This week’s blog assignment is to share some thoughts on some of the theories we have been discussing. That would be modernism to post-modernism, appropriation as critique, or identity. Since I just completed my reading on identity that is first on my mind. I found it really hard to filter out the messages of hate in the discussions of diversity. I really felt attacked and insulted by the endless references to whites having power and privilege over other races. I don’t agree that we universally fit that mold any more than I think people of different races fit a stereotype. In my reading summary for the article Interrogating Whiteness I wrote:
This article very politely told me all the many ways in which I, a white person, have been demonized by other races of people, and how my ways of thinking are no good and should be changed. Even my doing nothing is a problem because in doing nothing bad to anyone I am insulting him or her with my neglect. I am not allowed to understand other races of people, because I am not them, and simply being human together is not sufficient to overcome the obvious evil and neglect I perpetrate with my privileged and powerful whiteness. My position of insult demonstrates I do not understand (am ignorant) and puts me squarely in the bottom of the gene pool so others may now be elevated by my lesser classification. Hurrah! Now I can just reinvent myself to my own place of intelligence and treat others with no regard, because I clearly can’t be respectful or change my role. How easy was that? In the end, the article summarizes that the concept of race was created to develop a hierarchy of power and oppression and that it will continue to reinvent itself but never change from that political standpoint. Since I can’t change other people I guess I am left to delude myself into thinking I can change me.
So how does this all relate to my artwork identity? Well, interestingly, my current artwork is influenced by my perception of myself in relation to society. I feel, like many people do, that I am a bit of an outsider – someone who does not fit the mold. I try to demonstrate that by creating patterns and/or repetitions and then inserting something different that breaks or interrupts the pattern. That is what I have always done – break societal patterns and reinvent myself into what I hope is a better person. What do we notice, the pattern or the interruption? Or both? How do we weigh the importance of each? You can’t consider what you don’t notice. But when you notice things and consider them, what do they mean to you?
I think we each interpret relationships based on our own experiences and assumptions so everyone looking at my artwork will think something unique. There may be some commonalities, but if you don’t talk to anyone about my art then you won’t know what they are. So I hope when you look at art you will talk about it and examine both your commonalities and differences, with respect and an open mind, just like the ideal of interracial communication. Everyone wants to be understood and respected for who they are. It does no good to examine differences by pointing out perceived flaws and making disdainful accusations about what you don’t like. That generates hate. What works is opening your mind to hear what others think and then agreeing you are each unique. My motto is “Do as you will, as long as you harm none”. It is okay not to like something, but how you communicate that is what can be hurtful. Then, how do we agree? By agreeing to disagree. Acceptance of individuality is the answer. And interestingly, that is the course our text suggests people are taking as they enter the digital age, though the author implies it is computers that are motivating our individuality, and not us choosing individuality. Identity becomes the real answer to the freedom people seek. Be who you are. If something is wrong, fix it by changing yourself. If you can create positive change by working with others, do that too. As a link in the chain you must first be the strongest individual you can be. I believe today’s artists are pointing us to agreement and global acceptance of differences when they create art that generates a conversation about identity.
And another thing: identity relates back to appropriation as critique. When we appropriate and change someone else's art, we are trying to restate who they are and what they mean, as well as to identify our own agenda. In a way, it is an attempt to communicate through agreement again, because in using the same art we are basing our conversation on a common, original idea. We are using the same thing to generate a new conversation. We ask ourselves how we can change our identity through examining our commonalities and differences.
In examining identity in art further, I have also contemplated what it means to be a contemporary artist and tried to define it further. What does contemporary mean? Does it simply mean it is the art we do today? What category will future historians apply to our art? Will we be the unified Pre-Apocalyptic Individual Identity era of artists? (Versus the post-post-modern artists? Can we use "post" twice?) Does this categorization help or hurt our art? Once the label is applied are we now segregated into an artistic "race" of people who all did one thing, individually but in unison? How is that for an oxymoron! In categorizing our current style of individualism we become no longer individual. That actually sounds right to me when I look at how art is developing today. We have become a circular argument that has no definition, by its very definition. :) Okay, I didn't have enough coffee this morning... Now I will go be different by myself again.
