Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Art as an impetus for cultural and social change??

Page: (1)2

10:22 / 22.04.04

if any one could help i'd love a hand on this....

im trying to write a paper about artists who are making art purely as a means to promote social change, if they are trying to change the way we look at art or certain aspects of western society... and i'd love some comments or ideas from youse guys... i'm looking at groups like the situationists, futurists, security camera players, the opportunists, the KLF, culture jamming in general and anything else i can find ... i'd really aprecceate it (sorry about my spellijng)
so does anyone think that Yuan Cai and Juan Jun Xi have any artistic merit? (they went to the tate modern and pissed on Marchel Duchamps fountain and then later had a pillow fight on Tracy Emin's Bed, they say they are attempting to move British art away from the circular commodity based idea of art we have now, in much the same way as Dychamp did when he painted a moustace on the Mona Lisa.
or what about the KLF burning a million and holding the anti-turner prize, artistic statement or what??
or the Surveillance camera players (who provide street theatre especially for the legions of security cameras in New York, in order to highten the publics awareness of the fact that they are always being watched) pranksters or serious political activists??
and finally all the various culture jammers are any of them artists? will they achieve any of there goals, will they cahnge the world or in the words of john cage 'just make it worse'
but i'd love to hear any comments on art being used as a social wepon

22:42 / 22.04.04

I'm not really sure if this counts as art, because they don't themselves consider it so, but I see it as a sort of performance art...

Billionares for Bush

I first read about them in the NY Times. They're a group of "meta-protestors" who go to anti-bush or pro-bush rallies and pretend to be billionares supporting bush as a form of satire.

There's no point in me explaining it much, because you can just read about it from their website, here.

Tryphena Absent

20:54 / 25.04.04

I don't know very much about art that promotes social change that's taking place at the moment but I think the Russian constructivists are a really good place to start (1922 onwards). Artists like Rodchenko and his wife Varvara Stepanova made their art within the strictures of communism and attempted to link the design and construction to the society that was emerging around them. There's an interesting page detailing it, if a little obscurely, here and a far simpler piece here. The first page is probably quite in line with the type of writing that Rodchenko included in his artwork. The aim of their art was to bring across a simple and utilitarian style that represented the workers and they did this within the design through the use of industrial materials like metal rods and marble dust, geometric patterns and abstract images. It's all pretty clearly detailed and a lot of work from that period hangs around all over the Internet, just take a look at Malevich, Popova and a few of the other artists of the period. One of the loveliest things about this particular movement is the equality of the sexes, it's only in translation in to Britain that the women take a step back in importance.

11:14 / 26.04.04

The Arts & Crafts Movement might be worth investigating:

"The Arts & Crafts Movement was a rebellion of substance as well as style. Its power came from the conviction that art and craft could change people's lives. Its strong social and moral purpose has ensured its continuing relevance. Many guilds and workshops were set up which had a long lasting impact on communities."

(from this site).

Tryphena Absent

13:02 / 27.04.04

Yes, William Morris was trying to implement a move from mass industrialism back to the cottage industries (you can tell I wrote a disssertation on this). None of his wallpapers were mass produced as was becoming the trend at the time- actually you can argue that he was attempting exactly the same as the Constructivists but in precisely the opposite way.

16:27 / 03.05.04

There's a thread on this section about stencilled graffiti, which seems pretty geared toward social change.

All Acting Regiment

20:42 / 20.05.04

And let's not forget: the definition of art is wide. I know you probably weren't referring to music, but what about rock n roll? Doesn't that aspect of creativity bring ramifications of social change?

I think it's worth mentioning the Spanish civil war here. This was a war where people of all types, not just soldiers, lined up along the ideological lines: there were strong nationalist/religious poets and composers supporting Franco and the Fascists (and the catholics), and abstract , surrealist artists and hemingway supporting the liberals.

Modern art of the early 20th century can certainly be said to be ordering some kind of change, be it psychological or cultural. Modern art of today, however, is controlled by Saatchi and Saatchi and though it is shocking, to me at least it does not seem to present a manifesto for cultural change.

Tryphena Absent

15:14 / 21.05.04

But that's very interesting politically. Firstly Saatchi is promoting a hierachy through the power he wields over up and coming British artists. If he buys a piece of work than he is giving someone a boost and a respect in the art world that most people won't acheive. I think it fits perfectly with the fact that he's a conservative. Thus the cultural change is evident but rather than being controlled by the artists it's promoted by the buyer. Saatchi has socially conceived of an art world that was never high profile in the same way. He's brought consumerism to the forefront of British art.

12:18 / 22.05.04

Isn't Saatchi just a patron, the latest in a long line going back to the Renaissance?

BTW, another artist for social change: Diego Rivera.

Tryphena Absent

14:27 / 23.05.04

Saatchi is a patron, a collector and a buyer and he can make or break an artists career. He's like a Medici, at the forefront of society, so yeah there's a history for this kind of thing and imo it's kind of archaic.

Professor Silly

18:33 / 15.08.04

I can't help it...I must add a tangent to this fine discussion....

I was reading an excellent book on Astrology (I know, I know--stick with me a moment) and came to the chapter concerning Neptune. The book suggests that this planet represent divine inspiration, and sense it moves so slowly across the signs tends to create generational differences.

These generational divine shifts in world focus tend to show up about 45 to 50 years after they happen--when those born at the time have reached adult (governing) age.

I've traveled on this planet around Sol 31 times. Those in my age category (born between 1970 and 1984 e.v.) have a Sagittarian Neptune; and our goal then is to bring about "Artistic revival" and "New religious ideas."

If this holds true then we (my age group) will bring social change through art--we can count on it. By 2015 we should see it start to kick in, peaking and moving on to materialistic, scientific, and sceptical thought by 2034.

Most of the artists I know in this age category are heavily tattooed, and capable of blending temporally different art forms into brand new amalgamations. I see a connection between these artists and the growing space-rock musical trend.

Gosh, I'm too excited for more words....(end tangent)

18:15 / 16.08.04

Are you sure?

20:48 / 16.08.04

Oh and let us not forget Critical Art Ensemble.

Also, I guess you consider the phenomenon of bastard pop to be an impetus for change in copyright.

All Acting Regiment

21:01 / 04.09.04

Saatchi's a cunt.

Dada artists assasinated fascists, or at least tried to. If Tracy Emin wrote "Fuck the BNP" on one of her tents I would respect her more.

19:30 / 06.09.04

Tracy Emin seems to be useless pap.

pointless and uncalled for

06:40 / 07.09.04

Here are a few artists who's work is more or less entirely directed at creating social and cultural change, especially in the western world.

James Nachtwey
Tom Stoddart
Robert Capa
Eugene Richards
Jean-Marc Bouju

Amonst the many photojournalists, reportage photographers and the like, there are very few who don't try to instigate change through their work.

18:43 / 07.09.04

Seldom Killer -- That's a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? I don't see how it applies to all or even most press photographers. How is a shot of children splashing in the Diana memorial or of Rooney hoofing a ball effecting social change "especially in the west"?

reFLUX -- Huh?

pointless and uncalled for

07:06 / 08.09.04

Linus Dance, OK it was a little bit sweeping and I couldn't agree more that the images that you have described will have little to no social impact at all. But photojournalists don't just take one picture and that's it. They have portfolios, range and visions. As I said there are very few that don't try to instigate change through their work.

Speaking to photojournalists and other photographic documenters will confirm this as very much a truism. They dream of capturing a defining moment in history that tells an important story of who we are and holds up a mirror to the human state (or for those who already have the they are looking for the next one).

To say that they don't because sometimes they take a nice little feelgood picture is taking the piss really. Sadly you can't just rely on defining moments and the importance of earning money means that you go out and do the stuff you're directed to. It's one of those situations where you are your job and you are not your job are intrinsicly entwined. But to just say "oh this person doesn't give a shit about social change" because they took a picture of something nice and safe and unchallenging is an insult and a flagrant display of ignorance. In fact it could reasonably argued that doing so means they do care because it allows them to continue in their profession.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:04 / 08.09.04

Speaking to photojournalists and other photographic documenters will confirm this as very much a truism. They dream of capturing a defining moment in history that tells an important story of who we are and holds up a mirror to the human state (or for those who already have the they are looking for the next one).

Yes, but that's not about effecting social change, is it? That's about being good at your job, and being successful in producing the output of your job, in this case photographs.

Which is not to say that as people they might not want to effect social change, only that what they do for a living and the objects they create may not ncessarily have anything to do with social change.

pointless and uncalled for

10:40 / 09.09.04

I posted a nice long response but it seems to have disappeared.

As I really haven't got the patience to reconstruct my arguments the short version is as follows.

Regardless of the accuracy of my original post, which appears to have incurred threadrotting responses, there are a number of photojournalists, reportage photographers, social documentary photographers and so on who's main direction is to challenge society and be a catalyst for social change.

It seems that it would be more in keeping with the topic of this thread is we could discuss that point rather than the actual number of photographers.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:54 / 09.09.04

SK - people would probably be more inclined to want to do that if the person who made the mistake in the first place was not trying to make it somehow everyone else's failing. Sometimes admitting gracefully and without passive agression that you were wrong makes people think better of you than an armed retreat throught the Snits. I speak from long experience.

pointless and uncalled for

13:56 / 09.09.04

I wasn't trying to make out that it was everyone else's failing.

I don't happen to think that I am wrong either. Poorly expressed maybe, but that doesn't make me wrong.

I appreciate that my response to Linus Dance was somewhat sharp but frankly is seemed justified at the time as a response to you're wrong because of some nice pictures I've seen in the papers recently.

BTW, about this comment "That's about being good at your job, and being successful in producing the output of your job, in this case photographs" is this genuinely all you see what being a photojournalist is all about?

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:56 / 09.09.04

I see the statement:

They dream of capturing a defining moment in history that tells an important story of who we are and holds up a mirror to the human state (or for those who already have the they are looking for the next one).

as far more about being a successful taker of photographs than about being a successful effector of social change.

17:54 / 09.09.04

I appreciate that my response to Linus Dance was somewhat sharp but frankly is seemed justified at the time as a response to you're wrong because of some nice pictures I've seen in the papers recently.

Well, if you're going to caricature what I wrote, I can only answer that I didn't say you were wrong; I said you were making a sweeping statement. I stand by that. There have always been plenty of nice (whatever that means) pictures in the papers by press photographers to counter your claim that there are very few who don't try to instigate change through their work. If you don't know what I mean, try leafing through the society, fashion and motoring sections in the middle (revolutionary images there, to be sure) to the sports pages at the back.

And have you seen, at the bottom of Stoddard's website, a whopping great big link marked 'advertising/corporate'?

It's not really a matter for debate as far as I can see.

pointless and uncalled for

07:28 / 10.09.04

Haus, sorry I will endeavour to be more open to alternative interpretation of statements in the future.

Linus, again I reiterate that just because some photojournalists take nice pictures this doesn't mean that this is all they take. In fact I'll use Stoddarts website here as a prime example. Look, he has range beyond one genre of work. I'm sorry but I just don't see how nice pictures by photojournalists counters my claim.

If you wanted to counter my claim by use of nice pictures then you should have said many photojournalists only take nice pictures and given their number your claim is untrue. Should you decide to take this route then I will answer it.

On the subject of nice, I am using the dictionary definition for its meaning in my post which is Pleasing and agreeable in nature.

pointless and uncalled for

07:28 / 10.09.04

Oh and Haus, you didn't answer my question.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:02 / 10.09.04

That's because your question is not relevant to what I wrote. Your description of what a photojournalist wants to do does not seem to me to tally with "effect social change", but rather "be a successful photographer, through the taking of successful photographs".

I'm certainly not suggesting that no photojournalist wants to effect social change, but that's not the same as saying that the desire to produce successful photos is integral to that. I would suggest that a very good welder, for example, might make very good welds, but that is separate from their desire to change the world, even if those welds are performed on objects of great public interest...

pointless and uncalled for

12:43 / 10.09.04

I see it as the other way around really. But therein lies the subjectivity of the issue.

However, do you consider photojournalists, such as the specific ones listed, who do create work specifically as an impetus for social change a valid suggestion in light of Tzara's original post.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:58 / 10.09.04

Do you mean "all photojournalists, including those listed", "all photojournalists who are like those listed (that is, excluding those who are not)", or just the photojournalists listed?

I see more generally a bit of a problem in the photojournalist idea, it being that what distinguishes a picture of a child on fire taken with the intent of creating an image that will touch the hearts of a nation, so changing the world and a picture of a child on fire taken with the intent of creating an image that will touch the hearts of a nation, so winning the photographer a Pulitzer, is purely down to intent. The mechanics of the action are the same, and the end product identical. So, while one may be a "crusading photojournalist", I find the idea that a photojournalist is ipso facto crusading unsafe.

17:50 / 23.09.04

Don't know if you meant to phrase it this way: "...artists who are making art purely as a means to promote social change", but the word "purely" there seems limiting.

Very few artists make work that is completely divorced from "traditional" issues of aesthetics, which is lucky since such things would be pretty dull art as well as probably pretty ineffective social work.

IMO, rock and roll changed the world more than most other art works. Those artists with a capital-A who do "socially relevant work" often seem embarassingly impotent in the end. Who really gets worked up about art outside of other artists? The examples in the posts above probably include most well-known in the art world, but what changes did they accomplish, *really*? "Making a comment about something" is just lazy. "Forcing the viewer to re-examine her views on something" is unlikely, since few viewers read art work as an argument. "Starting a conversation about something" is fine, but so what?

I wonder if a better question would be: are there people actually effecting social change who do so in an aesthetically or artistically satisfying way? Are there social programs, for example, that one could call "well-designed" in terms of thoroughness, appropriateness, or even "elegance"?

flufeemunk effluvia

22:11 / 23.09.04

My art teacher was talking about doing a couple of things to try and reconcile his "white man guilt", in the sense of "We totally screwed up and god damn it lets try to fix it". He's considering a number of performance pieces, from being branded (yes, branded) with the words "greed", "envy", and "war" to creating a map of North America out of food and releasing white rats inside of it (in a gallery) and documenting the chaos.

May not exactly fit, but it makes a damn strong statement.

20:43 / 28.09.04

"May not exactly fit, but it makes a damn strong statement."

Getting branded certainly does. But a strong statement's only as good as its effect on an audience. Would it change anyone's mind? Isn't that the real question? Even acts of terrorism, arguably the "strongest statement" one could make, don't reliably change anyone's mind, and often have the effect of solidifying opposing opinion.

I still think that artwork trying to "implement" social change is very dubious. On the other hand, one could probably identify particularly elegant forms of social change that happen to have aesthetic qualities.

23:59 / 01.10.04

Let me just post a few more artists which I think are relative to the topic, and maybe revise this interesting but seemingly dead topic (in this seemingly dead forum, no less).

Bill Barminksy
Reginald Butler
Ray Beldner
Sal Randolph

15:48 / 19.11.04

I don't really know the four artists you list. But from what I see, they still require the gallery to display their works, still require rather a lot of art historical knowledge to "get" their stuff beyond the usual "oh, he's making a comment on blah."

The original question was essentially: can artists make art work which implements changes for the better. To which I still think the answer is no. Barely anyone, in the scheme of things, cares about art anymore, especially contemporary art. Maybe the question should be "what defines social change in this context?"

20:47 / 23.11.04

What I'm actually more interested in is how the context of cultural institutions put forward certain political or social messages. When I was up in Leicester last year, I attended a really interesting talk by Sarah Levitt, the head of Leicester City Museums and Heritage Services (pictures at the bottom of this page) who was describing a change from the objective detachment from the items displayed to a more "engaging" style of presentation. The talk was specifically on the topic of how 'faith communities' are involved in the presentation of religious artefacts, but a lot of the changes were general. There is more importance placed on interaction between the public and the items on show, and also on assessing the items in more subjective ways.

What conclusions can be drawn from this, I am not sure (I'm no art historian). Just thought I'd throw it out.

Page: (1)2