Contemporary art has seen many major players from many different ethnicities, races, countries, and demographics. But when one thinks about the role women have played in the development and alteration of contemporary art, a undeniable feeling of absence or underrepresentation is palpable. Unfortunately in this patriarchal society that has for so long objectified and undermined women, the female gender seems to evade recognition for accomplishments or even the opportunity to achieve them. But, thanks to Judith K. Brodksy’s piece titled “Stepping out of the beaten path: Reassessing the Feminist Art Movement,” the role women have played in Contemporary Art is illuminated and the problematic ignorance of their vital involvement is confronted. Now, her statement that the feminist movement pioneered post-modernism is indeed an audacious claim. But, to her credit she does support this assertion with plentiful evidence. Namely, the one photo in which she discusses in her argument, Antonio and I by Joan Semmel, provides a great example of her rhetoric. The photo depicts, essentially, an image of her and her lover in bed. The unique angle of the photo allows the viewer to see this as she would. By battering conventional female nude portraits and pictures with this unprecedented perspective, Semmel dismisses stereotypical subjugation of which the traditional role women play in art historically depicts.

Of the many government driven cultural changes nations around the globe throughout history have seen there usually lays a singular defining method of doing so. Sporting events, artistic projects, and other such facets of a culture prove extremely useful in setting a nation down the path it wishes to take. Within the Marxist-Leninist world of the Soviet Union, art played a pivotal role in doing so; specifically, socialist-realist art. Socialist-realism’s emergence into the Soviet art world manifested in several different forms, but which of these forms provided the bedrock for representing Socialist progression and advancement is the question in mind. Katerina Clark’s “Socialist-Realism and The Sacralizing of Space” tackles this question providing sound rhetoric to support her answer. Although socialist-realist literature was able to embody many of the important aspects of Soviet society with the use of the hero and his/her actions defining the highest Soviet values and beliefs, it was socialist-realist architecture that was at the forefront of the Soviet machine. She clearly establishes the temporal status and location of the Soviet Union in relation to the broad picture of Socialist longevity. By doing so she is able to demonstrate why architecture was so vital in the socialist realist impact on developing the Soviet Union. This is a very sound approach to this argument and the one I find the most intriguing. Clark states how the “iconoclastic” phase of the Leninist-Marxist development of Soviet society had already been established with the “building” phase next to complete. This need to now take the established values and culture implemented by Marx and Lenin and construct the nation in such a way is what made socialist realist architecture the “quintessential” element. Figuratively, building the nation was necessary and it only made sense that architecture, the art of using materials to build, was the way in which they were going accomplish the Socialist utopia that the Soviet Union would hopefully protract for an indefinite and limitless future.

Censorship has always played an integral role in cultural norms, extremes, and taboos. In the world of contemporary art censorship almost always carries a negative connotation as it seems its objective is to stifle the aims and objectives of novel creativity in order to confine art to standards that society wishes to uphold. Naturally, well since the advent of contemporary, this goes against the fundamental principles art itself. Breaking free of these restrictions is the exact reason why artists inspire movement, people yearn to express themselves freely and when not permitted to do so, eventually movements occur. But what people tend to not to realize is that this oppressive censorship sometimes works in favor of an artist, art style, or art work by accidentally perpetuating its image and disseminating its existence to the entirety of whatever society is being censored. There is no better example of such a phenomenon than in Richard Meyers’ “The Jesse Helms Theory of Art.” The essay exposes the story of Republican Senator Jesse Helms in his attempt to censor art works, specifically “homo-erotic” depictions epitomized by artist Mapplethorpe who himself was a homosexual that created incredible and radical photographs representing homo-sexuality in frequently erotic poses. Helms moved to thoroughly censor these “indecent” photographic depictions of men and their penises or men in erotic poses with each other from the American people. In the process of trying to move for legislation to censor such images/art Helms did things such as photocopy and distribute photographs like Mapplethorpe’s Embrace (1982) or Mark Stevens (Mr. 10 ½) to congress. In his public discussions of such things, Helms constantly broached the subject and described the image, at one point comparing it to his own “righteous” art collection at his home as being outlandishly inappropriate when juxtaposed to his own art work. But with each description and mentioning and re-distribution of this homo-eroticism, he was inadvertently bringing it to light and casting its presence to the world. This completely countered his own censor-aimed intentions and actually just purveyed the art work as the artist, Mapplethorpe, would have tried to do if he were not deceased. This fabulous paradox explains the relationship between art and censorship and how they can intertwine across different purposes to actually end up incidentally benefitting one or the other.

Timing is an important element for those wishing to see transition and evolution first hand. In Benjamin H.D. Buchloh’s “From Faktura to Factography” he chronicles and details the initial MOMA’s (Museum of Modern Art) director Alfred Barr’s journey to the Soviet Union as one last adventure to discover the extent of the avant-garde in order to collect a large spectrum of work done in this field for its presentation in the United States. During this trip his timing could not have been more perfect as the Russian Avant-Garde was in the middle of one of the biggest swings of artistic creation in its history. The preceding decades in Russian art had been rich with bold new innovators to the genre of avant-garde art. But at this time the totalitarian Soviet Regime was about to take the Russian art scene out of this era of monumental artistic flare. It seems tragic that such a wonderfully free and lively environment of art was too alter itself underneath Socialist oppression. But Barr made use out of this encounter as he could then first hand witness such a change taking place. Not many people can live to see significant evolution transpire before them and Barr realized he must document this. So he describes in detail what he experienced as famed avant-garde artists like Tatlin or Malevich and rich novel genre’s like Laboratory Constructivism and late Suprematism gave way to what became known as factography, hence the name of the piece being from faktura to factography. His delineation of all of Faktura borne artists is what intrigued me most. He defines the origin of Faktura starting with Burliuk’s futurist manifesto “A Slap In the Face of Public Taste.” From there he chronologically lists the succeeding Faktura arts and artists. It almost gives a clear image of the timeline of Russian avant-garde which of course in and of itself is an interesting concept. Starting with cubism and futurism and rayonism Faktura evolved into Laboratory Constructivism at one end of the spectrum and arts like Suprematism at another end. I find this genology fascinating and it definitely heavily made possible by the passionate pursuit of Barr in his goal to document this momentous period in art history.

There are many humanitarian missions across the globe hoping to make a difference by providing aid to those in need whether it be for those deprived of food, water, protection, or basic human rights such as abortion. Abortion has long been a practice sought by those women whose untimely, unplanned, or accidental pregnancy negatively impacts their lives to the extent of irreparable destruction. Abortion is in earnest a personal decision and one that no matter what religious propriety or bureaucratic ethics may suggest, sometimes it must be done for the survival of the female involved. Carrie Lambert-Beatty’s “Twelve Miles: Boundaries of New Art/Activism” takes a novel approach to chronicling the Women on Waves project founded by Dutch Physician Rebecca Gomperts. The activism sect of contemporary art has become a wide-ranging genre in the modern day and Lambert-Beatty does a wonderful job of explaining and establishing the relationship between Projects like Women on Waves and activism art. This project is a nongovernmental organization that uses boats with gynecology clinics attached or mounted and staffed with certified medical personal to not only provide abortion services but education, clinical checkups, and things like prophylactics for women in countries where there is either sparse gynecological care or banned abortions. Lambert-Beatty illuminates the characteristics and processes of this project that fit perfectly into category of activism. She also makes a point in saying how it is no coincidence and that this deliberate connection shows how the two balance each other while as she says that Women on Waves, “….is art nor is it not-art.” This phrase captures the essence of this bridge between Gompert’s project and art activism.

The Soviet Union is not inherently known around the free world as a beautiful image of cultural magnificence. The French, Italians, Greeks, and so on have all made their mark on the world with vivacious and aesthetically pleasing art, architecture, culture, food, and clothing. However, if one takes the meaning aesthetics at face value it appears that Soviet Art, specifically Socialist Realism, or any art created within the era of Stalin, would not even come close to the description of “aesthetically pleasing.” This is in part completely false, if you exchange the word pleasing for effective, than Soviet art aesthetics absolutely yields a positive connotation. Alla Efimova, a well-known Jewish curator and art historian, does a thorough job of explaining just how Soviet aesthetics operate to achieve their desired goals in an extremely clever and creative way through aestheticizing Soviet society in her work called “To Touch On the Raw: The Aesthetic Affections of Socialist Realism.” She refers to the work of Susan Buck Morris, who uses a remarkably unique but accurate metaphor to describe how aesthetics when returned to original meaning, indicates perception through the senses. So by using aesthetics Soviet art can fulfill the five human senses to allow the viewer to experience what Soviet life is. It is for this reason that the “beauty and pleasantness” potential of art is not sought after but a realistic capture of what life in the Soviet Union is like. Stimulation of the senses inspired Socialist Realist artists to, through various media from paintings to film, establish a “neurological” relationship between the artwork and the viewer to provide a virtual Soviet experience.

The modern world is moving fast. Where is the world moving one might ask? It is moving towards a unified globe. There is a reason for the paradoxical relationship of our modern world growing in number but shrinking in perceived territorial size. How many people encounter those familiar to them in places across the world they would never even imagine an encounter. This occurrence is globalization in action. Author Zanny Begg has written a extremely informative expose on the two photographers who seem to capture this movement with the utmost accuracy and understanding. In “Recasting Subjectivity: Globalization and the Photography of Andreas Gursky and Allen Sekula,” Begg explains how each of these men, provides the two most apt approaches to the effects of globalization. According to Begg globalization, deterritorialization, hyper-capitalism, and time-space compression are the focal points of Gursky and Sekula’s view on how people in the modern day perceive photography. Gursky and Sekula have differing views so concrete that they essentially embody the two viewpoints of globalization. Gursky chooses to focus on the potentiality while Sekula prefers to observe and extrapolate the limits of globalization, each through their photography. However, there is one point that I find most interesting. Capitalism has reached such heights to where is seems as if it is doing more harm than good for the world. Begg covers this concept comprehensively as she discusses how capitalism reached this point after the fall of socialist regimes. The overt problematic system socialism bred made capitalism the unequivocal choice for world trade. But it seems ironic how such a system that held such promise of economic freedom and opportunity now has morphed into this globalized connection of a hyper-capitalist network that has taken things job opportunity and turned it into economic chaos with all of the staff-cuts, pollution, and poor working conditions. Sekula ideally captures this process in his photographs which can show the world and hopefully inspire further developemtn of things like the global justice movement to return to a capitalist system that runs efficiently.

Within the large spectrum of media artists, authors, and other such related professions use to depict both current society and history, a commonly overlooked tool provides one of the best ways to convey meaning: satire. I cannot help but refer to the cinematic productions of famed satirist Mel Brooks. In the plethora of movies Brooks has produced over the years, bizarre comedic situations aim to mock and satirically comment on different aspects of societies, ethnicities, events, and people. This is almost indisputably a Western notion. The satirist uses an almost pessimistic outlook to critique and comment, exposing the follies and imperfections the truly lie within the given subject of discussion. However, the Soviet Union under Stalin inspired too much fear and deference for any one to use such things to depict Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union as the great illusion it was to many of the Soviet peoples. However, after shortly after Stalin’s death, some but not many found the courage to unmask the dissolution of this period in Russian history. Valerie L. Hillings wrote a great biographical piece on the Soviet artists Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid. These two artists embodied the satirical method I speak of to critique Stalin and Soviet Union. Appropriately making the decision to emigrate to anti-Soviet America, Komar and Melamid began making paintings that comically deride Stalin and his image as a great and monumental figure. Subtleties within their paintings encode a mockery of many false or exaggerated aspects of Stalin’s rule. In an almost ingenious strategy to artistically criticize Stalin, references to ruler’s and Empire’s of old are made. This is one of most effective tools Komar and Melamid use. For instance, in one of their most famous paintings “Stalin and the Muses,” the female Muse holding the hammer in one hand has her right breast exposed which is of course referring to Eugene Delacroix’s “Liberty Leading the People,” from the late 19^th century. Another example would be in “Stalin in front of the Mirror,” where they have him standing barefoot as the deceased Roman Emperors were depicted as a demonstration of their divinity which is in turn mocking Stalin’s effort to divinize himself. These comically creative allusions to deified rulers, emperors, and empires are one of the primary mediums upon which Komar and Melamid tear down Stalin and Soviet Union.

If any one has ever wondered why in the spectrum of international art there are certain artworks from regions around the globe that seem to stagnate with each new creation, there is a simple but disconcerting answer. African art is the prime of example of this. No matter how many different African artists with varying types, sizes, and styles emerge, the Western world seems fixated on perceiving it all the same despite overt discernment. Why is this? Well, author Olu Oguibe wrote a wonderfully informative piece on how and why this came to be. In his essay called “The Culture Game,” written in 2004, Oguibe transcribes a dialogue between an American critic named Thomas McEvilley and an Ivorian painter living in New York named Ouattara. Throughout the line of questioning Oguibe accentuates the type of questions asked by McEvilley to which there can only be a limited and targeted response from Ouattara. He uses this dialogue to showcase the method by which the Occidental culture exerts their influence over the African culture to achieve an image we desire and seek to perpetuate. Ouattara is just like every other artist, trying to, through his art work, express his thoughts, experiences into coherent meaning in the form of an image. This requires autonomy and freedom of action and speech free from inhibition. Oguibe notes how McEvilley inquires upon subject matter through questions such as “Where were you born?” or “How many people were in your village.” These pre-determined questions are aimed at acquiring the preset image Western culture views African culture. By eliminating the opportunity for an Artist’s audience and ability to speak upon matters without any interference, the African artist is made silent. This is the basis for imperial control or cultural subjugation by which the Occident has asserted themselves. Silence is the key weapon to which the weapon to deter such oppression is voice. If one were to think of this relationship between one and the other, as does Oguibe in his essay, I order for the one to ensure control they must confine the other. That is exactly what this line of dialogue is doing. When Ouattara speaks out at one point wishing to change the subject matter to discuss his work, McEvilley continues with his line of inquiry. Why? Because if McEvilley were allow Ouattara the opportunity to talk about his autonomous ideas, these manipulative barriers would disappear. It is shameful that such things still persist in the 21^st century and in due time in order to achieve globalized equality the silence must be broken.