Coelynn McIninch

Coelynn McIninch First Semester - Thought Paper #2

978-342-3999

Comments on Assigned Readings For First Residency

All of the readings that were assigned for the first semester were fascinating to me for different reasons. Before entering this program, all of my theory had been in communication/media theory. I found the readings overlapped and expanded on some familiar concepts. Frederick Jameson’s ideas about technology, mass media made the transition from media theory to art theory a perfectly logical step for me. I found creative inspiration from Richard Serra and Cleas Oldenburg and perspective from Sol Lewitt. In Reading Allen Kaprow and Robert Smithson I feel I’ve gained insight on some earlier misconceptions about my place in the art world. The readings on Feminist issues in the art world were a completely new subject for me that I am a bit apprehensive about following right now. After reading Carol Duncan’s passionate ideas, I could easily get wrapped up in Feminist issues and loose sight of all other goals.

I have two different modes of creation. One involves rules, patterns, concepts and goals. The other involves exploration, experimentation and little or no planning. My conceptual work is just as much research as it is creation. Reading Sol Lewitt’s “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art” has helped me to embrace this research as a journey of creative exploration of communication theory rather than a distraction from hands-on studio work. “The idea itself, even if not made visual, is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps – scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed work, models, studies, thoughts, conversations – are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.” I have begun to document my process and save all the drawings and creative elements that lead up to the final work in hopes of understanding more about my own creative methods.

When I am concentrating on more conceptual pieces, it is easy for me to get sidetracked with research and over-work an idea to the point that I lose sight of the original message. When this happens, I find that sitting down and doing small works with simple ideas helps me to clear my mind and regain focus. Richard Serra’s “Verb List” list is more suited to industrial materials that I don’t normally use however, after going over his list; I have started a list of my own as fuel for visual exercises and experiments with new materials.

Claes Oldenburg’s “I am for an art . . .” recognizes art in all things: “ I am for the art that that unfolds like a map, that you squeeze, like your sweeetys arm, or kiss, like a pet dog. Which expands and squeaks, like an accordion, which you spill your dinner on, like an old tablecloth.” Cleas seems to see any effect or experience of perception as being worthy of the becoming “Art.” Cleas’ search for artistic inspiration is far more romantic than Richard Serra’s ordered list of possibilities but I am personally attracted to notion of the whole world as my artistic playground. I agree strongly with his idea that the traditional frameworks of the art world may be broken down at any time and the individual is free to build their own aesthetic boundaries.

Much of my current work deals closely with interactivity between the viewer and the art. Our modern society is inundated with interconnectivity and yet our social interconnectivity seems to be going through some drastic changes. Many would rather text message for hours than speak in person. Millions, every day, go through the motions of being a normal participant in civilized culture all the while focusing on the invisible voice of familiarity attached to the ear, blue-toothed from a portable link to a private social safety net buried somewhere at the bottom of a new designer bag purchased on eBay.

Fredrick Jameson’s ideas concerning media effects on our sense of time and history parallel many of the current theories concerning mass communication. In his essay: “Postmodernism and Consumer Society,” Jameson describes theoretical discourse as “ . . .a periodizing concept whose function is to correlate the emergence of new formal features in culture with the emergence of a new type of social life and a new economic order . . .” Through my research into emergent technologies I am learning that theoretical discourse is a necessary component of our society’s race to adapt to the ever-changing forms of communication technologies.

The world is at your fingertips weather, sports, news, entertainment, music, travel, art, shopping, friendship, love, memory, history, fantasy, sex, and anonymity, all at the touch of a button without ever uttering a word. Political, governmental, legal, social and physical borders are breached every day yet no words are spoken and no physical or auditory contact is made. Technological advances in communication and exchange of all kinds of information are happening so fast that “we have become incapable of achieving aesthetic representations of our own current experience.” (Lewitt). This emphasis on the moment and exaggeration of popular culture has, as Fredrick Jameson warns, sparked “ . . .the erosion of the older distinction between high culture and so-called mass or popular culture.” We as a society are finding higher value in media-related and mass-marketed art forms.

I am experimenting with both two and three-dimensional works this semester and one line from Sol Lewitt seems to help keep me in line. “Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions.” I have some ideas for photos that may be more effective in three dimensions. I would like to try both two and three-dimensional versions at some point but, for now, I have decided to focus my sculptures on interactivity and my images on addressing the social implications of our dependence on technologically mediated communications. In the interest of convenience and portability, I have chosen to make compact versions of works that I hope to build on a grander scale at a later date. The focus of theses pieces has little to do with size and more to do with interactivity. Fortunately, by addressing issues of social interaction through modern communication technologies, it is conceptually reasonable for me to create work that is small-scale and portable.

I have been working primarily with digital photography now for several years. One of my major concerns is how my own work will have a chance of standing out amongst the wealth of images that circulate the world every day. If Pastiche can be described by Fredrick Jameson as: “ . . . like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique style . . .but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody’s ulterior motive . . .” could not all images out there be considered pastiche? With so many images, how could anything be considered original? I’m beginning to think that in this new media saturated world, it’s all about the marketing.

In his essay “Happenings in The New York Scene” Allan Kaprow states “Nearly all artists, working in any medium from words to paint, who have made their mark as innovators, as radicals in the best sense of the word, have, once they have been recognized and paid handsomely, capitulated to the interested of good taste.” I will regrettably admit that I have fallen victim to this Pavlovian institution of work for hire: make art, get paid, make more of the same art, and get paid again. After years of designing work for a specific commercial purpose, everything I do seems to follow the rules of design that have proven to sell in the past. New work and old work looks the same. I have several images that can easily by altered in Photoshop so that the subject matter is unaltered but the colors now coordinate with the client’s new sofa and rug. I am still struggling with my opinion of this practice. I am undecided as to whether or not I should preserve the integrity of the original design or join the mass-reproduction market and make customization a feature of my work. It is difficult to determine what exactly I am selling: my image, my name or my idea. If it is my image then, to preserve the integrity of the original, no change is possible without careful regulation of specific versions. If it is my name then changing the color doesn’t matter so much because it’s still one of my images. If it were my idea of customization then I would need to prepare myself for mass reproduction in all sizes and colors a snazzy name for my “art to order”. This final idea is one I am not yet prepared to tackle. Simply being aware of the habits I have formed makes me want to retire all of my “designed” images and take leap into the world of abstraction and spontaneity.

I found Robert Smithson’s essay “Cultural Confinement” disturbing and enlightening. His description of a curator’s effect on art is less than friendly: “The function of the warden-curator is to separate art from the rest of society. Next comes integration. Once the work is totally neutralized, ineffective, abstracted, safe and politically lobotomized, it is ready to be consumed by society.” The gallery I was a curator for was small and worked in coordination with an educational institution. It was free from major corporate influences and much of the intervening politics that can stifle larger galleries. Perhaps that is why I have such a different view of gallery/artist dynamics than Smithson’s. There is a visual and theoretical language that is known to those who have studied art and I have always seen the gallery as a sort of artistic middle-ground where those who study art and its surrounding theories can find a place for creative discourse. Where the un-trained viewers could explore the art and learn by exposure and interaction with the artists and their work. From Smithson’s point of view, this middle ground destroys the work. The simple process of making the work more approachable ruins the entire concept. On some levels, I do agree with Smithson’s theory. I have had my work exhibited without my approval on its placement within the show and I was a bit shocked by how the neighboring pieces altered my intended meaning for the image.

I have no illusions that my frame of reference or personal symbol set is universally understood. Once the work leaves my hands, I am willing to watch it change meanings to suit its environment. There is almost no way to avoid it. Any artist creating work for public display must find a way to adapt to new environments and curatorial contexts. Artwork must necessarily be tailored to work within the parameters of whatever venue is chosen for the work. The continued survival of the piece and propagation of the artistic message or design is contingent upon this accommodation.

Feminism is not a subject I have ever overtly tackled in my art. As a woman all of my work could, by definition, be considered “feminist art” however, I have yet to purposely delve into Feminism as my main focus. There will always be differences between the sexes. There will always be conflict enough to fuel a thousand social and artistic fires. As a female artist, I do feel a social and moral obligation to make my personal artistic statement on Feminism at some point in my artistic career. After reading Carol Duncan’s “The MoMA’s Hot Mamas” and “Virility and Domination in Early Twentieth-Century Vanguard Painting” that sense of obligation is definitely getting stronger. Duncan has an eloquent way of inspiring feminist fervor: “The Desmoiselles pragmatically mirrors her many opposing faces: whore and deity, decadent and savage, tempting and repelling, awesome and obscene, looming and crouching, masked and naked, threatening and powerless. In that jungle-brothel is womankind in all her past and present metamorphoses . . .” Curiously, I have recently developed a certain aversion to just about any picture of a nude woman that was not created by a woman. My eye has become more critical but I have yet to define the parameters of my own views on feminism and Feminist art.

As I explore other texts, I find the frequent cross-referencing of writers very helpful in forming a clearer picture of how theories evolve from and feed off of each other I am also building a clearer sense of what place my work has in the broader spectrum of theoretical frameworks.