Gomez-Pena responded that multiculturalism was not a "gift" from whites, but the result of decades of struggle by people of color.
This is a very strong statement by Gomez-Pena. I completly agree that multiculturalism was not a "gift". Gift implies that multiculturalism was given fom the colonists (whites) willingly without payment or collateral from the suppressors (indiginous people). There was 1,000% collateral damage in the eys of the suppressor.
Our plan was to live in a golden cage for three days, presenting ourselves as undiscovered Amerindians from an island in the Gulf of Mexico that had somehow been overlooked by Europeans for five centuries. We called our homeland Guatinau, and ourselves Guatinauis. We performed our "traditional tasks," which ranged from sewing voodoo dolls and lifting weights to watching television and working on a laptop computer. A donation box in front of the cage indicated that for a small fee, I would dance (to rap music), Guillermo would tell authentic Amerindian stories (in a nonsensical language) and we would pose for polaroids with visitors. Two "zoo guards" would be on hand to speak to visitors (since we could not understand them), take us to the bathroom on leashes, and feed us sandwiches and fruit. At the Whitney Museum in New York, we added sex to our spectacle, offering a peek at authentic Guatinaui male genitals for $5.
This whole performance reminds me of a piece that we learned about in our recent slide lecture, and the piece is Betye Saar's The Liberation of Aunt Jemima, 1972. I compare the two works of art because, Saar's piece had similar symbolism of sterotypes for the African American culture as compared to Gomez-Pena and Fusco's use of symbolism for stero typical 'Guatinau' sterotypes. Both artists with both works of art are portaying this racist dipiction for the purpose of educating the viewers and for the purpose of taking back that power from the oppressors. In this the piece becomes empowering and educational.
But the concept of cultural diversity fundamental to this understanding strikes at the heart of the sense of control over Other-ness that Columbus symbolized, and was quickly cast as unAmerican. Res-urrecting the collective memory of colonial violence in America that has been strategically erased from the dominant culture was described consis-tently throughout 1992 by cultural conservatives as a recipe for chaos.
I think this is worded phenomenally and paints a perfect picture for me. The reality of the mixing pot concept, essentially stems from control over indiginous people and later on immigrants. It all stems from violent colonization.
Columbus, the figure who began as a symbol of Eurocentrism and the American entrepreneurial spirit, ended up being devalued by excessive reproduction and bad acting.
From victor to adversary. This portrayal of having Columbus up on a pedastol for being a hero for many many years, had been cut down. As I read through this article, my opinons about Columbus alters greatly, and I think the performance probably painted a much more realistic picture of Columbus from the eyes of the fictional indiginous characters.
1) a substantial portion of the public believed that our fictional identities are real ones;
In the reading up to this point, I was thinking to myself, the audience is totally going to think that the fiction characters are actually nonfiction characters. I wonder how that concept will be explained, directly or nondirectly? And how will the audience respond knowing that these identites performed are in fact fictional?
I can’t see how this can be sustainable—how the work can maintain it’s value if the rest are losing interest as I am—but then, as long as the perceived value persists (there is no real value in artwork) and if these works maintain their status, there’s no reason for the bubble to burst.
The concept of perceived value, as Byrne mentions above. One word, mind-blown! An idea that, to me, may seen so obvious, is so obscure and inconspicuous!
Now abstract art can safely be said to be about nothing but how big it is, where it can be placed and how much it costs.
This is the second time in this paragraph that Byrne has commented on an artworks size. I find the connection that Byrne makes to abstract and contemporary art and a large size to be relative. Does bigger always mean better? An interesting point that Byrne has brought up here.
That’s the part that worries me—the economics now affect how I see the art. I realize that I have begun to view the work itself as being either intentionally or unconsciously produced expressly to cater to the 1%. I go into a gallery now and—rightly or wrongly—immediately think, “inoffensive tchotchkes for billionaires and the museums they fund.” I can’t see the work or any ideas behind most of it anymore—if there even are any.
I find this idea that Byrne has about the art galleries he attends, to be quite interesting and relatable. I'm sure many many people, (anyone that is not in that 1%), can relate to this concept that the art displayed in set galleries is commissioned and connected to the very select group of buyers. I'm sure many people can see the connection between the art and the art's intended audience, that Byrne has expressed.
perambulations
I was curious about the word 'Perambulations', so here is a definition I have looked up.
Perambulation- The act of walking around, surveying land, or touring.
Bryrne may be referring to, "Beating the bounds, annual custom in England and Wales of walking the boundary or one's parish".
“condoization” trend.
There is actually a trend in the UK and/or US called the "condoization" trend or is Byrne just trying to be hip?
Abstractness, or the non-figurative, has in itself still not proved to be an altogether necessary moment in the self-criticism of pictorial art,
This reminds me of the quote by Danto stating that "Abstract painting is not without content". I am relating Danto's quote to this sentence by Greenberg because in Greenberg's sentence he is stating that Abstract art is not necessary in the self-criticism of pictorial art. Pictures have subject matter whereas abstract paintings do not, indicating that they can not be a base line criteria for pictorial art. One is without the other.
Manet's became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted.
In Greenberg's description of modernist criteria and definition, Manet is the first Modernist artist. This is mind blowing to me, in one aspect because Manet's art seems so recent. How is he the first Modernist artist?!
"Purity" meant self-definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one of self-definitionwith a vengeance.
This sentence is very interesting to me. I interpret the words "'Purity' meant self-definition" in this sentence as, your true self is your purest self, and I can't agree with that more.
The essence of Modernism lies, as I see it, in the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the disciplineitself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.
This is one hell of a definition by Greenberg! After reading this sentence numerous times, I think the sample of the sentence stating "the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself" essentially in order to continuously more forward, is a great description of the Modernism.
Young artists of today need no longer say, "I am a painter" or "a poet" or "a dancer." They are simply "artists." All oflife will be open to them. They will discover out of ordinary things the meaning of ordinariness.
I love and relate to this concluding paragraph by Kaprow.In the second sentence, this in my opinion is the true definition of the creative brain, the brain of the artist. To see beauty, value and meaning out of the ordinary.
But I used the words "almost absolute" when I spoke of the diaristic gesture
I've noticed that throughout this article Kaprow uses very similar phrases such as "almost absolute" as descriptors for what he is referencing. I'm not sure if in the world of grammar this is called a double negative or what this use of terminology is called but you can see it's usage throughout Kaprow's article.
In the last seventy-five years the random play of the hand upon the canvas or paper has become increasingly important.
I like how Kaprow states that the "random play of the hand upon the canvas or paper has become increasingly important." He is both stating that abstract expressionism is both random yet of great value in the late 1950s.
America was celebrating a "sanity in art" movement,
The way in which Kaprow states "sanity in art" movement is very interesting to me. When is there ever sanity in art?!? This phrase reminds me of the Academies in France in the 18th century, I can see a professor saying this and comparing academic art to that of the insane art of the modernists and avant-garde artists.