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.

In this week’s class we have discussed the existence of postcolonialism art and its significance in the world of art as it pertains to society. We read several pieces on this subject but there is one piece that definitely portrays the notion of postcolonialism best. Olu Oguibe’s “The Culture Game” is a fascinating literary discussion on Occidental manipulation of art, specifically African art. Oguibe uses an interview between an occidental critic from America named Thomas McEvilley and an Ivorian painter named Ouattara to exemplify his objective on what postcolonialism does. Although seemingly innocuous, McEvilley inquistions Ouattara in such a manner to truly suppress his (Ouattara) ability to “speak for himself.” There in lies the oppression of the western culture. McEvilley asks him questions setup so that the answer is a representation of the constructed stigma and image occidental culture has on the “others” or those labeled savage and beneath those not a part of western civilization. What Oguibe expatiates so well is the method by which those from more “civilized” cultures subvert and diminish those in the orient so as to perpetuate their status as inferior. The method is the primary focal point because in order to counter this effort by occidental culture so those outside can free themselves from such oppression one must understand how those oppressing are doing so. In this I find Oguibe’s words most significant. Oguibe stresses in high quantity that when an artist rites, paints, or sculpts his is “enunciating.” This ability to make a statement that expresses who you are and what you individually represent is the fundamental basis for artistic creation. But as the interview in Oguibe’s piece demonstrates, the artist, Ouattara is forced to answer questions such as: where are you from? What tribe are you a part of? With these questions the one enacts his power over another and forces them to implicitly deviate from their individuality and reiterate what western culuture depicts modern African art as. Possibly Oguibe’s most notable point is that without the ability to enounce or speak, an individual has no way to become personalized and is consequently “defaced” in which the anonymity resulting from this makes the modern African artist just another blank face depicting what the one already knows about the other. This process that Oguibe describes so brilliantly is why postcolonialism has been able to hold modern African art in the same inferior location for so long.

For this blog post I have decided to write about two pieces concerning Soviet Socialist Realism. “The Spatial Poetics of Personality Cult Circles Around Stalin,” by Jan Plamper and “Stalin as Isis and Ra: The Socialist Realism and the Art of Design,” by John E. Bowlt juxtapose each other very cohesively. There are many contrasts in the foci of their writings but the overlapping themes are very interesting and the way in which each author discusses these themes and thesis is what I would like to focus on for my discussion. Plamper and Bowlt were explicit in their explanation of Socialist Realism. They describe how the basis for such art revolved around the embodiment of Stalin and his impact, significance, and representation to the Soviet peoples. I believe Plamper was more useful in emphasizing how monumental Stalin intended the people to view him and what his objective was with Socialist Realism. At one point he quoted one of his biographers, Evgeny Katsman, who likened him to Nature, or more specifically the grandest and most towering structures in Nature such as mountains and oceans, or forests.[1] However Plamper was most concerned with how historically the space in which Russia has always structured itself, the circle, was used by Stalin metaphorically to represent his seat in ultimate authority. The Socialist Realist art evidently used the frame or background Stalin would occupy in a circular formation so as to put Stalin in the middle of it which represented his “sacredness.” Now when comparing Plamper to Bowlt, one can see the difference in approach to describing Socialist Realism. Bowlt really focuses on how Socialst Realism art contributed to Stalin as a machine for propaganda and a means of disseminating glorified portraits of Stalin or what Stalin aimed to represent. Bowlt also chronicles not just the 1930’s (late)-1940’s era which epitomized Socialist Realism but the journey in which it took to get their explaining the evolution of the complex artistic fervor of the 1920’s-1930’s(early) into Socialist Realism.

[1] Dobrenko, E A, and Eric Naiman. The Landscape of Stalinism: The Art and Ideology of Soviet Space. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003. Print. Ch. 2, Pg. 25.

For this week’s blog I have chosen to discuss the literary work of Catherine Cooke called “Socialist Realist architecture: theory and practice.” This is a very intriguing piece that focuses on the artistic history, basis, and evolution of Socialist realist art and in specific the architecture that was produced as part of this artistic genre. But in another very interesting piece by Igor Golomstock titled “Totalitarian Art in the Soviet Union, The Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and The People’s Republic of China,” the same ideals of Socialist realist architecture were also covered. In each piece the authors emphasized the meaning and derivation of Socialist Realist architecture. In juxtaposition with one another one can develop a pretty firm notion of Socialist realist architecture. Both Golomstock and Cooke made it transparently clear Stalin intended to create this “mass” architecture that would symbolize and represent the entire people as a whole. Both of these authors stated how one of the primary objectives of socialist realist architecture was to break free of the capitalist driven individuality in the aesthetic that former architecture had created. To do so, a grand centralized structure had to be the shining representation of the entire nation and the nation’s culture. For Stalin his Palace of the Soviets in Moscow (the capital of the USSR) would be the embodiment of such an idea. Golomstock compared this towering structure to Hitler’s House of the People in Berlin (the capital of Germany). An even more important aspect of socialist realism was, what Golomstock quoted, the “speaking architecture” notion. The architecture must tell the tale of the Soviet Union with all its greatness. Golomstock pointed out in one instance the general criticism of two different metro station designs. The Komsomolaskia-koltsevaia metro station was decorated with Soviet hero’s of the past in response to Stalin’s speech about the heroic pastime of Russian warriors. This piece of architecture was highly praised and the architect commended for such work. On the other hand, the Surpukhavskaia metro station was absent such adorning murals and was therefore highly criticized for its lack of national cultural pride. Socialist Realism ushered in a very unique and significant period of architecture that to this day still remains one of the most visited and studied series structures in history.

Wow, I must say I have read many articles and essays dealing with contemporary art since this class has began, but I have never felt more entranced and hypnotized than I have while reading Robert Smithson’s “Spiral Jetty.” Before moving on the primary thesis or idea Smithson’s Spiral Jetty creates, I just have to comment on the language and diction he used in the making of this essay. Almost as if inspired by color, his words seem to mesh words and picture into one. If I were to listen to this essay via recording, while my eyes were closed, I am almost certain I could assemble an image in my head almost identically resembling the Spiral Jetty without ever having seen it. That to me is what made this piece such an enjoyable reading. Now, as for the premise of Smithson’s piece in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, I believe I have a firm understanding of what he was trying to convey. If my understanding is in error, than what I next say is what I appreciate about this singular work of art.

Smithson was immediately taken by, before adding the materials necessary for creating a legitimate Jetty, that deposit of mud and salt flats which seemed to have a beauty unlike no other he had seen before. The way in which he described it was in itself and explanation for its meaning. He merely built on top of it so a person could truly experience what he saw while looking down upon it. The Spiral Jetty’s existence seemed to have an indefinite placement. Smithson stated that is was as if the boarder between water and land was non-existent, the mass just seemed to remain in a peaceful purgatory, not of sea but not of land. With the disappearance of clear separation between these two environments (water and rock), one has to throw aside all other notions of categorization or compartmentalization because as he said, there were none on this Spiral Jetty.

In conjunction, while on the Spiral Jetty, one also could not associate scale with size, an appreciation for scale is developed as perception of the size of Jetty depended on your point of view and differed to everyone at every point. Finally what I believe to be most interesting is his description of the water as blood of vein and artery in the human body. While on the Jetty, all human instincts compelling us to break things down into categories and labels with ignorantly obstinate definitions for all matter are gone and so we are brought back to our original form as simple organic life forms floating in the sea. One could make the argument the Spiral Jetty’s purpose is for us to transport ourselves to an ancient and forgotten time when everything in our world was floating in the same and abstraction, conceptuality, thought did not exist because we did not. It is truly a purifying experience and one I hope to enjoy first hand one day.

So, for this week’s discussion we focused on Tatlin’s work in the Russian Avant-garde as well as the importance and meaning of Faktura. I must say have been historically drawn to people rather than concepts, however interesting a concept may be, it is conceived by thought of a person or persons. The reading in which I found most enlightening about Tatlin’s life and works of art was Gabriel Villalobos’ piece called “A New Palpable World- The Counter Reliefs of Vladmir Tatlin.” What I gathered to be to if not the primary idea or one of the primary ideas about Gabriel’s analysis and chronicling of Tatlin’s life and work dealt with what his influences were and how they evolved into his idiosyncratic style which forged his place as a legend of the Avant-garde.

Tatlin’s use of industrial/technological materials for his reliefs was most certainly a derivative of his upbringing; Gabriel made this very clear as he noted how his father was a railway engineer and his early experiences at sea meddling with gadgets and technology aboard the ship were extremely important. Next I would say, the form of the shapes and materials, their placement, and his overall artistic style was influenced not solely but heavily by Pablo Picasso. However, it was critical to note the difference in ultimate appearance and construct of Picasso and Tatlin’s work. I found it very easy to follow how Gabriel explained the difference in each artistic titan’s style.

Tatlin’s emphasis was more on the materials “speaking” for themselves by the way in which he arranged them. Tatlin’s aim was not to change the materials and denature their natural state for expression. But Picasso appositionally mixed the materials so as to portray his form. Finally, Gabriel uses this comparison as a board for which to illuminate the true dynamic of Faktura. I thoroughly enjoyed this reading and look forward to exploring more from this author.

For this week’s blog on contemporary art, I choose a very short but powerful essay written by English artist Richard Hamilton. This particular essay was bout ‘pop’ which is a brevity for popular culture. The title of this essay is “For the Finest Art, Try Pop.” As you can extract from the title Hamilton discusses his opinion on how pop culture has influenced and ‘fine art.’ Admittedly I stumbled for the true point to his essay. It is slightly convoluted and wanders on tangents that disconnect the reader. But if read closely, you can follow how he brings you back to his primary objective. Essentially, Hamilton postulates that “pop-fine-art” a construct of the modern mass entertainment industry is influenced on the unconventional outlook of society’s changing landscape. He admits at one part of the essay that two previous movements of the 20^th century have instigated the attempt of artists to delineate the “image of society in flux.” The “Dada” movement and the “Futurist” movement revolutionized art in this fashion. Although quite different in philosophical perspective, they both similarly used propaganda to promote their perception of art as a vehicle for their take on society. I found it interesting that although Hamilton stated that Futurism itself has died, it seems as if this new pop-art could be construed as a combination, or a “cross-fertilization” as he calls it, of Dada and Futurism. I also found it interesting how he exemplified the modern equivalent, or pop art, to traditional fine art. He compares the playboy playmate of the month to an odalisque painting. Finally the very last thing I wish to discuss was the last comment Hamilton made in the second paragraph. He states that in order for the “artist not to lose much of his ancient purpose he may have to plunder the popular arts.” I found this intriguing, Hamilton feels the modern day artist has to rob the popular arts to recover what he claims is the artist’s “rightful inheritance.” I believe this is a pessimistic but very true statement, the modern world has definitely moved into a time where pop-art surrounds our everyday lives and overwhelms the true artist; it is indeed a noble but almost futile pursuit.

For today’s eportfolio blog I would like to discuss the reading we were assigned for Wednesday’s class. The reading was the literary piece called “Dreamworlds of History,” a historical critique of pre and post Bolshevik revolutionary Russia. What most interested me was not just the type of art that was spawned during this time period but how these ideas came to be. As discussion leader for the class involving this reading I asked a question as to, giving several options, what was the primary reason artists, authors, and general fervor was focused so obstinately on the future. This was the height of “futurist” movement. The period of course was the turn of the 19^th century into the 20^th century, so naturally the entire world was buzzing with excitement. I myself have lived through a centurial transition, although I was young, I remember the excitement of that New Years. Indeed many people immediately started asking the questions: What lies ahead in store for us? What new and exciting changes will this generation create? But I can discern a significant difference in the way each of these turning centuries viewed the future: relativity to the past. It seems the futurist artists as well as authors were not only turning their sights on the wondrous future but putting forth a deliberate effort to forget the past. I found this to be quite interesting. My temporal contemporaries as well as myself clearly did not share this ambition to that extent. And it is for that exact reason I believe this age of futurism was ushered in. Mixed partly with the technological advancements that had never seen an equal in the past, the desire to shatter the time/space continuum must be present to truly rely on the future. After all, how can something continue from nothing? A fresh start with a clean slate was what many of these artists and authors hoped to achieve. It is my opinion that this was one of the most pivotal turning points in human history because of the acceleration of advancement; probably brought on by these ground breaking electrically powered technological developments: cars, trains, airplanes, and etc. If you look back before the dawn of the 20^th century, to the previous centuries, humans slowly and gradually were developing. Since then, it seems as if each new day brings another monumental discovery or creation. So that is why this era should be heralded as the beginning of never ending beginnings; the futurists shaped the world into a trend that might not end for possibly another whole millennia!

For this weeks essay on Soviet art I would like to discuss the first essay of the collected works of “Russian Art of the Avant-Garde Theory and Criticism: 1902-1934,” edited by John E. Bowlt. This essay’s title is: “Mikhail Larionov and Natalya Goncharova Rayonists and Futurists, A Manifesto,” circa 1913. As always, with little knowledge of the art world, I always begin my reading as a blank canvas on which the author or artist I read or look at makes his/her mark. I must say, this “rayonist” style of painting is very intriguing but the way in which the author went about his contrast of Western art and culture was not enjoyable for me. If you wish to critique someone else and discern or analyze there is a polite way to go about it. Do not mistake me for light hearted, I am a boxer and have affinity for the visceral nature of human behavior. But I felt like the entire first half of essay in which, instead of explaining rayonism and its origins, they chastise the Western art form for standing against everything the rayonist stand for was overzealous. His candor and sharp remarks about how dull and uninventive the Western form was irritated me slightly. Art is not aimed to insult the one person, art has meaning, and it is not a personal vendetta against someone. So why be angry as if Western art was deliberately trying destroy rayonism. The point of the contrasting process is to simply delineate difference, not belittle the frame of reference so as to embarrass or shame them. I would have enjoyed a more cordial approach, but it is art we are talking about, and artists are very passionate people so I will reserve judgment of the author’s character. That being said, I enjoy the “extratemporal” imagery used by the Rayonists. Most art deals with tangible confined to the “three dimensions.” I am deeply impressed by the way in which Rayonists capture that cryptic and surreal universe, the “fourth dimension” as they call it. Overall I was truly enticed by their ideas and look forward to reading and looking at more of the products of rayonism.