Art and Culture”, in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988, pp. 215-251.
"Cultural relativism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 28 June 2009. 3 August 2009.
In “On Collecting Art and Culture” James Clifford re-evaluates the Western definitions of “art” and “culture” and how they evolved through the changing field of anthropology. For Clifford globalisation or what he describes as “the growing interconnection of the world’s populations” has created instability in the use of Western art and culture categories in describing non-Western cultures (235). The view could be loosely described as relativist anthropology, a view promoted by Franz Boas in the early 20th century, in which culture should only be understood in terms of itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism).
As an anthropologist Clifford’s interests lie in the institutional collecting of art and culture and, in this case, the potential misuse of descriptive categories when extended to non-western cultures. On the other hand the artist, a producer of cultural objects, is a subject of the anthropologist’s studies. James Clifford wrote this piece in the latter half of the 1980’s by which time global culture had already experienced a significant amount of interconnection according to his essay. A major catalyst for all contemporary globalisation has been media technology which has seen exponential advancements since this time. The cultural changes influenced by these advancements places the individual in a noticeably different position to where they were in the late 80’s.
I find it interesting to consider that the instability that Clifford applies to Western categories of art and culture could translate to potential, opportunity and control for the artist, or any producer of cultural objects. What I mean by this is that when art and culture become less easily defined from one perspective many other perspectives are opened to the individual and, when coupled with technology, they are given control. The boundaries between formerly separate cultures are eroded allowing the artist to form their own cultural brand and when the individual has vast control over the technology that perpetuates global culture they can potentially create their own categories. I use the example of Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill”. A piece of contemporary cinema, it samples, references and pays tribute to a plethora of world cinema genres from Italy, China, Japan and America. While it is funded and produced by American’s there is a complexity to these combinations that is not easily defined in one particular cultural category. It exists in between and is an example of the “counterdiscourses, syncretisms, and reappropriations” (235,236) that Clifford discusses in his essay.
"Cultural relativism." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 28 June 2009. 3 August 2009
In “On Collecting Art and Culture” James Clifford re-evaluates the Western definitions of “art” and “culture” and how they evolved through the changing field of anthropology. For Clifford globalisation or what he describes as “the growing interconnection of the world’s populations” has created instability in the use of Western art and culture categories in describing non-Western cultures (235). The view could be loosely described as relativist anthropology, a view promoted by Franz Boas in the early 20th century, in which culture should only be understood in terms of itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism).
As an anthropologist Clifford’s interests lie in the institutional collecting of art and culture and, in this case, the potential misuse of descriptive categories when extended to non-western cultures. On the other hand the artist, a producer of cultural objects, is a subject of the anthropologist’s studies. James Clifford wrote this piece in the latter half of the 1980’s by which time global culture had already experienced a significant amount of interconnection according to his essay. A major catalyst for all contemporary globalisation has been media technology which has seen exponential advancements since this time. The cultural changes influenced by these advancements places the individual in a noticeably different position to where they were in the late 80’s.
I find it interesting to consider that the instability that Clifford applies to Western categories of art and culture could translate to potential, opportunity and control for the artist, or any producer of cultural objects. What I mean by this is that when art and culture become less easily defined from one perspective many other perspectives are opened to the individual and, when coupled with technology, they are given control. The boundaries between formerly separate cultures are eroded allowing the artist to form their own cultural brand and when the individual has vast control over the technology that perpetuates global culture they can potentially create their own categories. I use the example of Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill”. A piece of contemporary cinema, it samples, references and pays tribute to a plethora of world cinema genres from Italy, China, Japan and America. While it is funded and produced by American’s there is a complexity to these combinations that is not easily defined in one particular cultural category. It exists in between and is an example of the “counterdiscourses, syncretisms, and reappropriations” (235,236) that Clifford discusses in his essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
