@qamuuqin:disqus

Sorry, I hit back a little hard there – it was a rough day, and on those days I have a shorter tolerance for what seemed like obfuscation, which we see to much of here on the forums. Clearly you can put your money where your mouth is, so apologies on any impatience in my response.

Thanks for the references – I’ve copied and pasted those to my Evernote, and will look into them.

I like it when my notions are legitimately challenged, and I’ll spend some time looking at these folks.

I’m a bit of a classicist, and don’t always agree that contemporary theory (particularly on ideas as old as art) outweigh the value of evaluation that has existed for decades (or in some cases centuries) – but I do like to see other viewpoints, even if I don’t always agree with them in part or whole.

Agreed on the part about how bad discourse has become on the net. I try to be as non-anonymous as possible – I’ll put my name behind my words, even if I’m occasionally wrong or full or shite :)

Thanks for an interesting discussion. I still think the above-mentioned piece is ostentatious and presumptuous. But that’s one voice in the wind.

Cheers!

Shoot, why not. While I’m at it, I also very much recommend a firm understanding of the tenets of Relational Aesthetics, a la Bourriaud, the Situationists International, and Fluxus—and, therefore, the forbearers of these movements, including: futurism, dada, etc.

Also, seminal exhibitions such as “Information” in 1970, “Traffic” from 1996, as well as the later “Documenta” shows.

Sorry for the lengthy responses. One of the problematic issues surrounding art made in our contemporary and globalized society is that the art world can be so insular that many of its debates and discussions rarely leave the sphere of critics, artists, scholars, etc. Another problematic issue, here, is that photography constitutes a unique and peculiar position within the art world. Historically speaking, no other art form has seen such internal stratification as photography: artists, commercial and editorial photographers, amateurs, hobbyists, etc.

To be clear, I am not at all trying to contest the status of photography as art, I only wish to point out that photography has reached such a critical mass that it necessarily contains more, as well as more varied, understandings and viewpoints of art.

My apologies for not including a citation page :-) I do not at all appreciate Anon. Authority arguments either, though I also do not tend toward including all relevant critics when referencing widely acknowledged, though often revisited, critical issues surrounding art—especially contemporary art.

For further reading and understanding on the nebulous ideas surrounding current artistic practices, I wholeheartedly recommend “Living as Form” by Nato Thomson, “One Place After Another” by Miwon Kwon, “The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art” by Martha Buskirk, or anything by Peggy Phelan.

This list constitutes just a drop in the bucket of scholars, critics, and artists who directly address, or strive to create language around the issue of artistic practices and theories that anchor art, and its critique, around the entire scope of a project rather than just the visual component. Although you mentioned Lewis’ work as “visual art,” it would seem as though her own statements about the work contradict such a reading.

To be clear, I am in no way trying to condescend to you, or to start any sort of flame war. I merely wanted to point out that it is shortsighted to think that art should only be evaluated on its ability to transmit a message, without accompanying explanation. Although such a goal is necessary in advertising and editorial work, at least based off my experiences as a photographer, as well as my interactions with fellow photographers, the realm of art—which Lewis’ piece is grounded in—doesn’t hold to any such ideal.

Regarding Lewis’ artist statement, it is unfortunate that Peta Pixel does not have the space to include more of her writings on the work. If you check out her website for the project, which now includes many other artists, the single sentence that you pull out doesn’t really stand up to your reading of it. That’s the issue with engaging with “linked” stories on sites such as Peta Pixel—the posts generally just provide a broad summation of the work.

Lastly, if I can’t call your reading flawed unless I “support the argument with a valid premise,” then it seems just a bit ironic that you called the work a failure without citing any basis in proof.

At the end of the day, though, this brings up a whole other set of issues, such as the effectiveness of anonymous interaction on the internet as it relates to social issues, but also the amorphous nature of the art world as a whole. While I am not one to lionize the canon of art, I do find it important to approach art with a critical lens informed by a multitude of viewpoints and theories.

I really do appreciate you taking the time to engage thoughtfully. It seems more often on this site—or perhaps the internet in general—that people want to drop their $.02 worth of their opinion or reaction to a project or story, rather than a more informed response. Thank you again.

I agree on the YMMV.

You can’t simply say “Many prominent critics, theorists, scholars, and artists have observed
that we’ve entered a time where art can and should be evaluated not on
the false dichotomy of ‘success’ and ‘failure,’ ” without citing said critics, theorists, et.al. – well, I guess you CAN say that, but it’s an Anonymous Authority argument, and I can’t buy into that.

“To say that this piece is a “success” only if its message is apparent” etc. … Flawed by who’s definition? Again, unless cited, Anonymous Authority.

You can’t call my reading flawed unless you can support the argument with a valid premise. Just saying assumptions are flawed over and over again without any basis in proof is an Argument to the Point.

You write very eloquently, but this entire passage is basically all rhetorical fallacies, and the level of obfuscation in the text may sound pretty, but doesn’t lead to sound arguments.

When Lewis says “The images I capture force the viewer to think about menstruation in an entirely new way,” is literally saying she’s forcing the viewer to change their thoughts – that’s what “force to think in an entirely new way” means. And more pointedly, it’s incorrect – and doesn’t make me (or likely most viewers) change their views on menstruation. That’s just presumptuous.

My mileage varies a lot ;)

Thank you for the more coherent comment :-)

To be clear, your metric for evaluating the success or failure of “visual art” is still outmoded. Many prominent critics, theorists, scholars, and artists have observed that we’ve entered a time where art can and should be evaluated not on the false dichotomy of ‘success’ and ‘failure,’ since there has never been a comprehensive agreement about what constitutes the realization of either, but on the *effect* of the work itself.

To say that this piece is a “success” only if its message is apparent without any further explanation is to reduce the work in order to fit it into a biased and flawed system of understanding and critique.

Furthermore, to try and pigeonhole Lewis’ work into controversy for “controversies” sake is a flawed reading. Although it’s clearly a *controversial* subject in popular culture, that does not automatically reduce it to being controversial merely for the sake of being controversial. Such a reduction often leads the conversation away from the critical issues at stake by sidestepping said issues entirely.

Lastly, Lewis isn’t actually trying to “tell” you that she is changing your thoughts. Rather, by placing the issue of menstruation, a taboo subject in our society, onto a pedestal—figuratively and literally—she actually *is* forcing people to confront their own opinions regarding the topic. You clearly have done that, since you engaged with her piece—even just to exclaim your revulsion. In that sense, her piece could be described as successful. But as noted earlier, falling back on binaries to try and unpack a nuanced concept that relates to an even more nuanced issue is a lost cause.

YMMV

To be clear, the menstruation part doesn’t have any affect on my opinion either way. It’s a byproduct of the body, and it doesn’t make me feel any differently than it would if it were a photo of fingernail clippings, hair that has fallen out, etc.

For a piece of visual art to be successful, it needs to evoke an emotional response on its own. That response can be any number of things, but ‘meh’ isn’t a valid emotional response.

If it has to be explained to me what my emotional response should be, it’s failed in its purpose.

A statement such as, “The images I capture force the viewer to think about menstruation in an entirely new way,” is false and a little bit insulting. It doesn’t change the way I think about menstruation at all, and to tell me that you are changing my thoughts is presumptuous.

Visually, the images themselves don’t capture anything more significant than any other liquid mix contrast images do.

When art is being used as a channel of communication, the message should be clear on its own.

It also smacks of controversy for controversies sake, which is to truly controversial art what a pun is to humor.

So in short, the failure has nothing to do with the subject matter, but with the execution, and the presumption that we are to be told what to think when the work isn’t powerful enough to evoke that message on its own.

That’s a rather outmoded understanding of success and failure of art, but I’m curious—why does that make it ‘fail’ for YOU specifically? Simply because you don’t like knowing that the images are menstrual blood? If so, then why does that idea make you dislike the project?

He was my first thought as well. I saw his exhibit “Shit” in Chelsea years ago. The one thing I can enjoy about his work is that you get exactly what you expect :p

+1

I love Giger, too – and Mapplethorpe for that matter, though ALL of his work isn’t to my taste. His portrait skintones are unmatched (except maybe by Joyce Tenneson) and his flowers are exquisite.

I mention Serrano for a few reasons:

1) He did a lot of stuff w/ bodily fluids (Piss Christ, Blood mixed with semen squished between glass, etc.)

2) It’s trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.

3) It’s contrived and trite (both this and Serrano)

4) I don’t think the work has any value.

I would never say the same about all of Mapplethorpe’s work, he did a lot of different genres, and even his more controversial ones were trying to make a legitimate point (though rather crudely).

I just wanted to clarify why I chose one over the other.

cheers!

Up til last week I’d have said Chris Burden duels Vito Acconci, but there’s a slight problem with that now.

“Uhwuwuuuh, there’s nothing gross about menstruation blood!” the mouthbreathers chant. Yeah? Well then why do roughly all of people think this is utterly disgusting? Blaming widespread opinions on “society” only takes you so far.

I was all set to have a personal opinion on how generic the photography was and how the “artist” is nothing but an edgelord seeking attention, but then you used nothing but block capitals to make a point, and I saw the light. Clearly, you are an educated and sophisticated patron of the arts. Carry on, sir. Carry on.

I stick to the Mapplethorpe analogy….Andre Serrano on the other hand……. I realized that Art is very subjective and peoples taste run the gamut and if he got famous pissing on christ with his own unine he’s coming from a place I dont even want to know about because. He is one twisted individual. Now H.R.Giger was my kind of twisted. (And he made me nervous) so bob in conclusion the Mapplethorpe analogy works because all these artist are twisted to an extent that I never hope to come close to…..

^ Exactly that. If the image doesn’t evoke the intended emotional reaction without having to be explained, it has failed as art.