I think it would be interesting to add the demographics/description of the Womanhouse ie. it was an old mansion in a rundown section of Hollywood that was found and rehabilitated into an arts space. I feel like this description would echo the way you describe House and give a good sense of how their settings are different and may give an inclination of the relationship between the artists and the spaces they would work with. Along these lines, maybe also include the position of the artists of each work-- where they are from, how they relate to these spaces, how did they find them. I know this is a lot, but maybe just a few of these points could further the opening comparisons of them.

clear thesis.

I think the idea that both works had a shared goal of increased consciousness could have been used really well earlier. It seems like a lot of the paper it showing how, despite being a less engaged approach, House may have similar objectives to Womanhouse, but just executed poorly since the strategy was focused on the end-goal of garnering the attention of the elite art world on the artist herself. Although it could be easier to argue that House was just that strategy and nothing else, in this moment you chose to also see it at as a real attempt for social transformation/conciousness changing (even if poorly done). I really appreciate this because it nuances the work. It is for this reason, that I think that making clear that the goals of the two works were similar or at least not dis-similar, would be a very interesting statement to include in the beginning if this is what you believe!

I think you could restate your main points here, but overall great use of vocabulary. Your transitions flow well. I enjoyed your use of "I". I always love to feel like I am reading a person's thoughts as if they were speaking out loud. Good job.

very clear comparison made here. this is also my favorite part. I love that you write about the actual physicality of the spaces.

I like this phrase :)

another great connection

I think you raise really interesting and important points in this paragraph. I think it would be interesting if you grappled with how the works'/artists' relationships to their environments/communities could fit directly into strategy. To what extent were these differences/similarities due to strategies or their topic/focus? What goals were prioritized for each work?

good connection made

nice way of ending this paragraph and connecting to next one

This is a good opening sentence because I get the general sense that you'll be comparing and contrasting the two (being similar and different). I also appreciate that you use the term "monument" so early because that is their strong point of similarity and gave me an early idea of how you were going start talking about them.

Really great paper. Enjoyed reading! Also appreciated the journey it goes through. It has some twists and turns and made me think a lot. The argument began to reveal itself as I read, and although I knew you were going to show how BAW/TAF epitomized the struggle for popular Hall writes about, I was surprised in the multiple ways you showed how. Good use of vocab and tying into previous topics from class. Your paper helped me understand what Hall was saying better. Thanks

Good statement in summarizing your thoughts

good way to tie this in

I appreciate this moment of self-reflection. I always think it's nice to hear what the author thinks about their own process of thinking.

again, great, interesting and important question which incites a lot of other questions about positionality

awesome interesting way to include this quote/poem

This question is my favorite part of the paper. This entire paragraph of the paper— the posing of questions is super interesting and brings new ideas. I love that you're pushing back (at least as an exercise or theoretically) against the artist and the supposed philosophy. It really complicates the narrative further and begs us to go deeper into the role of artist or "artivist". Made me think!!

like our conversation in class and in the text about the differences the prefixes of "un, non, re" and others had in making meaning/labels of immigrants.

another good way of showing the way border art became "popularized" and perhaps commodified or performed. This exists as another way the popular works—as a "taste" for something and/or a consciousness, a way of thinking about something or feeling (in relation to the ways popular terms like "illegal aliens" changed).

great way to connect one of their works and use it to show the physical embodiment as related to or parallel to the greater effect they had

really great analysis and use of the semantics which are good examples of how BAW/TAF created change.

good use of quote/context

Conclusion wraps up paper, by showing how BAW/TAF is a case study (and Hall's work) help to illustrate the complexities of the approaches to socially engaged art. Could restate main threads of argument, but overall leaves paper nicely by suggesting the application of the case study and hall's framework for a larger inquiry on these art practices.

• Summarizes/restates the main points of Hall’s work (“framework” on popular culture)
• paper to show the ways in which BAW/TAFs work, ideology, transformation, etc. “epitomize” this struggle that Hall refers to on multiple levels
• Topic and Approach are clear. Paper def has twists and turns—good and interesting ones
• 2nd (and 3rd) paragraph adds to defining importance/role of BAW/TAF

good summary

Paper goes through a nice journey. In the beginning, the argument was that West Meets East is both dialogical and avant-garde, but challenges a-g, but at the end you included the idea that the art-world does not consider it a-g because intellectual-ness or opacity is too important to the definition/categorization of avant-garde and West Meets East does not have this. I was wondering if you believed this too: if you agree that West Meets East is not a-g or at least a different kind of a-g or if you were just explaining why, based on the values of the art-world, West Meets East was not recognized. It is interesting because throughout you never say that West Meets East is a-g, but that it has "aspects", is like a-g, can do the same things as a-g, etc. So if this is what you think, it would have been awesome to see your thought-process from what you perhaps initially thought and what you came to think a little bit more (if this was the case) as I know you included your own identification with the work's meaning itself and I really appreciated seeing your "I" voice. {Although I know most academic work hates it}.

Super interesting to read! Use of quotes to frame/describe, compare/contrast, and to agree/disagree with was well done. Nice title too

I like the symmetry... That you started and ended with the same quote.

I like that you described this as a "barrier" as it makes obvious and problematizes the art world as a whole—not just "avant-garde" as an abstract and seemingly untraceable concept. This is a great springboard for ideas about the art world accepting or rejecting certain "kinds" of artists, making it personal, social, political, economic/class-based and not just object-based. Framing the rejection of art works as just a reflection of the "tastes" of the art institution as whole absolves people of fully recognizing the institutionalization of discrimination and exclusion that has permeated the art world like all other rhelms, and instead makes them seem annoying but relatively benign instead of deeply problematic .

made very clear. Well argued based on theorists' ideas.

really good use of these theorists

clear

Interesting revelation and comparison. Creates an opportunity to push back on this theory

why West Meets East is not avant-garde at least in this way

This description of avant-garde is super helpful

good use of quote

I like that this question was posed and the way it is used to encourage another layer of (and therefore a more full) analysis of the complexity of this traditional art “world” which is fueled by 'banking' art and often praises the avant-garde.

This is an important thing to bring up. That the artists (Bengali Girls) themselves did not have power. It was interesting to tie this to agitator/constructor as we usually talk about the "main" artist(s) in a work as having influence and in this case, the girls themselves did not. It brings up the point that creating change/making an impact is quite difficult to do outside of art anyway and even harder when we take into social identities (of artists) and the protection or support afforded to them. On the other hand, I wish there was the inclusion of Loraine Leeson and the group/organization she worked for it. Leeson or the group may have had some institutional social power, financial support (independent, donor, etc.) even if it was small in order to put it up in a public like a billboard or to get the materials maybe?? Like you shared, it is unlikely that the Bengali Girls themselves, or just anyone in general could have the power to hang their work of that size in a public space with an encased description ( I think). Also, I am not sure, but maybe there were protections put on the work from the city to make sure it was in condition or no harm came to it??? These may be interesting hidden components of the exhibition to consider

very clear idea. One of the ways we can differentiate West Meets East from other classically avant-garde works

good use of quote

Open about the complexity in these initially thought to be either/or terms like dialogical/avant-garde, agitator/constructor, clear/ambiguous, etc.

introduction to terms

I like that you included this personal reflection. Not only does it give insight to how the piece resonated with you and it is nice to have a personal touch of what you think and feel about the piece, it reinforces the idea that the work is not only dialogical in its creation and inspiration, but also in its tendency to and purpose in spurring dialogue or (self) reflection outside of it.

middle to end of paragraph gives a full description of the meaning of the work

beginning of paragraph gives a thorough description of what the piece looks like

dialogical, but proves that "dialogue" despite language barriers can transcend language itself and that this dialogue does not have to be traditional dialogue at all. It shows that communication (and collaboration) can look like different things.

Enlisting the help of “House” may help to reveal the "range" in what is and can be named as avant-garde. May be used in order to argue that “West Meets East” is more significant in its dialogical components/process and that it is this which is helping to stretch avant-garde as opposed to reinforcing the traditional avant-garde. I think this a good addition because it gives readers a frame of reference and point of comparison like you have said!

This is really interesting because part of the argument is questioning the identity of the work itself and grappling with the coexistence or balance between dialogical and avant-garde.

Point #4

Point #3

Point #1

Point #2

explicit thesis/roadmap

this shows that the larger idea of West Meets East being both dialogical and avant-garde is being explored and the argument starts to emerge here. Showing that there is a difference between this embodiment of avant-garde and the traditional embodiment of avant-garde. Also there appears to be a differentiation made between avant-garde as a "framework" and something else. There is a separation between what an artwork "is" and what is "does" (to viewers...) both of which can be named as "avant-garde", and West Meets East is avant-garde in what it does?

establishes that West Meets East is both

introduction to term

introduction to term