The ideas that artist Thomas Hirschhorn mentions in this interview, particularly with reference to the historical cultural significance of such things as graffiti, are very interesting and have prompted further contemplation and personal reflection.
Hirchhorn’s story of the graffitiing soccer fan highlights that aspects of our community which we dismiss as vandalism are integral components of our current social climate and in some instances should be valued as historically significant, and as Hirschhorn points out could be worthy of archeological research in the future.
In a recent online article it was proposed by Tracey Avery of the National Trust in Melbourne that inner-city graffiti is artwork and may need protection. "Well some graffiti has historical significance and, yes, much graffiti can be considered a scar, but there's a small proportion that has cultural significance for its political and artistic associations." The proposal was slammed by opposing groups and no other plans have been put forward for other forms of protection.
This mentality of devaluing and dismissing present forms of expression can be translated to other aspects of society and it seems important to question how will the mentality of our current communities affect how our history is viewed in years to come. Our society is one of ephemeral and disposable consumerist ideals and this means that everything is easily thrown away or disregarded when something new comes along. We value the new and discharge the old. Our digital generation leaves much information and current cultural artifacts in a virtual or non-physical existence. It is interesting to think how this will make our historical documentations eventuate. The attitude that time determines significance is in direct opposition to our disposable society with its ideals that present cultural relics are not worthy or significant. This may result in the future that such relics will be slim in existence, things that could be historically significant in the future are often disposed of in society today. Rapid and numerous technological innovations mean that we are constantly disposing and replacing, with little thought given to preserving and reflecting.
Author unknown. ABC website. “National Trust considers heritage listing for graffiti”. Jun 23 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282814.htm.
Boutoux, Thomas, ed. “Thomas Hirschhorn interview with Hans Ulrich Orbist.” Hans Ulrich Orbist: Interviews volume 1. Milan: Charta, 2003. 393-400.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Disciplining the Avant-Garde: Art in America
This article written by Gregory Sholette communicates the climate of resistance shown to artists and others in America in the aftermath of September 11. Sholette touches on the involvement of government powers in artistic practices that relate to protest situations, particularly that of the Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) and the fallout from such activities.
He shows that in most situations, artists involved in protest work are given unfair treatment and are shown a ‘no tolerance’ attitude by groups such as the FBI to situations where they are merely communicating their views on social issues that they disagree with.
Today, three years on from the publication of this article, I have personally noticed a change in these attitudes, and that change seems to correlate to the upcoming American election and the popular interest given to such artists and their work with protest action over the past few years. Although I have not experienced first hand the social climate of America since 9/11, it seems from my outside perspective that the United States population has become fed up with the totalitarian stance of the current government administration and their actions since coming into power. As Sholette highlights, it seems that the terrorist attacks have forced America to become a culture of fear and anyone noticed doing something mildly outside the norm is brutally and unfairly prosecuted: ‘the US government is aggressively seeking to portray a group of contemporary artists known for their politically provocative, yet legal and Constitutionally protected art, as a full-blown terrorist threat to national security.’
This seems to have changed because such treatment to protestors has been more widely publicised and with individuals such as Michael Moore showing the dishonesty of political powers, as a result these activists have been given almost hero status.
Culture Jamming and protest art such as that of the CAE has become more mainstream and idolised as people start to not tolerate the ‘political and cultural repression’ seen since the war against terrorism has come into fruition. A recent review of ‘The Yes Men’ documentary shows that the sentiments of protest artistic groups are being much more highly regarded as essential to not letting the Bush administration’s tactics become the norm: ‘Urging humanity to wake up before corporations make this impossible, The Yes Men are the most vital force in gurellia performance since Abbie Hoffman. TechnoSituationists with an agenda, these are artists whose antics truly threaten the consensual hallucination.’
Douglas Rushkoff, author of Media Virus, Nothing Sacred. Retrieved from http://www.theyesmen.org/en/book.
Sholette, Gregory. “Disciplining the Avant-Garde: the United States versus The Critical Art Ensemble”. CIRCA: Contemporary Visual Culture in Ireland 112, Summer 2005. 50-59.
He shows that in most situations, artists involved in protest work are given unfair treatment and are shown a ‘no tolerance’ attitude by groups such as the FBI to situations where they are merely communicating their views on social issues that they disagree with.
Today, three years on from the publication of this article, I have personally noticed a change in these attitudes, and that change seems to correlate to the upcoming American election and the popular interest given to such artists and their work with protest action over the past few years. Although I have not experienced first hand the social climate of America since 9/11, it seems from my outside perspective that the United States population has become fed up with the totalitarian stance of the current government administration and their actions since coming into power. As Sholette highlights, it seems that the terrorist attacks have forced America to become a culture of fear and anyone noticed doing something mildly outside the norm is brutally and unfairly prosecuted: ‘the US government is aggressively seeking to portray a group of contemporary artists known for their politically provocative, yet legal and Constitutionally protected art, as a full-blown terrorist threat to national security.’
This seems to have changed because such treatment to protestors has been more widely publicised and with individuals such as Michael Moore showing the dishonesty of political powers, as a result these activists have been given almost hero status.
Culture Jamming and protest art such as that of the CAE has become more mainstream and idolised as people start to not tolerate the ‘political and cultural repression’ seen since the war against terrorism has come into fruition. A recent review of ‘The Yes Men’ documentary shows that the sentiments of protest artistic groups are being much more highly regarded as essential to not letting the Bush administration’s tactics become the norm: ‘Urging humanity to wake up before corporations make this impossible, The Yes Men are the most vital force in gurellia performance since Abbie Hoffman. TechnoSituationists with an agenda, these are artists whose antics truly threaten the consensual hallucination.’
Douglas Rushkoff, author of Media Virus, Nothing Sacred. Retrieved from http://www.theyesmen.org/en/book.
Sholette, Gregory. “Disciplining the Avant-Garde: the United States versus The Critical Art Ensemble”. CIRCA: Contemporary Visual Culture in Ireland 112, Summer 2005. 50-59.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Response to Benjamin
Benjamin’s essay written in 1937 shows the trepidation felt towards the onset of new and complex technology and its implications on the art world and more so on arts reception or absorption by its audience.
The camera is shown as the instigator for this new relationship between art and its viewer. Photography had begun to influence the art world more and more, and the arrival of film further complicated this relationship. Benjamin shows that how relate to the artist or actor is dislocated with the interjection of the camera. This technical mediation of reality complicates the audience’s relation to how the artists subject is portrayed or how the actor portrays his character. He shows that the camera allows image production that shows unconscious ways of seeing, and that the images produced are not done as consciously as those of a painter. This mechanical reproductability of reality through an image eliminates the aura: “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.” (I understand the aura as the essence or an art works unique existence at the hand of the artist).
Although I see valid and interesting comments in Benjamin’s essay, it is hard, on a personal level, to fully understand the social context in which it was written. Photography, film and the camera have become so saturated into our daily life that it is hard to understand the somewhat terrified stance that Benjamin seemed to take. I see the camera as a tool for us now, a way to heighten how a director or artist can control the way their audience sees. Although in instances such as photojournalism, this greater ability of control can skew or manipulate reality in a negative way (as seen in Campbell’s “Horrific Blindness” text), in the realm of the art world it can be welcomed as a way to further our artistic intentions. This can be said of film in the same way, the director now has an unparalleled ability to tell his story to the receiving audience.
Working within the post-modern aesthetic, it is more valid to increase this displacement of reality to a more constructed space and allow ourselves to control reality for our artistic intents. Michael Kohler wrote of the basic aesthetics of modern photography in a recent essay and described the aesthetic in the following way: “The creative achievement of the photo artist is measured according to his ability to undermine the traditional claim of the camera image to “truth”, “objectivity” and “realism” – and to give it the character of an “autonomous” pictorial object instead.” (p16).
It seems that we have now accepted the infiltration of mechanical reproduction into the art world and are constructing strategies to utilise this technology for the purpose of innovation and progress.
Kohler, Michael. “Arranged, Constructed and Staged”. Constructed Realities: The Art of Staged Photography. New York: Edition Stemmle. 1995: 15-20.
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Reprinted in Durham, M.G. & Kellner D. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell. 2001: 48-70.
The camera is shown as the instigator for this new relationship between art and its viewer. Photography had begun to influence the art world more and more, and the arrival of film further complicated this relationship. Benjamin shows that how relate to the artist or actor is dislocated with the interjection of the camera. This technical mediation of reality complicates the audience’s relation to how the artists subject is portrayed or how the actor portrays his character. He shows that the camera allows image production that shows unconscious ways of seeing, and that the images produced are not done as consciously as those of a painter. This mechanical reproductability of reality through an image eliminates the aura: “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.” (I understand the aura as the essence or an art works unique existence at the hand of the artist).
Although I see valid and interesting comments in Benjamin’s essay, it is hard, on a personal level, to fully understand the social context in which it was written. Photography, film and the camera have become so saturated into our daily life that it is hard to understand the somewhat terrified stance that Benjamin seemed to take. I see the camera as a tool for us now, a way to heighten how a director or artist can control the way their audience sees. Although in instances such as photojournalism, this greater ability of control can skew or manipulate reality in a negative way (as seen in Campbell’s “Horrific Blindness” text), in the realm of the art world it can be welcomed as a way to further our artistic intentions. This can be said of film in the same way, the director now has an unparalleled ability to tell his story to the receiving audience.
Working within the post-modern aesthetic, it is more valid to increase this displacement of reality to a more constructed space and allow ourselves to control reality for our artistic intents. Michael Kohler wrote of the basic aesthetics of modern photography in a recent essay and described the aesthetic in the following way: “The creative achievement of the photo artist is measured according to his ability to undermine the traditional claim of the camera image to “truth”, “objectivity” and “realism” – and to give it the character of an “autonomous” pictorial object instead.” (p16).
It seems that we have now accepted the infiltration of mechanical reproduction into the art world and are constructing strategies to utilise this technology for the purpose of innovation and progress.
Kohler, Michael. “Arranged, Constructed and Staged”. Constructed Realities: The Art of Staged Photography. New York: Edition Stemmle. 1995: 15-20.
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Reprinted in Durham, M.G. & Kellner D. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell. 2001: 48-70.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Ethnoscape and Cultural Homogenization
Arun Appadurai describes the current situation of our world in his essay “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy”, and uses several new terms in his description. The most interesting I found were the concepts of the ‘ethnoscape’ and the ‘imagined world’.
He describes the ‘ethnoscape’ as “the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists, immigrants … and other moving groups.”(33) He describes the world also as ‘imagined’ in our ways of thinking in particular realms, as media and contemporary (and largely commercial) sources become such an integral tool to our education. In contemplating these two terms together I can see how ethnicity can become part of this ‘imagined world’.
By this I mean that with the increase of moving persons, culture or ethnic identity can become displaced and harder to readily understand by someone that has grown up in a relocated environment. When a family has moved from their place of cultural origin they take their ethnic traditions with them but these traditions are, over time and generations, molded and reinterpreted in their new habitat. As this happens, the younger displaced members of a culture can look to media sources such as movies and magazines to relive their historical past and locate their ethnic identity, as this can be the only place they can experience their culture besides their domestic setting. That is, if a culture or ethnicity has been developed in a displaced community through generational adaptation, stereotypical images of a culture can take hold and these ‘imagined’ cultures can become a source for ethnic identity.
Appadurai sees this as a challenge faced by most people in the modern world, and the ‘imagined’ culture a phenomena not too vastly unreasonable: “how do small groups, especially families … deal with these new global realities as they seek to reproduce themselves and, in doing so, by accident reproduce cultural forms themselves?”(43)
Although this outlook can seem bleak for our cultural identity, as it conjures images and thoughts of an almost a uniformic version of our ethnic diversity, the argument can be made that at least it seems our cultural identities will and can remain intact, even though the form might not stay the same as in our ancestral history. “This does not mean that they will be static entities. There will be an ongoing, dynamic transformation through dialogue and encounter”. A recent essay by Michael Amaladoss “Global Homogenization: Can Local Cultures Survive?” from which this point was made further argued that cultures must survive the onslaught of contemporary culture as “people construct their identities through their cultures, they will defend them, even violently if necessary… Cultural diversities, as expressions of divine and human freedom and creativity, will have to be protected and defended.”
Amaladoss, Michael. “Global Homogenization: Can Local Cultures Survive?” August 2008. http://www.sedos.org/english/amaladoss2.html
Appadurai, Arun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy”. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. 1996:22-47.
He describes the ‘ethnoscape’ as “the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists, immigrants … and other moving groups.”(33) He describes the world also as ‘imagined’ in our ways of thinking in particular realms, as media and contemporary (and largely commercial) sources become such an integral tool to our education. In contemplating these two terms together I can see how ethnicity can become part of this ‘imagined world’.
By this I mean that with the increase of moving persons, culture or ethnic identity can become displaced and harder to readily understand by someone that has grown up in a relocated environment. When a family has moved from their place of cultural origin they take their ethnic traditions with them but these traditions are, over time and generations, molded and reinterpreted in their new habitat. As this happens, the younger displaced members of a culture can look to media sources such as movies and magazines to relive their historical past and locate their ethnic identity, as this can be the only place they can experience their culture besides their domestic setting. That is, if a culture or ethnicity has been developed in a displaced community through generational adaptation, stereotypical images of a culture can take hold and these ‘imagined’ cultures can become a source for ethnic identity.
Appadurai sees this as a challenge faced by most people in the modern world, and the ‘imagined’ culture a phenomena not too vastly unreasonable: “how do small groups, especially families … deal with these new global realities as they seek to reproduce themselves and, in doing so, by accident reproduce cultural forms themselves?”(43)
Although this outlook can seem bleak for our cultural identity, as it conjures images and thoughts of an almost a uniformic version of our ethnic diversity, the argument can be made that at least it seems our cultural identities will and can remain intact, even though the form might not stay the same as in our ancestral history. “This does not mean that they will be static entities. There will be an ongoing, dynamic transformation through dialogue and encounter”. A recent essay by Michael Amaladoss “Global Homogenization: Can Local Cultures Survive?” from which this point was made further argued that cultures must survive the onslaught of contemporary culture as “people construct their identities through their cultures, they will defend them, even violently if necessary… Cultural diversities, as expressions of divine and human freedom and creativity, will have to be protected and defended.”
Amaladoss, Michael. “Global Homogenization: Can Local Cultures Survive?” August 2008. http://www.sedos.org/english/amaladoss2.html
Appadurai, Arun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy”. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. 1996:22-47.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Artist as a Brand: in our brand driven world
Has originality been lost in our post-modern society?
This is the question that comes to mind after reading Celia Lury's review of Damien Hurst's artistic practice in ‘Contemplating a Self-Portrait as a Pharmacist: A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science'.
‘the conditions under which creativity, invention and discovery are recognized are being altered.’ (Lury: 106)
‘Original’: ‘Hirst is not so much concerned with being an origin or even with originality, as with the use of a name to mark an organisation of relations between things, with assemblages and reassemblages, appropriations and incorporations.’ (Lury: 95)
Today everything is repackaged, reconstituted, re-emerged as something new with a new label attached. Artists now seem to work through a system of looking just for new links and relations between things that have come and been exhibited before. Artists seem to have to identify their worth by creating a new way of looking at a somewhat old idea. It is about finding the new way of interpreting the old: this is only where we can be original.
‘In physics, you know, if they can’t find the answer they want, they change the question. As long as your prepared to do that … there’s nothing you can’t do.’ (Lury: 107)
In the article similarities concerning this artistic practice are shown in the pharmaceutical market, the example given of a new remedy for indigestion ‘Gaviscon’ where marketers looked at creating a new way of re-phrasing the consumers problem of heartburn (that exisited in a stale and monopolised market), and a provided a solution to this problem, thus ‘inventing a new problem and offering a new solution’. (Lury: 100)
This idea of forced reinterpretation could be seen as a part of the post-modern condition and an effect of globalisation. It seems with the increased flow of communication and information everyone has knowledge on everything, everything has been done somewhere in the world before, and we could perhaps now all be dismissed as imitators. Although it could be said that nothing is new, we still strive for originality. Art seems to now be original in its placement (conceptually), not so much in its form.
It appears we can also find our originality or worth, as shown by Lury, through the idea of the artist as a brand.
A brand is an image. Identifying with a brand shows the consumer identifies with the encompassing ideologies that are present with this brand, what is stands for and is desirable to the consumer. The flow of relations between products and how these relations are presented is the brand, the way it connects products together.
Damien Hirst is shown to be a well formulated brand. His ‘products’ are desirable to the consumer because of how he has marketed himself and the image that he encompasses.
Although to me this direct link between ‘the artist’ and ‘the brand’ is a recent one, the further I examine at it, the more it seems consistent with our current practice; ‘Successful artists can be thought of as brand managers, actively engaged in developing, nurturing, and promoting themselves as recognizable “products” in the competitive cultural sphere.’ (Schroder: 1)
In our commodity and consumer driven world, creating a brand around ourselves as artists is a way to be original and bring attention to our work, and if we wish to be successful, a persuasive and significant future direction for us all.
Lury, Celia. “Contemplating a Self-portrait as a Pharmacist: A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science.” Theory, Culture & Society. London: SAGE. Vol. 22(1): 93-110.
Schroeder, Jonathan E. "The Artist and the Brand". European Journal of Marketing. http://ssrn.com/abstract=690270: 2005. Vol. 39(11): 1291-1305.
This is the question that comes to mind after reading Celia Lury's review of Damien Hurst's artistic practice in ‘Contemplating a Self-Portrait as a Pharmacist: A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science'.
‘the conditions under which creativity, invention and discovery are recognized are being altered.’ (Lury: 106)
‘Original’: ‘Hirst is not so much concerned with being an origin or even with originality, as with the use of a name to mark an organisation of relations between things, with assemblages and reassemblages, appropriations and incorporations.’ (Lury: 95)
Today everything is repackaged, reconstituted, re-emerged as something new with a new label attached. Artists now seem to work through a system of looking just for new links and relations between things that have come and been exhibited before. Artists seem to have to identify their worth by creating a new way of looking at a somewhat old idea. It is about finding the new way of interpreting the old: this is only where we can be original.
‘In physics, you know, if they can’t find the answer they want, they change the question. As long as your prepared to do that … there’s nothing you can’t do.’ (Lury: 107)
In the article similarities concerning this artistic practice are shown in the pharmaceutical market, the example given of a new remedy for indigestion ‘Gaviscon’ where marketers looked at creating a new way of re-phrasing the consumers problem of heartburn (that exisited in a stale and monopolised market), and a provided a solution to this problem, thus ‘inventing a new problem and offering a new solution’. (Lury: 100)
This idea of forced reinterpretation could be seen as a part of the post-modern condition and an effect of globalisation. It seems with the increased flow of communication and information everyone has knowledge on everything, everything has been done somewhere in the world before, and we could perhaps now all be dismissed as imitators. Although it could be said that nothing is new, we still strive for originality. Art seems to now be original in its placement (conceptually), not so much in its form.
It appears we can also find our originality or worth, as shown by Lury, through the idea of the artist as a brand.
A brand is an image. Identifying with a brand shows the consumer identifies with the encompassing ideologies that are present with this brand, what is stands for and is desirable to the consumer. The flow of relations between products and how these relations are presented is the brand, the way it connects products together.
Damien Hirst is shown to be a well formulated brand. His ‘products’ are desirable to the consumer because of how he has marketed himself and the image that he encompasses.
Although to me this direct link between ‘the artist’ and ‘the brand’ is a recent one, the further I examine at it, the more it seems consistent with our current practice; ‘Successful artists can be thought of as brand managers, actively engaged in developing, nurturing, and promoting themselves as recognizable “products” in the competitive cultural sphere.’ (Schroder: 1)
In our commodity and consumer driven world, creating a brand around ourselves as artists is a way to be original and bring attention to our work, and if we wish to be successful, a persuasive and significant future direction for us all.
Lury, Celia. “Contemplating a Self-portrait as a Pharmacist: A Trade Mark Style of Doing Art and Science.” Theory, Culture & Society. London: SAGE. Vol. 22(1): 93-110.
Schroeder, Jonathan E. "The Artist and the Brand". European Journal of Marketing. http://ssrn.com/abstract=690270: 2005. Vol. 39(11): 1291-1305.
Monday, May 26, 2008
James Clifford: "On Collecting Art and Culture" and Tze Ming Mok: "Race You There"
James Clifford’s anthropological essay “On Collecting Art and Culture” focuses on a broad and general sense of culture. Without highlighting a specific community in the world he shows how collecting (in museums etc.) has been established to help primarily western communities understand and gain power over other culutres.
Tze Ming Mok’s article “Race You There” gives an interesting account of the author’s personal experiences concerning cultural value and the racial climate in New Zealand.
When comparing both readings and reflecting the key ideas discussed, questions come to mind that give me a different perspective on the current social environment in New Zealand and the way our culture is preserved and then perceived.
Clifford ascertains that the anthropological and western collecting of artifacts is a power driven activity and this can greatly impact the value and nature of a culture when artifacts are displayed at institutions like museums, “In the West … collecting has long been a strategy for the deployment of a possessive self, culture and authenticity.” (Clifford: 218)
Clifford also highlights the idea of promotion when talking about collecting cultures and I wonder when displaying cultural artifacts that are labelled as ‘native’ we are promoting the culture or degrading it. Collectors that take objects out of their cultural context and label them as an ‘artifact’ don’t always take into consideration their context or purpose in their original situation. Clifford shows an example of a Zuni war god that was prevented to be shown at the Museum of Modern Art as the tribe believed their war gods were “sacred and dangerous” (Clifford: 247). The fact that a western society viewed a tribal object in completely different terms than its own shows how a preoccupation with possession can completely disregard cultural ideologies and traditions. A western institution can see only the aesthetics and ignores the ownership of the native culture to that object.
When looking at collecting in New Zealand it is interesting to think about what other cultures would think of New Zealand culture through our collections and how they would perceive us from our museums, art galleries and similar institutions. When comparing our historical collections to those in other countries it is apparent that we live in a young society and our ties to British powers are still strong. Maori collections were only fully introduced into Auckland Museum 150 years after the museum was established. The preservation of taonga is still not a fully elementary part of museum research and this is apparent when looking at the corporate principles of Te Papa. Four of the six principles mention Maori collections and highlight the importance of them. “’That Te Papa Acknowledges Mana Taonga’ is one of the six corporate principles informing the philosophy of Te Papa. Mana Taonga is a recognition of the power of taonga to communicate deep truths about our people.” (Te Papa Website). It seems to me that the inclusion of these principles would not have been such an important aspect if it were a fully established practice.
New Zealand’s collections seem to signify that we have moved into a more ‘one-nation’ thinking of collecting and preservation. Racial issues aren’t as readily explored in a contemporary context and exhibitions at places like Auckland Museum seem to view our current society in a unified way and Maori traditions are displayed in a very historical context. This may be a reflection of modern Maori and New Zealand culture or a product of an idea that Clifford has articulated: “The value of exotic objects was their ability to testify to the concrete reality of an earlier stage of human culture, a common past confirming Europe’s triumphant present.” (Clifford: 228)
Clifford James. “On Collecting Art and Culture.” The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1988: 215-251.
Mok, Tze Ming. “Race You There.” Landfall 208. Dunedin: Otago University Press. 2004: 18-26.
Author unknown. Te Papa Website. Collections: Maori. 2003. http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/TePapa/English/CollectionsAndResearch/CollectionAreas/TaongaMaori/
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Theatre Country: Treatment of the Land in New Zealand
Geoff Park’s essay ‘Theatre Country’ proposes interesting ideas on the way the view of landscape has changed historically and how these ideas have been performed in New Zealand. Park sees New Zealand landscape treated as a tradable commodity and this is shown in both a positive and negative light. The historical treatment by the British of New Zealand Maori is not shown as diplomatically and Park obviously finds many of the tools used by the imperial power demoralizing.
New Zealand Maori have a physical and reciprocal relationship with the land and the introduction of the opposing British values of the ‘picturesque’ or ‘nature as scenery’ is historically discussed in the article and Park attributes it to the obvious – colonalisation and an overwhelming British desire of ownership – “spiritual possession followed and reinforced material possession.”
The Claude Glass was used by the English as a means to visually capture a scene, was one of the first inventions to that allows an individual to possess scenery. This desire for ownership is developed in Park’s exploration of the concept of conservation. Conservation ideas are shown differently than the common traditional views of this practice. He shows how conservation of the land can create a different logic in our interaction with the land and this logic is not entirely favourable. One of the foundation concepts of conservation is the treatment of landscape as something to look at rather than having a deeper more physical relationship. This is alienating and can have us become a viewing audience rather than an active part of the land. While the idea to preserve and protect the landscape is extremely valid and honourable, (especially in our current global environment) it raises the questions as to who has the right to section off a part of the earth and who has the right to experience the landscape once it has been deemed a conservation state.
A contemporary example of a conservationalist idea that magnifies this problem is shown in Metro Park, Los Angeles. In the early 1990s city authorities created a new kind of public space, a “picturesque oasis of landscaped flower beds and shade providing trees”(Rugoff 12) but because of the threat of drug users and homeless people the park remained closed at all hours behind a locked security gate. Visitors could only experience the park from the outside, forced to enjoy it as a virtual display rather than a physical space. This idea of a desire for an idealised image over a problematic reality is echoed in the history of New Zealand where parts of the country were “emptied of rival human presences and ‘returned … to their primaeval grandeur’.”(Park 127)
“the turn-of-the-century scenic urge that cut Maori out of nature and cast them as pillagers.”(Park 126)
The idea of the landscape as a theatre and us as its audience is alluded to frequently throughout the essay and obviously in the title and this metaphor is useful when thinking of the way in which British artists manipulated New Zealand landscapes like a director, and how this influenced both Maori and the public of homeland Britain.
English immigrants arriving in New Zealand had a mental image of the beauty that awaited them because of such literary and artistic figures who presented idolised images of New Zealand to prospective travellers.
“[William] Wordsworth’s forging of the nineteenth century English passion for natural scenery, which crossed the world with colonisation schemes, lead New Zealanders ‘preserving’ theirs in a process that forced human life and indigenous nature apart.”(Park 119)
The inherently British way of presenting the New Zealand landscape in paintings can be seen as a tool used by the imperial power to gain more control over the Maori, “asserting authority over the symbolic as well as the literal.”(Park 126)
Although the historical political climate of New Zealand is woven through the essay Park asserts responsibility to the artist for some of the corruption of the treatment of the landscape. While this may not seem justified, he makes valid points concerning the way artists displaced ideas of British scenery to New Zealand and how colonial painters showed New Zealand in an essentially British way. This made New Zealand landscape be seen as a tradable commodity and contributed to the depressive treatment of Maori.
Park, Geoff. “Theatre Country.” Theatre Country: Essays on landscape and whenua. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006. 113-127.
Rugoff, Ralph. “Bubble Worlds.” Small World. Ed. Toby Kamps. San Diego: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2000. 12-16.
New Zealand Maori have a physical and reciprocal relationship with the land and the introduction of the opposing British values of the ‘picturesque’ or ‘nature as scenery’ is historically discussed in the article and Park attributes it to the obvious – colonalisation and an overwhelming British desire of ownership – “spiritual possession followed and reinforced material possession.”
The Claude Glass was used by the English as a means to visually capture a scene, was one of the first inventions to that allows an individual to possess scenery. This desire for ownership is developed in Park’s exploration of the concept of conservation. Conservation ideas are shown differently than the common traditional views of this practice. He shows how conservation of the land can create a different logic in our interaction with the land and this logic is not entirely favourable. One of the foundation concepts of conservation is the treatment of landscape as something to look at rather than having a deeper more physical relationship. This is alienating and can have us become a viewing audience rather than an active part of the land. While the idea to preserve and protect the landscape is extremely valid and honourable, (especially in our current global environment) it raises the questions as to who has the right to section off a part of the earth and who has the right to experience the landscape once it has been deemed a conservation state.
A contemporary example of a conservationalist idea that magnifies this problem is shown in Metro Park, Los Angeles. In the early 1990s city authorities created a new kind of public space, a “picturesque oasis of landscaped flower beds and shade providing trees”(Rugoff 12) but because of the threat of drug users and homeless people the park remained closed at all hours behind a locked security gate. Visitors could only experience the park from the outside, forced to enjoy it as a virtual display rather than a physical space. This idea of a desire for an idealised image over a problematic reality is echoed in the history of New Zealand where parts of the country were “emptied of rival human presences and ‘returned … to their primaeval grandeur’.”(Park 127)
“the turn-of-the-century scenic urge that cut Maori out of nature and cast them as pillagers.”(Park 126)
The idea of the landscape as a theatre and us as its audience is alluded to frequently throughout the essay and obviously in the title and this metaphor is useful when thinking of the way in which British artists manipulated New Zealand landscapes like a director, and how this influenced both Maori and the public of homeland Britain.
English immigrants arriving in New Zealand had a mental image of the beauty that awaited them because of such literary and artistic figures who presented idolised images of New Zealand to prospective travellers.
“[William] Wordsworth’s forging of the nineteenth century English passion for natural scenery, which crossed the world with colonisation schemes, lead New Zealanders ‘preserving’ theirs in a process that forced human life and indigenous nature apart.”(Park 119)
The inherently British way of presenting the New Zealand landscape in paintings can be seen as a tool used by the imperial power to gain more control over the Maori, “asserting authority over the symbolic as well as the literal.”(Park 126)
Although the historical political climate of New Zealand is woven through the essay Park asserts responsibility to the artist for some of the corruption of the treatment of the landscape. While this may not seem justified, he makes valid points concerning the way artists displaced ideas of British scenery to New Zealand and how colonial painters showed New Zealand in an essentially British way. This made New Zealand landscape be seen as a tradable commodity and contributed to the depressive treatment of Maori.
Park, Geoff. “Theatre Country.” Theatre Country: Essays on landscape and whenua. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006. 113-127.
Rugoff, Ralph. “Bubble Worlds.” Small World. Ed. Toby Kamps. San Diego: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2000. 12-16.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)