the continuation of work leads to a hopeful conclusion, nearer every day. as things wind down, I'm looking forward to completing the work that has been ongoing for several months now. it is difficult to finish something and to put it out there to be critiqued, to say that you've done all you can and open yourself up to the possibility that the work will not be successful or that it will not have its intended response. There is always a desire to have work be something that is appreciated and elicits some favorable response or at least stimulates some discussion. I try not to have too many expectations. I know what the work means to me and I am interested in how it is viewed in order to further understand how I can approach ideas in the future. It is a constantly evolving process that is never complete. Understanding what the world is about and being free to explore new ideas.

Finishing my research and compiling all my images within my final project, I am struck by how few images came out of the first Gulf War. It is almost forgotten and certainly overshadowed by the current conflict. The lasting images that I have are the nightshot and crosshair pov shot of bombs and missiles flying through the air. It was so strange to see those images of a war in real time. This is what initially got me interested in exploring this topic. The way that technology and the evolution of this media coverage has affected public perception of war and in turn how artists have played a role in commenting on the events as well. What are the iconic images of this war.

I certainly think the AP photo of the charred bodies of American contracters hanging from the bridge in Fallujah will be remembered. They are such a pointed contrast to the staged demolishing of the statue of Saddam that occured upon the US forces entry into Baghdad in April 2003. That was supposed to be the end of the war, and yet we know better now.

moving beyond the media aspects of my project into the influence that art plays. i am beginning with the iconic images that have come out of war and embedded themselves in the public consciousness. Also looking at how art has played a role in unpacking the public consciousness of war, largely viewed through the lens of media coverage. Vietnam is the first war that comes to mind when I think of controversy, public scrutiny and a barrage of communication from media, to public protest, to artistic expression. I think this war is commonly held as being at the forefront of these types of social commentary, however, as I have found, this dialogue between media, the public and artists has existed in every military conflict.

a few images that I have been looking at:


John Trumball, The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker's Hill, 1786

Washington Crossing the Delaware, 1851 Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze


The romaniticized view of war, the images that these ordeals inspire even decades after the event by those who may not have been alive during at the time.

A new wrinkle that photography brings, a gritty reality, unlike anything that had been seen before. Is it art or journalism?





Timothy O'Sullivan, Dead Soldiers on Battlefield-Gettysburg, PA, 1863






Posters and propaganda. Reproducable artwork. Images that endure and become reappropriated.





James Montgomery Flagg, I Want You for the U.S. Army, 1917














Eric Heckel, Zwei Verwundete (Two Wounded Soldiers), 1915












The foreign influence, and the beginning of new movements, Dadaism, that came out of war.

Joe Rosenthal, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, 1945















The lasting icons of American history. Reproduced endlessly, commented on again and again. The amalgamation of journalism and art. The way that one image can encapsulate the tenor of an event and reflect the larger consequences inherent to war. These images transcend the war itself and endure well beyond the scope of documenting military maneuvers. They are human history, human cruelty, suffering, triumph, terror. They evoke a sense of why we focus our attention on these conflicts, what we miss in the news, and are sometimes direct commentaries on the media.








J. Howard Miller, We Can Do It!, 1942-43

In my last post, I was beginning to peruse the notion of an artist's role in questioning the actions of a government. I think that is how I initially fell into this topic of research. I say fell because I really don't think I chose it as much as I felt it is an area that interested me and I needed to pursue it futher. Working in the media, I have become more critical of the tactics and the outcomes used in this business both on a local level and on a global scale. It is so critical to the public to get the correct information and to have it delivered in a way that is coherent and unbiased as possible. I have often considered how I found myself in this career having studied art in college. It has taught me a great deal, mostly about working methods in storytelling and using video as a medium to this end, but also about ethics and the nature of objectivity. In news, as in documentary and any art that we make, there is also some subjective opinion, some decision being made, it affects the outcome of the piece.

The focus of this class relates more closely to art and politics than it does to media studies, but I felt that these areas are so closely intertwined with what interests me right now in my studies. I think that I have come to the point where I enjoy making art that may hang on the wall of a gallery or in someone's house, but I recognize the limitations of that endeavor. That is not to say that is all it can be. For the most part however, this type of art can only reach a very small audience, and how much of that audience considers it closely enough to get something from it? Television, as well as film, whether it is news, entertainment or otherwise, reaches a very wide audience, but rarely is incredibly thought provoking. When it is, there is nothing more powerful to me.

This is where my interest as an artist lies in dissecting what the role of television, film and the media. It affects the decisions we make on a daily basis more fully than any painting or photograph can, no matter how much we want that not to be the truth. There is an incredible responsibility that exists in that power. Within the scope of my research, there are elements of politics, military conflict, reporting of information and the propaganda and censorship that comes out of that. These are also issues present in art and they are the things that influence art. We are in a better position to question them than the reporters that cover the story, or the politicians who spin it or the viewers who simply accept it as truth.

I have been looking a lot at the websites of different film makers and media artists. Here are a few to check out:

http://www.errolmorris.com/ the "official", yes "official" Errol Morris website. if you are interested in documentary, or just damn good film, check it out. also a lot interesting commercial work and various other media

http://www.mayslesfilms.com/index.htm if you haven't seen any Maysle's films, then you are missing the verite in your life! this is a good primer for where to start, lots of good info if you are already a fan.

http://www.alanberliner.com a documentary film maker and media artist who works extensively with archival film footage and employs interesting editing techniques as well as using various media as part of installation works in gallery spaces

http://phfilms.com/ the home of Pennebaker Hegedus Films, as in D.A. and Chris. more quintessential verite, think Don't Look Back and The War Room.

http://www.vdb.org/ the video databank-a collection of work from media artists, a listing of various artists found in that collection.

http://www.hi-beam.net/cgi-bin/flicker.pl flicker-a listing of film and video artists, venues for work and links to related material

this is hardly scratching the surface of what's on the web, and of course there is much more beyond the scope of what exists online.

Been away a while...

need to catch up, but it may take a few days.

I needed a break, so all is well. Things are moving along in my research. It has evolved to take on the perspective of government propaganda as well as censorship as they relate to media's relationship to public perception of war. The current situation in Iraq is such a great example of this. There has been such a concerted effort to control and spin every piece of information from Abu Graib to the absence of WMDs. The media has still failed in many ways to overcome some of the obstacles to truth, but at the very least, the negligence of our current policies seem to have forced to light some of the important issues and brought some accountability to the powers that be. That is not to say we are getting the whole truth or there is enough accountability, but the talk of a change in tactics is a welcome sign.

For the most part, the war coverage seems to have become a daily update for the egregious violence that is occurring all the time. There is little new information raised. It is almost glossed over to the point that one has to wonder if there is even anyone left over there covering the war. More wallpaper video, more bad news of casualties and deaths. No new stories coming back, no pressing for answers. We seem to accept the status quo, although the general public is less accepting everyday.

Sooner or later the current administration is going to have to make some effort to appease the audience, or more likely, they will stretch it out to the point of leaving it for the next guy to clean up after. The growing trend with government media relations has been to work harder to control the flow of information as technology changes in the field and journalists become more and more mobile. This tactic, usually reserved for war has crept into the daily mine field that is our current political landscape. As artists, it becomes necessary to question this system, since the media often fails to do so. We are not under the same constraints, yet we are dependent upon the movement of information in a truthful way in order to comment on society as a whole.

I loved this story, apropos to the discussions of last week on mapping. I read it just a day before class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/nyregion/28map.html?_r=1&oref=login

This idea of psychogeography is an interesting notion. I think that often the function of a public space is not fully considered in respect to how it inhibits human behavior. It is almost accepted that some inhibition is a good thing. Is it useful to discuss these far fetched approaches to city planning? They are interesting concepts, however they clearly can never be a reality. In the case of Walt Disney, much of his ideology has become a reality in a controlled setting, with the same basic rules of decorum applied to acceptable conduct within these spaces. Despite the effort to appear otherwordly, Disney World is still a place that requires the same general societal rules that apply anywhere else. It has in fact become a symbol of the corporate entity that controls our free thought and expression more today than ever before. A great deal of money is spent to draw our attention to this product, that movie or tv show and to return our own money to that cause of continuing to build a larger and larger capitalist empire.

There is no question that to a certain extent the Situationist views of psychogeography were never meant to become a reality, but more to influence our thoughts about how we design public spaces. In this respect it is a useful contribution as it does provoke some thought and it seems this is the fundamental function of art.

I am interested in the ethnocentric views of mapping that occur, particularly within this country. Americans are largely unaware of the world around them, unaffected by anything outside of their own realm. This comes down not just to ignorance of geography, but of culture as well. The map of the upside down world is one of the more interesting illustrations of this:

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/

Clearly, our most basic assumptions about the orientation of things is quite an arbitrary convention that has no basis in scientific fact but is more politically motivated than anything else.

Of course maps are about more than just geography. They have a vastly diverse matrix for the understanding of art, culture and the exploration of ideas.

Nickard raises some great ideas.

It got me thinking about the idea of an alternative space for displaying art and exactly what that is today. Undoubtedly the landscape has changed. The main question is, how do we as artists today, working in various media from traditional types such as painting, sculpture, photography to motion media to performance art, to book art and new media, find a way to show our work to a larger public outside of the "art world"? As Nickard said, his greatest frustrations were often with the art establishment and his great success was with the general public that is not entrenched in art culture. So how do we make this work accessible and enticing to people from a wide cross section of the population?

I think one solution could be the use of internet based media to at least gain awareness and appeal if not as a way to display the medium. There are of course limitations to web based media if that encompasses the totality of the work. It can be a good marketing tool however. I think that it's important to think about how we market our work as artists. If we are not constantly looking for reaching new audiences, the work can become stagnant. We may make the work because it is what we are interested in, but without an audience to view it, it exists in a vaccuum.

Bringing art into public spaces not normally associated with art is another option. This may open art up to new audiences that would not otherwise seek it by seeking them instead. There are of course logistical issues that exist with this option. Securing the work can be an issue as can getting permission to use a space. If it is a busy place, traffic flow can be a problem. If it is outdoors, weather can be an issue. There are of course works of art that are designed specifically for public spaces, however there is a different dynamic that exists when the work is a destination as in a gallery or museum than when it may simply be passed by and ignored. This seems to be the biggest issue. Art has become so self-conscious and out of step with the issues of wide public appeal that it is easily ignored in favor of more accessible staples of pop culture. That is not to say that I advocate the dumbing down of art in order to make it more appealing. No matter what steps are taken to find a wider audience, there will always be those who choose not to partake of those efforts. The issue at hand is how to know the audience that you seek and find ways to reach them. This is more difficult in some ways, because there is more to compete against, but there are also more avenues for raising awareness.

We need to discard our aversion for mainstream media and other outlets that most people pay attention to in favor of art and instead learn to use them to our advantage to draw in more interest. Here are some links to galleries, projects, artists information of note that might be a starting point:

http://outdoormuseum.com/detail.htm
http://www.squeaky.org
http://www.hallwalls.org
http://www.cepagallery.com
http://www.nysawc.org
http://www.rochestercontemporary.org/
http://www.bigorbitgallery.org
http://www.atasite.org
http://www.deepdishtv.org
http://www.artexte.ca/
http://www.artnet.com

A few thoughts that have lingered about for the past week...

In response to some of the recent readings and discussion, it brought up some interesting ideas that are of particular interest to me since they relate to media. News media has been a subject of interest for me since it is my current profession, but also because it is part of a social fabric, integral to our cultural understanding. It is often the source of attention, for both positive and negative reasons, yet the communication of information and cultural exchange is dependent on it. The main criticism seems to be in regard to the bias that exists within these organizations. It is seen as a closed system with a predetermined ideology decided upon by an elite group that is not representative of the diverstiy that exists within the populus they cover.

In my experience, there is truth to these opinions. The most prevalent plague for modern journalism is the corporate culture that drives it. It is limiting to be caught within the interests of multi billion dollar operations, with shareholders, boards of directors and a bottom line to meet. Isn't this true of most industries these days? Sadly, it is a sign of the times. It is simply more efficient, cost effective, and viable to stay competetive through consolidation rather than integrity and independent vision. Journalists will struggle with this for some time to come, as it does not look like a change to this model is in sight.

The idea of objectivity when dealing with any human endeavor is a fallacy. There are judgements made all the time by journalists about which stories to cover, how to cover them, what importance should be given to them. Frequently, the same news is covered by different organizations in a startlingly similar fashion. Though the work was done independently, it almost seems at times as if there are covert consultations that exist between competing news outlets in order to compare notes. It must be pointed out however, that every news outlet is by nature competitive, just as in business, to get the story first, and hopefully to make it accurate. Unfortunately, accuracy is more often sacrificed than expediency. At the end of the day, it is about gaining a share of the audience which is pulled in a plethora of new directions by the burgeoning field of new media.

It is true that there is less attention paid to news that comes from places like Rwanda or the Sudan, until the atrocities like the ones we have seen in recent history are substantiated by the sheer scope of the disaster and they can no longer be ignored. It is unfortunate. And even more unfortunate is how little it affects most of the audience that views, hears, or reads about it in the news.

Newsmen like Walter Cronkite were revered, not for objectivity, but for an ability to encapsulate the emotion of a story and on a human level, and allow viewers to draw conclusions from his own observations. His reporting was hardly unbiased, but he gathered enough information, that despite his own beliefs and opinions, which became evident within the framework of his field reporting and newscasts, viewers were armed with a sense of what was going on in these complex stories. In the case of Vietnam, they took it to the streets, and in the case of the Iran hostage crisis, they took it to the polls. In both cases, this type of journalism changed the face of an American and thereby international landscape.

Is this the best approach? Is this the role of media? It is one approach. And it was effective enough to gain a share of American television viewership that our current media conglomerates can only dream of drawing to a news program. The media is changing. It is changing here in this country, on a local and national level and around the world. The European model of the state subsidized system, unfettered by profit margins is shifting in favor of the American capitalist system. Whether or not this is the best system and what will come to dominate the landscape remains to be seen. But it certainly bears some study as to why the media seems to be so diluted in its effectiveness and so narrow in its view of world affairs when the resources at hand only continue to be advanced by technology.

With the emergence of newer, better and faster technology every minute that is designed to enrich our lives and immediately render our gadgetry into obsolescence, the question is raised, are we really better off? That's not to say that I am not a subscriber of the many wares that this modern world has to offer. I cannot deny the glint that sometimes fills my eyes upon seeing the latest offering of digital this or silicone that. Not that I can afford it, but we can all dream.

I too am sucked into the vortex of debaucherous electronic splendor at times, but not without stopping to look at how it has changed my life, both for the better and for worse. It certainly seems to complicate much of what it is intended to simplify and I am at times drawn to the simplicity of old things, the things that have been cast aside. I don't think these thoughts are uncommon today.

This leads me to the line of questioning that I am really driving at. Being a working member of the news media, I often find myself scrutinizing our industry practices. I am not always in agreement with how news is covered and I am often befuddled by some of the patterns that mysteriously develop where we are constantly producing the same stories and soundbites as the competition across town. This homogenization of journalism has led to a decline in the importance of having an individual voices and seeking truth in what we do. With the barrage of information from various sources every second of every day and the push from competition, there is no time to question or second guess, and barely enough to confirm what we disseminate as having basis in fact.

This leads me to the research that I have begun in the area of media coverage of American military conflict, beginning with the American Revolution right through to the current war in Iraq. I am interested in how this coverage has evolved due to changes in technology and how this affects public perception. Has the immediacy of information and the availabilty of so many sources changed the role of media? How have politics played a part in decisions made by media outlets and the access given to them. Is it the job of journalists to simply report the facts or is it also part of their duty to build consensus by drawing certain conclusions and making the public aware of these issues?

I want to focus in particular on the coverage of the current war in Iraq as compared to the coverage of the previous Persian Gulf War just 10 years before. There are vastly different issues raised in this short span of time. Much of it has to do with technology and government influence, but I think it deserves a deeper look into the history of war coverage.

the preponderance of thought drags me to a substratum previously unknown...

a realm of possibility inquires about the price of original sin, but not without first unmasking the fallacy of natural order.

imbibe at a well of indecision.

-----------------------------------

indulge me in this endeavor, now, for the purpose of discussion. my delineation into the art world began at a young age, and grew to a passion for seeing things with a discerning eye and thinking of the possibility for exploration into a myriad of subjects. my experience as a studio artist has grown into an interest for things visual relating to television and the effect of this media on its audience, film and the endless range of expression that comes out of these arenas. it forces us out of a comfort zone and demands for us to seek the answers to certain questions about society and culture.

to turn the conventions of art and visual imagery on their heads can be an important method for new understanding. sometimes bias is bred from a familiarity with a subject. we can't help but be biased, but it becomes necessary to shake up the formalist approach that we may subscribe to.

it seems to me that this is what we are trying to do. it is a daunting prospect at times, since ways of reading and making images may be so ingrained, we are unaware of the consequences of our perspective. but we must examine the reasons for making the work that we do, just as much as we consider the work itself. i believe it was Hegel's idea that was brought into the discussion as it relates to historical change. we are constantly reacting to what was done previously and often we are reacting against it, only to come to the conclusion of synthesis. our own ideas are only as original as what came before us. but that is not to say that what we do is unoriginal. we can't truly reproduce someone else's work even if we try (not that we should). we make out own mark. but it is crucial that the work is well thought out.

some key questions:

how are my own ideas a projection of the limits of my experience?
how has conventional thought influenced my perspective?
how do i begin to break down the barriers to a more pure perception of ideas?
how do the modes of dialectics play a part in the making and viewing of art?