AIB Foundation Blog

Foundation Year: Form, Content, and Context

In this project, students were asked to develop a story and visually convey it using the same template.

 

MOMA Fairy Tale

By Katie Dabal

 

This is the tale of my dad and the shoebox… 

Once upon a time, in a far away land known as New York City, a mother, father, and son decided to visit a castle of sorts. The daughter, who was away at boarding school, was not invited to join them and still feels bitter about it to this day. This castle was a magical place. It did not house princes and princesses but, instead, it was home to a large collection of art. The palace, sometimes know as the MOMA, had a strange visitor from another land take up residence there for a limited time, and this family very much wanted to view his handiwork. The visitor, an inventor of sorts named Tim Burton, was a foreigner not from this world, and many people came from far and wide to view his creations.

 

Upon entering this art wonderland, the father noticed a piece of art that has plagued his happily-ever-after ever since. It was a shoebox, placed against a wall.

 

Its simplicity troubled and disturbed him. The father recognized that this object was somehow art but, because he felt like he could have created this himself, he did not feel like this piece should be displayed in a castle with other artworks that were worthy of being there. He felt like art in a castle should look like it had been created by a master artist, people who had spent many years slaving over their craft until they reached perfection, not like something a lowly peasant had concocted. This made the father feel frustrated and insulted, like this piece was a mocking court jester who had made the father the target of a particularly crass joke.

 

Was this shoebox an evil demon in disguise?

Or, was it merely a misunderstood woodland creature?

 

The father later had a lengthy conversation with his daughter, who had just begun studying at the prestigious Art Institute of Boston and was learned in such matters. He was still suffering from the terrible affliction his encounter with the shoebox had caused, and he wondered if she could help. The daughter sat the father down and recounted a tale she had recently heard from a wise elf. The story was called “Contemporary Art and the Plight of the Public”, and she believed it would cure him of his ailment. This story explained that the very nature of this piece was to trouble people like the father and make them question what they had seen. It was possible that the piece of art in question was created by a trickster or by a dark philosopher but this did not mean the piece was inherently evil. The story went on to explain that there was probably more to this piece than that what meets the eye. It was something more than a shoebox against a wall and it was also just a shoebox against a wall. Upon hearing this, the father was most relieved and sincerely thanked the daughter for her kindness. To this day, the father is no longer troubled by thoughts of the shoebox against the wall.

 

The End

 

It Can Be Happening

Olivia Khamsombath

Foundation Seminar

Stuart Steck

12.5.10

 

Response to Happenings: An Art of Radical Juxtaposition

 

I recall a time in my high school art class, a time when we were getting to learn about Happenings and Assemblages. My class and I were taking notes, given packets, and taking turns reading the packets. Suddenly, the teacher gave us an assignment to create our own brief Happenings and present them in class. However, no one really understood the subject of Happenings well enough. Basically, we tried to make our own Happenings by referring to examples. Soon, the confusion of the assignment reflected in the presentations. I still wish I did a better job on my project. Also, I still find Happenings confusing to understand.

 

On the other hand, Susan Sontag seems to understand very well about Happenings based on her article. Sontag's Happenings: An Art of Radical Juxtapositions states the purpose of Happenings in a simple yet compelling way. Happenings are compared to paintings based of depth, but Happenings have much more depth because they are tangible to both the artists and the audience. Therefore, Happenings are considered a kind of art brought to life because it's a kind of art that actually breathes. Also, Happenings are seen as contemporary art because they are based on and happen in the present tense. Despite a great amount of time and planning of an artist's Happening, it's performance is a once-in-a-lifetime moment. It can happen anywhere at anytime, receiving multiple reactions expressed from the audience. These performances can be an optical illusion to the audience, creating a realistic kind of art. An example of this kind of Happening is an improv where twins reflect each other's movements in a train, creating a kind of "human mirror."It seems that Happenings actually are set on rules, such as being based on the present and never performing twice. However, Happenings are very open-minded to the audience, especially when they involve themselves in the event.

 

Because of Susan Sontag's article, I have a much better understanding of Happenings. As an art, it animates in the audience's dimension, otherwise known as reality. It can be outside and seen by everyone with no judgement. Overall, Happenings are a kind of art based on life itself, whether the moments are little or big. I love how art can be so open-minded for everyone. 

 

The Violence of Happenings

By Ipek Cav

The Violence of Happenings

In these articles both Sontag and Kaplow determine that an important of the Happening art movement is to involve the audience in some kind of violent event. Specifically Sontag states that “...the taste for the fantastic, the outre, the rejected and the willingness to be shocked are perhaps the most remarkable characteristics of modern audiences. Inevitably, this drives the artist to ever greater and more intense attempts to arouse a reaction from his audience.” I disagree, however, that artists are necessarily pushed to more extreme levels of violence; I think they are simply catering to the current fears and terrors of their modern audience.

Although in history, “shocking” art wasn't very well approved and had a tendency to follow industry standards, there seems to be art that made some kind of point through a shocking image or message. I believe that audiences, even if they aren't willing to admit it, want to be shocked in some sense of the word. If art was never shocking, whether with its beauty, realism, or violence, it would be tremendously boring and no church or wealthy government official would have laid a hand on it. Although violently shocking didn't seem to be popular until a modern era, that isn't to say that it didn't exist and that there was no public audience that catered to it.

One of the most striking of the early shocking arts is Hieronymus Bosch's “Garden of Earthly Delights.” As a triptych it shows what may be interpreted as Heaven (or Eden), Earth, and Hell respectively. Heaven and/or Eden is a glorious garden, but Earth and Hell get a little weird. On Earth, there are many beings and creatures enjoying themselves and participating in some kind of sensual behavior. All kinds of animals and people are together laughing, socializing, eating, drinking and fornicating. To me, it's actually kind of grotesque. And then there is Hell, which seems mostly painful and even stranger than Earth, as Hell probably should be. This entire panel is much darker than Heaven/Eden and Earth, and contains some shocking images. There are weapons, animals eating humans, animals torturing humans, constant blazes of fire, people defecating, it's all very gross. The message of Bosch's painting is clearly a moral obligation to lead a life free of sin, although Bosch makes it seem that as humans are all doomed to sin and therefore Hell. I believe that in its time it was even more shocking to its public than it is to myself. People of the early 1500's were very religious and an image so vividly depicting their lives and their Hell would be highly intense. I feel as though people reacted to this image in their time in a way that the audience of the Happenings react today.

Another artist I feel worth mentioning is Caravaggio. Caravaggio's work was particularly shocking because of his insensitivity to Biblical figures and references. The aspect of his work that I am pointing out is how he often painting scenes of important figures in the bible, like St. Matthew, and rendering them not in palaces or grand churches, but in common areas like a barn or pub. St. Matthew, before he is a saint, is depicted in a pub and likely to be drunk. This, I believe, was considered especially shocking, possibly even violent, to his audience because of how important religion was to this society. The worship of Jesus Christ would determine one's worthiness of living, in the more extreme cases. This isn't to say that Caravaggio was disrespecting his society's beliefs, perhaps he was, I'm not sure, but I personally think that he was simply reminding society that although these characters did great things they were ordinary people. To acknowledge this in such a time may have been seen as blasphemy but I believe there is a reason we still see Caravaggio's in textbooks today. It shocked the audience to a degree of higher understanding. Although there are, of course, several examples of shocking art in history, Caravaggio and Bosch's “Garden of Earthly Delights” seemed most appropriate to mention due to how violent their audience found the images.

The Happenings may cater to the shock-value needs of their modern day audiences, but they are certainly not the first to do so. If anything, the reason they may have to resort to more violent methods of affecting the audience is because today's audience is more exposed to a physical violence. In centuries past, affronting material may have been something strongly against the public's moral, religion, but today religion no longer has such a hold on society. Physical violence is also more accessible to the public, due to the need for action in the news and movies. Pictures and movies have made images of bloodshed and personal attack of morals quite widespread, and therefore it may take a more violent experience for the artist to induce the feeling of shock in an audience. Part of that is taking a violent action and placing it directly in front of the artist, as it is happening, as opposed to on a tv screen or in a painting. This is remarkably more shocking to a modern day audience and has a greater affect. The artists of the Happenings haven't had to produce more violent images to disturb audiences because audiences aren't feeling anything anymore. They have had to produce more violent “Happenings” to cater to their audience's fears, which is exactly what artists from the past have to do as well.

 

Happenings

Two articles. One subject. This one subject being the Happenings that took place in galleries during the 60’s. Happenings brought a new form of art into the infinite space-like realm of art. No. This is not the boring art that sits in a museum all day and night that your grandma likes. Happenings are art that does not sit on canvas behind a glass wall. It moves. It interacts with its audience. It acts as its own art.

            Happenings break away from the mold of conformity and can be seen today in 2010 as a form of contemporary art. This is art that interacts with its viewers by allowing to watch another form of art, theater. Water is splashed on the audience in some showings, while pennies are thrown in others. The audience themselves become integrated into the art. This is something the art cooped up in prissy museum cannot do, unless you want to be escorted out by the guards that is. Happenings proves that art doesn’t always have to be drawn or painted to be called art. Two different forms of art can be used to create another, as is what happened with Happenings.

            Art is not something that has no choice but to obey the mainstream, art is meant to rebel against that idea. Sure there may be something critics who see Happenings as “not art” even today. That’s their problem if they don’t like an art that clearly interacts with its viewers. Dying to make your art “famous” is nothing but a myth and a lie. An artist doesn’t need fame to be happy with themselves or their art. If they do become famous during their life or when they die, then good for them on that achievement. All it means is that the mainstream, that could have at forced scorned the artist, now appreciates the work. Though no matter what, an artist is happy with his/her art is he/she is pouring their heart into the work they are doing. Surrealism and Dada, which Happenings seems to follow in a more animated way, must have also faced scorn at first, but it sounds to me like an interesting form of art that I’d be happy to see if came closer to me rather than be in New York. I personally think Happenings should be reborn for 2010.

            Happenings has been summed up with two articles showing two different views. This essay is a third view. Not every piece of art must be on paper or canvas. It be animated live and be unexpected with its duration and that everything after a few rehearsals are left to instinct. Art is meant to not follow the mainstream and Happenings is what does that. Art can be viewed in more than one way. The ways of the mainstream are to be rebelled.

Kristen O'Keefe Foundation seminar 12:20-3:05

 

What's Happening?

Monique Morin

Professor Steck

Foundation Seminar

29 November 2010

                                                                What’s Happening? 

     “What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others” (Pericles).  I believe that the creators of the Happenings would agree with this quote.  After reading “Happenings in the New York Scene” by Allan Kaprow and “Happenings: An Art of Radical Juxtaposition” by Susan Sontag it appears that Happenings are a source of pure art expression.

     Their purpose seems to be more about experience and effect on people rather than the creation of a beautiful object to admire in a stuffy museum or art gallery. Happenings do not take place on a stage and they are not considered to be theater performances. Despite this, Happenings are still somewhat exclusive. The audience is small – less than 100 people. Although I believe that this small audience might make the Happenings even more special and magical. The audience is actually more correctly stated as a group of participants. They literally experience the environment around them; “the performers may sprinkle water on the audience, or fling pennies or sneeze-producing detergent powder at it” (Sontag).

     The Happenings are literally when art comes to life. They blur the line between art and performance. As Allan Kaprow stated in his essay, “Happenings are events that, put simply, happen.” They are raw and rough performances with no plot. They are never the same twice and they are not created to say a message. Rather, they are a form of a pure art experience.

     Happenings cannot be possessed or sold. The most valuable thing about them is simply the experience. As Susan Sontag stated, “they are a protest against the museum conception of the art – the idea that the job of the artist is to make things to be preserved and cherished.” Materials are not what is important when it comes to Happenings; usually only simple objects are used, such as paper, wooden crates, tin cans, burlap sacks, and foods. Also, through the act of the Happening, these objects are often destroyed and have even less of a value. This puts the concentration of a Happening solely on pure art and the overall experience of the viewer.

 

     The above image is a depiction of a Happening being caught in the act. It appears that these men dressed in white are rolling a wooden structure down the streets of some city. I personally would love to walk out of AIB and observe this peculiar experience happening. Wouldn’t you?

(Image source: http://communicative-experience.blogspot.com/2008/10/happening.html)