Comments on: Chicken Sh@#: The Party!

By: Contrarian

Contrarian — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:32:34 +0000

Not directly relevant to the current topic, except insofar as it concerns art (link originally posted by Gary Crooks on an S-R blog):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhf3OvRXKg

By: Plants and Animals

Plants and Animals — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:17:48 +0000

[...] original Inlander Review is posted here, and a response from the Spovangelist is posted here. This entry was written by Rimas, posted on January 28, 2010 at 12:33 pm, filed under [...]

By: Rimas

Rimas — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:24:38 +0000

Your comment about San Francisco was particularly interesting to consider, as it is a hub of social practice art. I had the pleasure of meeting Amy Franceschini and Ted Purves last year, both professors in the California College of Art’s Social Practice program. Amy Franceschini is responsible for creating a large scale Victory Garden in front of San Francisco City Hall and is also the founder of http://wwwSFVictoryGardens.org (among other notable projects; Futurefarmers, Freesoil, etc..). Ted Purves, on the other hand, was the organizer of projects such as Temescal Amity Works, Lemon Everlasting Backyard Battery, and The Meadow Network which can be found at his website http://www.fieldfaring.org

It is interesting to consider how artists might contribute to their local social framework (or vice-versa, as Contrarian posits). But it’s important to note that if Gabe and I were trying to make a statement, it is much less about “art” and our place in art history, and much more about this social framework.

Acknowledging the concept of “Social Sculpture” deduced by Joseph Beuys, paired with the countless contemporary artists responding to the present and moving to blur the lines of what is traditionally considered “art,” it is wonderful to see people acknowledge an artist’s intentions and goals rather than maintain the rather elitist attitude regarding “is it art?”

The seriousness that some Spokane-ites I have met have toward this age-old question really surprises me, but considering the minimal access to contemporary art in this city, it makes sense.

Contrarian’s response provides a great example of the link between social movements and their art counterparts throughout history, however I feel I can speak for Gabe and myself that our exhibit pulls little influence from Gaiaism (though this concept is definitely manifested), and our personal practices are responding much more to Industrialization and Capitalism.

However, in an effort to address the “is it art?” conundrum, along with an apparent need to elaborate on the context behind our exhibition, I have handpicked a few links that provide some relevant information and history. I have posted them on my blog: http://blog.rksim.com/?p=479

I hope these links will be instrumental for those who visit them, and it will help move beyond asking “is it art?” and toward asking “what are the artist’s intentions?”

By: Teasey

Teasey — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:22:12 +0000

Well, Contrarian, *some* of us will live to see the success of the environmental movement. Others will take their nay-saying cynicism with them all the way to the grave.

By: Contrarian

Contrarian — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:14:55 +0000

Every religious and ideological neoplasm, one it gains enough mass and momentum to become a “collective surge” (also known as a “fad”), metastasizes, dispatching daughter cells into surrounding cultural tissue. The arts, language, and fashion are typically early targets, but eventually it can infect the political structure, the economy, and even the sciences. Christianity spawned Byzantine and Rennaisance art, Marxism spawned Dadaism, Stalinism spawned “Soviet Realism.” It was inevitable that Gaiaism would manifest itself in “earthy” artistic expression.

Fortunately, fads are always temporary. We’ll live through this one, just as we lived through Warhol and psychedelic art. Just be careful where you step while it runs its course.