I have learned that in understanding a work of art, providing context is what leads to discovery. Interfaces that set the works in a dialogic context highlighting the artist’s relationships, influences, historical context (art movements), and social context enable interpreters to discover meaning. Both the museum and the artwork “function as interfaces to the larger systems of meanings, values, and social relations that make them possible and interpretable” (Irvine). Communities and cultures that visit an art exhibit without prior knowledge of the style or period can be left without information that will lead to connecting the dots of interpretation. The Vermeer exhibit grouped the work in a way that enabled viewers to physically see the connections between certain artists, forms, and ideas, by utilizing descriptions and organizing by period and other common relations or categories. Without these descriptions, the work has the potential of only being viewed at face value, restricting access.

Understanding that “meaning” is constructed by what we have been exposed to, socialized into, and learned from our surroundings helps de-blackbox the interpretation of art. This is to say that if we can ask questions about who is being addressed in the work or what conversations it is participating in, we unlock the ideas behind the work, which is more valuable to understanding what it represents than the physical attributes of the object.

(Photo from BGR)

With the Google Art Project, the challenge of creating a “real” experience of the museum as an interface demonstrates one of the limitations of technological reproductions of art. Beil argues that comparing originals and reproductions is not useful and instead both forms should be used together to allow us to see and experience art in new ways (23). Beil also discussed that the “twenty-first-century period eye” is trained to view images that are reproductions made for screens because we experience and view hundreds of them every day (25). Due to this, some reviewers found Google Art’s high resolution images even better than studying the art itself because of the low lighting in galleries and interference brought on by crowds (Beil, 25). Beil quotes James Gardner’s reaction: “reality itself, the real thing, may just be an imperfect medium for looking at art” (25). Despite the detail, reviewers stated the online experience does not compare with the real feelings of being in the presence of the art. In contrast, reviewers pointed to “realistic” features demonstrated in the project as things such as depth and lighting that we don’t actually experience when viewing the original in person. I found this as a prime example of  how technology and reproductions are re-defining the way we interact with and perceive art and reality.The reason these features are seen as realistic to our eye is because we are used to seeing digital images formatted for a phone or computer screen and therefore those high-contrast images have changed the way we see.

This example contributes to the understanding that reproductions should be used as further context for the piece of work, rather than as an actual representation of the work. Similarly, Malraux understood that the technologies themselves are not the main focus, but rather the “institutions and ideologies mediated through our technologies” (Irvine, 10). Being that reproduced images are inextricably part of our cultural encyclopedia, the Google Art Project should be seen as an interface which helps us discover how reproductions are perceived differently depending on the viewer (critic, art conservator, curatorial staff, etc), the time, and social context. Additionally, the Google Arts Project can help us see how our thinking “continues to be influenced by technologies of reproduction” (Beil, 25). This awareness can contribute to a better understanding of how important context is in making meaning of art. 

Kim Beil, “Seeing Syntax: Google Art Project and the Twenty-First-Century Period Eye.” Afterimage 40, no. 4 (February 1, 2013): 22–27.

Martin Irvine, “André Malraux, La Musée Imaginaire (The Museum Idea) and Interfaces to Art”.

Irvine, M. (2018). From Studying Interfaces to Making Interfaces. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zN6lu12p2OIIB_67i4nCOgZjWoqnJ73v/view

Photo 1: Glass Tears  – Man Ray (1932), Paris Style: Dada

Gelatin silver print

I chose this photo because of the cinematic style and use of the woman’s gaze to draw in the viewer. The tears coming down from the her face are large and made of glass giving off the sense of added drama or exaggeration. To me, these stylistic choices result in an interface inviting the viewer to experience more than just what is literally in the image, but also space to fill in the blanks (similar to a painting). Capturing eyes in an image is also symbolic, and adds another layer to the photograph (looking up can represent innocence or reference religious imagery). This image is an example of storytelling rather than imitation. The departure from capturing a “realistic” image is a part of the genre or style demonstrated here: dadaism. Continuing to examine the photo from its social context, Man Ray was a significant contributing artist of the dada and surrealist movement. This photo was published in the surrealist art magazine Minotaur in 1935, as well as a 1934 book collection of Ray’s photographs. The Art Story website says, “Ray is exploring his interest in the real and unreal by challenging the meaning of still-life photography.” Using our tools for interpretation from class, it is clear to see that we identify and categorize images using social and historical context from other images that presuppose it. Another concept from class we discussed is the remix and reinvention of processes over time. In researching Man Ray, he participated in the “re-invention” of solarization and photograms which he called Rayographs (Balwin & Jurgens, 39). It is interesting to compare early methods of “photoshopping” or “editing” with the methods we use today, and  the way in which capturing “truth” has evolved over time and meant different things within different contexts.

Photo 2: Jonathan Bachman (2016) 

A demonstrator protesting the shooting death of Alton Sterling is detained by law enforcement near the headquarters of the Baton Rouge Police Department in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S. July 9, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY – RTSH3XR

Photo taken on a Canon EOS-1D X with an EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens at 16mm; the exposure was 1/1600sec at f/5, ISO 2000

This photo went viral appearing all over social media and news websites, and quickly became one of the most circulated photos of The Black Lives Matter movement. In times of protest and civil uproar, photos are one way that these bigger than life moments become human and real. A powerful image has the power to reach people outside of the circumstance pictures, as well as create truth value. “The photograph allows for the existence of a multiplicity of narrations and storylines without privileging a single one by referring to some predefined notion of ‘truth’ ” (Lister, 24). The photo was compared to other famous photos that were considered iconic representations of historical movements including “Tank Man,” from the 1989 Beijing protests and “Flower Power” from the anti-Vietnam War protests in 1967. These photos symbolize nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, and the oppressor vs. the oppressed (Gottschalk, 2016). Gottschalk (an Artsy contributer) states, “her position, that of Tank Man, and that of Jan Rose Kasmir—an individual standing up to a more powerful group that seeks to oppress or suppress her—is one that is infinitely relatable in a way that images capturing the actual violence that inspires such civil disobedience are often not. (This is particularly true for those in positions of privilege or power.) She becomes a blank canvas in which you can place yourself. You become a part of the struggle and the movement” (2016). The power in an image therefore, as we have discussed in class,transcends time because it is dialogic. “An image does not receive its meaning from its indexicality nor from its iconicity, but from the network of relations around it” (Lister, 36).

Photo 3: Miami Sunset 

I chose this photo (taken on Snapchat) because it exemplifies how the camera phone is a socio-technical object. According to Lister, Photography has “extended outwards from its traditional centre, to interface or become part of other technologies” (4). Snapchat is an extension of my memories, and is carried around with me on my phone, which makes my phone an (almost) physical extension of my body. Additionally, Snapchat features makes a photo taking and sharing more interactive and dialogic, allowing you to have a point of view but also to add or accentuate the part of the photo you find to be meaningful, add writing, or other forms of media on top of the image. Snapchat is a social platform, designed for sharing moments as they happen. This is achieved by the time constraint on each image (it only lasts 24 hours), which creates urgency to capture a moment and share it, before it’s gone. This is perfectly designed for the generation of users that use the interface, anxiety, immediacy and a fear of missing out. It’s no surprise that the application is such a popular form of communication.

One of the issues with social media is that photos start to lose their appeal as they become recycled and clichéd. Lister says, “technologies of representation have the potential either to stultify life by reducing it to endless repetition of essentially identical moments and actions or that the same technologies and energies can be harnessed towards a view of life that embraces change, uncertainty, spontaneous becoming and difference” (24). This quote articulates a valid point that I’ve experienced over the years of using social media. For me, it’s the way I use the technology that determines my view of life. For instance, I found what works best for me is to document only in the moments I find inspiring, and often to just keep it for myself. The act of analyzing it and sharing it is what reduces the moments for me at times, so I choose to skip that step.  

Martin Lister, ed. The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge, 2013.

Gordon Baldwin and Martin Jurgens. Looking at Photographs: A Guide to Technical Terms, Revised Edition. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2009.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-why-certain-photographs-quickly-come-to-define-a-movement

http://www.theartstory.org/artist-ray-man-artworks.htm#pnt_7

Developing a theory for media and mediation is essential in understanding how art and all cultural forms can be presented in an interpretive interface because we derive meaning from how art and culture are presented, as much as from the artefacts themselves. Debray notes that transmission of the content or information of the art is more important than the preservation of the material of the object itself (4). Working from this idea, without understanding the ways in which media transmits culture, it would be difficult to use technology as a medium for transmission and preservation of information. Similarly, Malraux understood that the technologies themselves are not the main focus, but rather the “institutions and ideologies mediated through our technologies “ (Irvine, 10).

The creator of a piece of artwork may have had certain ideas and beliefs that were inextricably linked to the work, but that does not determine how the work will be perceived forever. The museum as a mediator’s job is to create a context where the art can be perceived (creating dialogue) but also to partake in the transformation and constant reframing of the concept of art. In this sense, the museum as a construct does not confine the art to simply historical reference. Malraux (qtd. In Irvine) says, “we have learned that, if death cannot still the voice of genius, the reason is that genius triumphs over death not by reiterating its original language, but by constraining us to listen to a language constantly modified, sometimes forgotten–as it were an echo answering each passing century with its own voice–and what the masterpiece keeps up is not a monologue, however authoritative, but a dialogue indefeasible by time” (Irvine, 13).

To illustrate further, Walter Benjamin says, “the uniqueness of the work of art is identical to its embeddedness in the context of tradition” (256). He further talks about how the idea of authenticity has changed due to reproductions such as photographs. Authenticity is at the core of art value, therefore, “as soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized” (257). Both Benjamin and Malraux use theory to understand how transmission and reception are reframed over time. Benjamin also discusses how the way art is recepted is linked to social context. Media and mediation are systems with multiple networks and actors that depend on one another to function and create meaning. Therefore, art is best understood when all parts of the perception are consider (historical context, material, medium, individual). Media theory presents us with a framework that is: reproduction is just one part of the process of remediation of art, and we learn more about the art by looking at the system in which it operates rather than the physical art itself.  

Martin Irvine, “André Malraux, La Musée Imaginaire (The Museum Idea) and Interfaces to Art”.

Régis Debray, Transmitting Culture, trans. Eric Rauth. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.

Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Era of its Technological Reproducibility” (1936; rev. 1939).

By Jordan Moeny, Dina El-Saharty, and Adey Zegeye

Transitioning from the realist to modernist movement, artists began moving from attempting to depict their external surroundings, and portraying real life exactly as it is–or “national life” (Edwards and Wood, 31)–to leaning toward the more abstract and turning inwards, depicting self-consciousness. In the early 20th century, art started becoming a method for reflection, as well as a means to illuminate the current circumstances surrounding social changes. Arnason and Mansfield write, “what is referred to as globalization is the most recent phase of uneven and combined development” (32). Due to rapid urbanization, the juxtaposition of the developed and under-developed and the uneven distribution prevalent in society became key elements that were incorporated into modernist artworks. “Both perspectives–Primitivism and Futurism–entailed a profound hostility to the world as it had actually developed, and both orientations were rooted in the conditions of an uneven and combined world system” (Edwards and Wood, 31). That is to say, modernism aimed to eliminate the notion of space and time, by creating a symbolic language that isn’t attached to real life events, such as those of World War II, but rather to a process. The artists searched for art forms and methods that were ultimately removed from the external world, and its harsh realities.

As artists departed from the idea of space and time, they sought to highlight the “transitory” elements of life and experienced changes in and within their art. The need to express such elements as transition, change, and time mirrored the social climate at the time. This shock of change sparked discussion and exchange of new methods of art that went beyond imitation, including but not limited to duality, clash of space and time, as well as the interplay between signifier and signified. In other words, artists sought for “the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea, and between the idea and the observer” (Arnason and Mansfield, 394). This movement marked a shift from traditional academia, and represented a desire for freedom from politics, tradition, etc. The meaning of art was brought into question as new forms of art started to emerge, and some artists began abandoning structure for abstraction in order to express art as an experience invoking thought, emotion, and transcendence. As such, modernism became synonymous with rejecting the conservative values and traditions of realism, and embracing reprise, recapitulation, and revision by using geometric shapes and symbols. To modernist artists, such as Mondrian, Kandinsky, and Klee, “a painting continually grew and changed in time as in space” (Arnason and Mansfield, 282). The process of change became the central focus, primarily shown through the layers and layers of paint in each artwork, and even in the presentation and exhibition of the artworks of that movement.

Modernism at the Phillips: Dialogism in Action

The curating of the Phillips Collection includes explicit dialogism: at the entrance, the welcoming text states, “At the Phillips Collection, we invite you to connect with art, spaces, and each other. The artwork on view is constantly changing, and the conversations between them are, too. Please explore, build connections, and join the experiment.” In other words, from the moment one walks into this museum, viewers of the artworks get to engage in the ongoing and changing dialogue between and among artists. The exhibit on Paul Klee focuses further on drawing clear connections among the artists; in many cases the museum labels and descriptions make direct references to where other artists would have seen his work and techniques and quote the artists discussing Klee as an influence. The descriptions also establish the relationships and overlap between Klee and his successors in terms of technique and method, indicating that Klee played an influential and prominent role in the art world, and specifically in modernism.

While the Phillips could have easily, as it has before, presented an exhibition consisting only of the works of one specific Modernist artist as a distinct unit, curators instead chose to show Klee’s works alongside–and often undifferentiated from–those of other artists; thus, the exhibition forces a recognition that no artist exists in a vacuum. It also doesn’t force uniformity on its artists. One particularly interesting inclusion in the collection was the Gene Davis piece Red Devil, which is drastically different from most of the other selected works. Excluding the piece would have made perhaps for a more visually cohesive show, but its inclusion reminds the viewer that, while Klee was a source of inspiration for Davis and the other artists, he was far from the only force contributing to their artistic development, and many ended up in places that are far from the ground they once shared with Klee.

Another notable inclusion in the exhibition is the recognition of the role of the Phillips Collection itself, an example of what Bourdieu calls “the performative magic of the power of instituting, the power to show forth and secure belief or, in a word, to impose recognition” (The Forms of Capital, 21). Reinforcing the role of the institution in the art world, the museum was mentioned multiple times as the place where later artists saw Klee’s work on display. Tucked away in the corner of one room was a glass case that was even more explicit in acknowledging the role of non-artists in the system. It included letters between Duncan Phillips and Karl Nierendorf, Klee’s dealer in the United States. While one function of this display is to reinforce the cultural capital and authority of Phillips and the Phillips Collection (the display highlights Nierendorf’s fervent praise of the museum), it also draws attention to the economic system that exists around even the most avant-garde art.

Arnason, H.H, and Elizabeth Mansfield. History Of Modern Art. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. Print.

Edwards, Steve, and Paul Wood. Art & Visual Culture 1850-2010. United Kingdon: Tate Gallery Pub, 2013. Print.

“The Forms of Capital.” Originally published, 1983; English, “The Forms of Capital,” in John G. Richardson, editor, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 242-258.

Photo taken at The Phillips Museum

Paul Klee, Efflorescence (1937)

When I look at this piece of art, I immediately relate it to others (artist: Basquiat, author: Scott McCloud) – outside of myself, without any conscious effort to do so. Although I am creating meaning from my personal experiences and knowledge, all of that is in reference to other works, ideas, and images I have had exposure to (see Irvine quote below). After reading the works of Saussure, Pierce, Bakhtin, Irvine, and Crow I learned that:

Meaning is created as a dialogue and is an activity to engage with and contribute to (it is continuous and not fixed). In art, like language, signs and symbols are meant to represent something or to express something. “The transfer of meaning from author to reader is not a one-way process, but a process of creative exchange” (Crow, 7). Efflorescence has childlike visual elements that remind me of the way I used to approach art in my youth. In professor Macovski’s New Media and Texts Across Culture class, we discuss how important identity and representation are integral to visual media. The extent to which we relate to someone or something, plays a large role in our relationship to that object and the meaning we derive from it. Author Scott McCloud states that as children we are able to relate to cartoon characters because they are empty shells (abstract faces) that allow us to become the character and travel into another realm. Because of the simplicity in Efflorescence, my imagination was a big part of how I experienced the work. I became involved in the work (a contributor), which allowed me to create meaning that is my own, or rather experience meaning myself. This would prompt me to further ask: was Klee a part of a conversation that was more open-minded than previous art? Was this a step in the direction of interactive art, and a step towards how people at the time constructed meaning? What is the artist/observer relationship, does the artist see himself as one with the observer? What was going on that may have influenced a return to childlike imagination and freedom from realistic work (modern art)? Did Klee understand that meaning is a conversation therefore intending to create space for infinite interpretation?

Supporting Quotes:

“An individual person’s meanings, cognition, and expression require and presuppose a community of others: others’ expressions are necessary as structured “inputs” that initiate and perpetuate participation as an intersubject with other members of a cultural community.” (Irvine, 22)

“Everything expressed in social situations and in larger cultural contexts is fundamentally grounded in otherness—others’ words and others as receivers of, and responders to, anything expressed. Anyone’s expression in speech and written genres is always inhabited by the words of others, other voices and other contexts in time or place, and others different in identity from one’s own” – ( Irvine, 21)

“When we abstract an image through cartooning, we’re not so much eliminating details as we are focusing on specific details. By stripping down an image to its essential “meaning” an artist can amplify that meaning in a way realistic art can’t” – (McCloud, 30)

“In emphasizing concepts of objects over their physical appearance, much has to be omitted.” – (McCloud, 41)

Applying these concepts to Efflorescence, these are further questions I would like to pose in order to discover new meanings:

Does one need to engage with ‘others’ to understand art? What are the most prevalent others that is the process of choosing certain ones over others?

Klee’s choice of abstraction is trying to convey what concepts?

What conversation is happening here? What was the cultural context during 1937? What other artists was he inspired by and conversing with?

What is omitted in this work? Space is used to separate all lines, absence of connected lines is a choice. What is this meant to represent?

According to Saussure value comes from the signs around it, so where is he assigning value in this piece? What is he choosing to display in his use of and non-use of coloring?

How is the title Efflorescence meant to anchor the reader? The words Essence & Efflorescence refer to ideas/concepts/feelings/emotions to further draw you in and create a framework to build on that is broad and inviting conversation

Why and how does the use of shapes, colors, lines work together to create a mood?

Who is this work addressing? To what audience was this work meant to be seen by and how may that have influenced the choice of signs and symbols?

How do I identify with this work? What ‘others’ do I include in my immediate interpretation of this piece?

Key terms: Perspective, Identity, Otherness, Addressivity/Answerability, Intersubject, Artist/Observer Relationship

Sources:

Crow, David. Visible Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics in the Visual Arts. Lausanne; London: AVA Academia; Thames & Hudson, 2010.

Irvine, Martin. “Remix and the Dialogic Engine of Culture: A Model for Generative Combinatoriality.”In The Routledge Companion to Remix Studies, ed. Eduardo Navas, et al. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 15-42.

Martin Irvine, Introduction to Visual Semiotics

Irvine, “Student’s Guide to Mikhail Bakhtin: Dialogue, Dialogism, and Intertextuality.”

McCloud, Scott, and Mark Martin. Understanding Comics. New York, NY: William Morrow, HarperCollinsPublishers, 2017. Print.

Image: http://www.phillipscollection.org/collection/browse-the-collection?id=0994