Just Like Chickens

Lawrence Unviersity's curator and gallery director, Frank Lewis, lectured on Wisconsin Labor: A Contemporary Portrait on Friday October 29th 2010. As an exhibition opening, he explained the background information on photography works that captures laborers, and how the view on such subject matters changed over the course of time. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of capturing a person (or people) in labor as an identity vs. capturing a person (or people) in labor as a machine.  In other words, photographers from different periods have had different concepts on human labors, and they have tried to depict what labor means to human beings. What they had in common was that they saw aesthetics in human labors and they intended to tranform what is human sweat and effort into an art called photograph.


Lewis Hine
Power house mechanic working on steam pump, USA, 1920  

The picture above is a famous photograph taken by Lewis Hine. His works often captured the juxtaposition of mechanics and human beings, and he was strong on his opinions on the blending of the two. As seen in this photography, the curvature of the man's spine traces the shape of a perfect circular curve of the large machine behind him. This gives the illusion that the man in labor is, in fact, a part of this gigantic machinary. He was also very big on documenting the issues of child labor, where he would go to factories where children were abused and taken advantage of with adult privilages. Children working in such settings in his time were, indeed, treated like an object. Loss of identity as a human being was very apparent, as seen throughout his works.

August SanderPastry Cook, Germany, 1928
8 x 10" Silver Print
Posthumous Print
Printed 1996

On the other hand, August Sander's phtography collections focused more on occupation as a self identity. He was a photographer in Germany pre and during World War II. He would go around Germany (more so before the war) to take what defines as Germany by capturing everyday lives (what they do as a job, etc.) of the citizens there. His works were not merely a depiction of a "career" per se, but tells a lot about that person in the portrait's existence, making the photographs personal and specific.

 


Henri Cartier-Bresson
Quai de Javel (Ragpickers), Paris, 1932
Printed on 11 x 14 inch



Works by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Quai de Javel (Rag Pickers), reminded me of the caste system in India. Like Sander's works, it depicts these men's identity in terms of their placement in the society, but at the same time, the lack of identity of the each individuals in the photo makes it touch the concept of them being a mere workers a whole. In India, people are born with their class and occupation due to their last name that is carried throughout the family from the past.  Though the concept of caste system is slowly vanishing throughout the world, photographs like this makes it apparent that it has always been a big part of the societies in many countries on a global scale.



Edward Burtynsky
Manufacturing #17,
Deda Chicken Processing Plant, Dehui City, Jilin Province, 2005


Finally, the phogoraph above by Edward Burtynsky shows the workers in chicken manufacturing factory in China. With technology advancement, it is inevidable that people in factories are as machine-like as the technologies they use to do the labors. Everyone wearing the same pink clothes, doing the same gestures over and over again... They are no more human-like than the identical chickens being manufactured at the factory. Where did these workers' identity as a human being go?

The below clips is a short snippet of a classic comedy called I Love Lucy, where labor in a factory like the one shown in Burtynsky's photo is made fun of.

Generation to Generation: Technology and Society

I remember my mother telling me about her childhood.
She grew up in a small fisherman village in the west of Japan.
In her small neighborhood, there was one family, the wealthiest family, who owned a TV.
Every time monotoned "Tom and Jerry" came on, all the children in the neighborhood would rush to this family's house to watch this wonderful entertainment on a screen of a magical box.

Below clip is a short fragment from a Japanese Movie, "Always: Sunset on 3rd Street" (Always 3丁目の夕日) by director Takashi Yamazaki (←This link goes to an interview with this director. The interviewer asks about his view on "technology" as it seems to appear a lot in his movies... very relavent, so read if you'd like!) Why did I put this? It's because this fragment shows how people reacted to TV when it first arrived to homes in Japan in the 50's. I would imagine the scenes of my mother's story being very similar to the scene shown in this clip.

The Versions of Cause and Effect in Technology and Society discussed in Raymond Williams' article, The Technology and the Society, lists varieties of explanations people have when they discuss about how technology (TV) altered our world... whether TV was an acccidental invention, whether it was intended to disrupt, modify, or enhance social communications, etc. He emphasizes that we must not only focus on the technology in focus as the "cause" of the effect on the world, but also to talk about what "led to" the TV. Although this article was written in the 70s, what he wrote about technology as not just cause of change in the society, but also the societal chagne itself is very much applicable today, in the 21st Century. Yes, TV was a big deal in the 50s.  Maybe thsoe who invented did predict each household to have TV eventually, but I doubt they predicted the TV to be so prevalent, for each household to have multiple TVs, for the cars to embed TV, for the cellphoens to embed TV... At least in Japan, most families cannot live without a TV. They wake up in the morning and turn it on right away. Weather forecast, morning news, reality shows, dramas, movies... Everything is up to date, and everyone must be informed to be able to get on the social flow.  It's this progression of technological advancement that we must consider when we talk about the co-existance of technology and society and how they influence each other.

The clips above make one realize that it was such a joy and celebration for the world to achieve a high-technology called television. Now it's a social norm. People take advantage of it.


And how does this technological advancement affect the art world? Many things are so readily available and made possible thanks to technology. From the past weeks, we have discussed about the internet progression and web 2.0 being (in my opinion) a major plus to the art world as it allows the artists to promote and exchange their artworks with the world. Other than internet aspect, we may also discuss art that uses many technology such as CG and other digital effects as opposed to found materials and simple methods. 



Anthony Goicolea
from the book,
"Anthony Goicolea"

 As we have discussed in class, while watching "Amphibians" by Anthony Goicolea, where cameras are placed and the sound effects used are all very important aspects of creating the mood and the storyline in a film. He also tend to have the theme of proliferation in his art works, that he would edit his photographs (often self-portrait) to convey his messages. He took advantage of technology, and experimented with its ability.



William Wegman and his dog

On the other hand, artist like William Wegman went the other way by experimenting with simple objects found around him. He would take, for example, a used can of deodorant, or toilet plunger and TV screen, or crooked wire (and his finger...!) to create series of short video clips... which were all so abstract and exteremely humorous. People can go all direction when considering art. I don't think people can claim one is better than the other, nor could they say one way is the only way and not the other. It really all depends on how the artist utilize what he/she decided to use, and how effectively he/she can use it to create good art. One thing that can be said, is, merely relying on the technology, and only doing so, is probably not the best way to go about.  

"A Cheeky Fellow": The World of Collage

The article, "The Cut-Up Method of Brion Gysin," by William S. Burroughs, made me realize how so many things in our lives are the end results of cut-ups. Patch-works, scrap books, video clips, writings... So many things are indeed fusion of multiple things. What one would wonder then is, when it become your own, your original ideas and works.

"Fountain"-urinal- Ready made
1917
by Marcel Duchamp

 As shown in the powerpoint in class the other day, there are many artworks where an artist would  take something found, whether it is an already-existing artwork(s) of others,or everyday objects, and turn it into something else and claim it their own artwork. Take Marcel Duchamp's works, for example. A toilet urinal. You would find it in any other person's household. Take the urinal and place it in an art gallery and claim it an art work if you are an already known artist. It is no longer a dirtly little toilet pot. It is art. As the Sunday Times says, there has been quite a number of urinals that were "sculptures" of high expenses just because Duchamp has claimed it as "art". A few of these Duchamp urinals are installed in museums. Some are bought at the auctions with a high-price tags on it. Some were lost and some were stolen. Some were added later into the collection. Isn't it interested how, one day, it is a urinal, and the next day, it is an art work worth 2.5 million dollars? Where is the line that divides one urinal to the special urinal? It wouldn't be the same if a random person took their urinal found in their house and sold it at the gallery or auction. Is it worth that much because it is Duchamp's? Because it was the first bizarre found object that became a famous sculpture? Is it merely the crowd of obsessive collectors that make the urinal so special? Well, urinal is an object. Things get a little more complicated and more-so controversial when an artist starts taking other artist's works and call it their own.

Take Duchamp's other famous work "L.H.O.O.Q."-a mastache added to Mona Lisa-for example. A few pen marks in mockery around the mouth of the world's madonna, Mona Lisa, soon drew people's attention. Duchamp never took the time like Leonardo Da Vinci to paint that woman. Instead, he put a few pen marks on a great artwork. Is it so great because he did something that nobody would dare do?? Would his work be as influencial if Duchamp cut Mona Lisa in pieces and rearranged it like the shift puzzle shown below, as suggested in The Cut-UP method? Is it really about the mustache, or is it the modification on a great artwork? 

L.H.O.O.Q.
by Marcel Duchamp



Mona Lisa Shift Puzzle

The question is raised to the next level when the artist whose art was stolen by another artist is still alive. What I mean here is, that Leonardo Da Vinci did not exist when Duchamp took Mona Lisa and mocked it and claimed it his own work. It is a different case for Richard Prince's series of Cowboy photographs: Untitled (Cowboy). Prince went ahead and took a series of photos of photos of an American cowboys in Marlboro cigarette ads in a magazine. Prince's beautifully edited photos decided to jump out of the magazine  and brought fortune to Prince. Prince did not take the time and money to travel down to Texas to shoot real life cowboys. He did not hire and pay models to be cowboys in the wilderness. He simply took pictures of an already existing photographs. I was very curious in how the original photographer felt about all this, and was able to find a short clip of Sam Abell, the original photographer of the Marlboro cowboys. It is interesting to see his reactions on Prince's photos of the cowboys. "I'm not angry, of course...I'm not particularly amused...I'm thoughtful about it," says Abell in the interview. Calling him a "cheeky fellow," Abell is very curious in what was going on in Prince's mind when he decided to copy his works and make money out of it. He also states that it is a plagiarism. He talks about the reality of the Art World-how his works will never make that much fortune and will never make it to famous exhibitions and galleries. It's because he is an editorial photographer. Not a famous artist like Prince.

Here again, the question of what "good art" means is brought up. What determines a good art? Is it the newness of the idea? The creative idea that makes it "good"? The movie, Decasia, by Bill Morrison is a chain of decaying films of random, once lost footages. By carefully combining them in well-planned order, by having a reoccuring theme (wheels and spins), and by putting it over a carefully composed music by Michael Gordon to add effects, the 67 minutes films composed of short decayed footages successfully grasped the art world's attention. Who would have thought of such an idea? Fresh and new! Creative! 

What is "good art"? Today, borrowing and lending bits and pieces of artwork is inevitable. It just happens due to the accessibility of eachother's artworks. If the artist claims it an art, and if the world buys it, you become famous. If you are not famous already and your artworks get stolen, you just have to live with it. However, I strongly believe that it is problematic if the artist fails to acknowledge the sources of where the original came from and if the source, especially if he/she is still alive, is not happy about it. Then, famous or not, it is a plagiarism.  

The Global Camera Eyes: 21st Century Panopticon

The concept of surveillance originally revolved around the idea that the authorities were watching over the inferiors in order to spy or control them (e.g., government spy, panopticon prison, etc.). However, with the rapid technology advancement today (such as camera on cell phones and web 1.0 to Web 2.0), surveillance seems to extend beyond that relationship between an authoratative figure watching over the oblivious inferior. It is what's happening everyday to everyone. People's activities are itemized and can easily be tracked down.

What really amazes me is how easy it is for one to track the other down, not just within one's own town or country, but to do so across the universe. This is so conveniently done today, especially on the web such as facebook, twitter, my space, blogs, etc. Being an international student, I have found this to be so convenient, as it makes it so easy to be connected to my friends and family all over the world, but at the same time, it gives me the creeps. They know almost everything about what is going on. We don't have to see each other for 5 years, but it's like we never separated because we keep track of each other on a regular basis. 

For this project, I tried to capture 3 levels of surveillance of 10 different people from very different backgrounds, countries and cultures- the Netherlands, India, Jamaica, Vietnam, U.S.A. (NY), Bulgaria, U.S.A. (IA), South Korea, Bangladesh, and Zimbabue.  

First, I took the eyes. Yes, taking pictures of eyes may be cliché for panopticon project. But I just wanted to make a point that our eyes function like cameras, no matter where we were born or where we grew up. Our Camera Eyes enable us to surveil. Because we are "visual creatures," because we rely on what we see, and because we like seeing what is going on, we post videos and pictures. And then we "facebook stalk" others in return. Our eyes are like cameras.   

camera 02

camera 06

camera 08

For the second set, I tried to extend my view on a global scale. Like I said, we are constantly Watching Neighbors. By neighbors, I don't just mean nextdoor neighbors. Instead, I am talking about other countries. Yes, with Web 2.0, news, gossips, and (almost) everything we need to know and we want to know is passed back and forth across the borders and oceans. It's as though we are standing right against a person, watching. If you flip through the 10 pictures, you will notice that they are all connected in a chain. You think you are watching others, but you don't know that others are watching you in the mean time. Notice that the last person is being watched by the girl who was being watched in the 1st picture. The cycle represents the globe. 



02nd Neighbor





01st Neighbor

   


 










<>

 

 

03rd Neighbor



 

04th Neighbor

 

05th Neighbor



06th Neighbor

   

  

  



 



07th Neighbor



08th Neighbor







      







 





  



  

10th Neighbor

 

  

09th Neighbor



Last set brings one back to the concept of Self Surveillance. With the globalization and ability for one to watch others, you often forget that the person who is serveiling you the most is, in fact, yourself. The shadow is an analogy to this concept. It could be our consciousness, or the voice in your head. But it's nobody but you, who is controlling you in the end. And you will have to live with this one forever.  





Me & Myself 10




They're All Interconnected!!!



Motorola Dyna TAC
Mobile Phone in 1983

"There's no single thing anymore. They're all interconnected!!" Rachel Crowl claimed in response to Julie's question on what Web 2.0 is all about.  

Rachel Crowl had a lot to share to the class. Her life-story was so intriguing to begin with. She was a young confused drug-addict at the age of 19. Soon, she found herself in a world of acting which lasted for 20+ years where Monday night was her only day off. Then she was in the world of IT, building community websites, programming, managing, etc.  



au Summer Collection 2010



She described the technological advancement and being in that world as though riding a train that is going downhill at an extremely fast speed---forever changing and forever accelerating.



I have only lived for 23 years. Yet, I see that so much has changed in that time span in terms of technology. I remember my father carrying one of those gigantic mobile phones when not many people carried them around. Soon, it was everyone in Japan that had cell phones. Not only did they consist of the functions to giving and receiving calls, but they also enabled people to e-mail (not even texting!!), watch TV, navigate, and use internet! It is quite enjoyable (and creepy??) to observe people on the train in Japan during my short term return for vacations. They are all in their own world, glaring at their phones. This "they" is not just young adults. It's everyone ranging from elementary school kids to 80 year old grandmas. Because talking on the phone is not allowed on trains and subways in Japan, they glare at their phones, and communicate with one another on blogs, message boards, commenting on other people's entries, etc. They tweet all the time. They constantly update their status on the blog called mixi (or so-called "Japanese Facebook").

This fever of Web 2.0 is seen not only in industrial countries, but in almost everywhere in the world. My point in bringing up the advancement of cell-phone is to emphasize the point that social media is so readily available for the public today. Julie is right in saying that seeing a laptop next to cell phones in a photograph almost makes you feel nostalgic---everything can be done on the cell phone! It's no longer about professional artists. As Lev Manovich in "Art after Web 2.0" suggests, this participatory/social media involves everyone (even though they may take ideas from professionals, such as embedding professionally made music videos on a blog, or using professionally made blog templates as their bases, etc.).   

I strongly agree on Rachel Crowl's opinion on copyrights. Yes, if the artists truly hope to avoid copyright violation on their artworks, they are safest not to publish their works. Once they are exposed to media, especially in this era of social media, you are better off expecting some pirating and copyright violations. I remember in high school where I found myself opening the yearbook at the end of the year, only to find many of my pictures in the book. The yearbook team members have gone on facebook and took pictures from the albums that I have uploaded without asking for my permission. Is it my fault in uploading those pictures on a public space? Or should they have asked me first before using it in something that will remain physically forever? (It's YEARBOOK!!) I am no professional artist, but I believe many artists probably experience such similar incidents. The dilemma here is whether an artist should reserve their art pieces by not exposing them in social media. However, not promoting their works and themselves on the web today is equivalent to not being bold enough to make themselves known as an artist to the world. Should they accept that sharing their works to the public is the way to success today? (...that we are all interconnected??)

What we must keep in mind, is that this is a train going down that neverending downward slope. It's not a linear line, but rather a curve. We must keep up with what comes next and adjust according to what is normal today and in the future. The train will not stop for us.

Lastly, watch this short video clip. It has no verbal explanation and has annoying music, but the simple animation explains how Web 2.0 is the "21st century", and that it is a participatory media. After reading Lev Manovich's article and hearing Rachel Crowl's explanation on what Web 2.0 is, I think you will find this clip useful to visually summarize what it actually means!

Living in Photography

A Lawrence University alumni, Dan Leers ('02) came back to Lawrence campus 8 years after his graduation to give a lecture. He talked about his experience of how he got from being an Art History major at Lawrence to curating in different museum and going to Columbia University, and finally got a job at the world-top class museum, MoMA. He then introduced us to the Henri Cartier-Bresson (1908–2004)'s photography exhibition. As you can see from this MoMA's official website blog entry, At Home Everywhere: The Travels of Henri Cartier-Bresson, that Dan Leers himself wrote, Leers put a lot of effort and time in researching about Cartier-Bresson and his works of photogerapy so to gather information and place Cartier-Bresson's works in the chronological order.

As Leers got more involved with the research, Cartier-Bresson's works and his life were revealed. He was living in photography. In the blog of MoMA's website, Leers quotes Cartier-Bresson; “It is through living that we discover ourselves, at the same time as we discover the world around us.” Sure enough, he was everywhere. He was not only discovering himself, but also the world. Not just the "world" you live in, but I mean the WORLD.

In the lecture (also mentioned in the blog), Leers listed some of the places and moments Cartier-Bresson captured---and he happened to be at the places where historically critical events occured; King George VI's coronation in England; Nehru announcement of Gandhi's assassination in India; Indonesia's independence from the Dutch, etc. Then he was in China, then Russia, then Japan, and the list goes on.

The video clip below shows a short excerpt of Cartier-Bresson's idea of photography. He talks about life, and how pictures are taken in the moment of life.


The intuition tells us to capture the moment through photography. What is captured in a photography cannot be erased the moment you capture it. If mistakes are made, you just have to take another one. This is the idea of photography way before the digital world. This clip reminded me of my photography class. Being too used to the digital world, I had hard time getting used to the idea of not being able to see the "moment" I just captured, and not being able to click the "erase" button when pictures came out badly. You just have to capture the right moment at the right time---and Henri Cartier-Bresson had done that so successfully.

Being a big traveller myself, I was truly fascinated by Leers lecture, and learning about this legendary photographer, Cartier-Bresson. As Leers said, Cartier-Bresson was never at "home. He was restlessly crossing borders and luckily being in the right places at the right time-capturing and document moments that will remain in history forever. This inspired me to urge to take more "good" photos whereever I go, not just photos of tourists' sites, but the photos that capture the "life" of the place.