Acropolis Art Journal Fall 2017 by acropolis art journal

ACROPOLIS ART JOURNAL ACROPOLIS ART JOURNAL

FALL ISSUE

acropolis

Fall 2017 transparency

Editor Tess Thompson Staff Patrick Canteros Zhengyang Huang Noah Woodruff Phoebe Bain Natalie Walter

Cover Art Amy Nelson Red Woman Acrylic on Cardboard

acropolis

from the Editor

Transparent materials allow light to pass through them so that objects behind can be distincly seen. The study and creation of art almost depends on the idea that something- be it a concept, or a certain feeling- shines through, and is seen on the other side. For this issue of William and Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Acropolis Art Journal, our staff chose the theme transparency for its myriad artistic relevancies: mediums can literally be transparent, and meanings and messages can be clearly interpreted or opaqeuly hidden. The selceted works in this journal explore transparent materials and processes, as well as seek to, in some way, unravel art historical nuances. I sincerely hope that there is enough â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in this issue for the art and art writing to reveal something new to you.

Tess

Darrien Spitz, Untitled, 2015

acropolis

Hannah London, Polyhymnia, Muse of Sacred Poetry

acropolis

Hannah London, Urania, Muse of Astronomy

acropolis

Art in Review

parabolic forms, and discs, perfectly polished and reflecting their dark or light color structures. He captures that feeling you have in the lonely ashy sunrise of morning after a dream and makes it tangible. He captures energy and makes it tangible. He captures light and sound and makes it tangible. “Who is he?” you ask. Eversley was a prominent member of the Light and Space movement of the 60’s in Los Angeles. This movement was interested in seizing the quality of energy, all that which connects us and binds us and moves us, through technically created constructions. However, Eversley cannot only be encapsulated by this movement. Before his introduction to the Light and Space, or Finish Fetish, movement, he was the youngest engineer in the Air Force, working for the Gemini and Apollo missions with NASA. One can see the influences of his mathematic past on the works in the retrospective. All around stand exacted figures of circles and lenses, euphoric in their algebraic. In one piece, Untitled, like all the rest, we see a convex transpar-

Fred Evesley, Fifty Years an Artist: Light & Space & Energy By Natalie Walter You know the feeling of trying to remember a dream. You trace your steps through a hazy landscape, while the sound is muted: it’s all in your head. Certain landmarks of the structure of the dream stab your brain with clarity while the general story of the dream recedes into the background. You are left with forms that resonate in the eye of your mind, pulsing, speaking yet silent, translucently translating message and action in crystallized perfect form. You focus on one form. It focuses on you. You stare at it, drawn in by its ominous quality – and then, as quick as the feeling appeared, it’s gone. This is somewhat how it feels like to be in the Muscarelle Museum of Art amongst Fred Eversley’s spun polyester resin forms. In the retrospective exhibition titled Fred Eversley: 50 Years An Artist, Light & Space & Energy, we see transparent lenses,

acropolis

ent form. Perhaps it is clear water glistening at the top of a lake – preserved in pleasingly precise cut, as if grasped suddenly from our world. You almost expect it to melt and leak in front of you, dripping loud droplets on the floor. You will it to move, to reveal the energy it clearly contains. And here is where Eversley succeeds. He plants the force of dynamism inside you. You’re infected, as you have always been but only now you realize it, by the desire to conduct movement and action and to have it soar around you as normal. But he presses pause. A beautiful, seductive, hushed pause, allowing you to investigate what you normally can’t see.

For all this profound interest to be discovered in his work, there is also a certain discomfort one feels as the only movement in a starkly constricted space. The objects intrigue you, yet scare you. You almost feel as if you shouldn’t be looking at them. Like a black hole calling you, you refrain, deeply affected by its pull. The gallery becomes a science-fiction graveyard of solid energetic bodies, flesh of resin, blood of color, souls of wind, ready to be reawakened and remembered and reintegrated. While they remain, you can do what they cannot. There is a fantastic irony to the work of Eversley. He manages to instill the need for energy and motion and sound in all of us by using objects completely devoid of them, celebrating our innate animate state through the presentation of wholly inanimate objects. To me, it seems to be the ultimate of modern art, because it is all we are, without directly showing us ourselves at all. Not all transparent, not all solid, yet all certainly reflective.

acropolis

Rachel Savage, Part I: Maiden, 2015, Silver Gelatin Print

acropolis

Rachel Savage, Part I: Maze, 2015, Silver Gelatin Print

acropolis

Rachel Savage Top: Shadows Bottom: The Minimalist Opposite: Eros 2015, Silver Gelatin Prints 16

acropolis

Daniel Martchek, Porcelain Sushi Platters, 2014

acropolis

“The ceramic arts can be one of the most intrinsically transparent mediums because the artist’s process, from conception to completion, can be seen and felt in each piece.”

Daniel Martcheck

acropolis

Jake Honsberger, Plasma 20

acropolis

Jake Honsberger, Volcanic Bloom 21

acropolis

Jake Honsberger, Aquatic Expanse Opposite: Milkyway (L), Aurora (R)

acropolis

The peasants focus on one another and the objects within the rustic event. The figures are positioned in three discernible groups. In the foreground, the dancing peasants form a triangular shape. In the far right background, peasants are depicted eating and drinking. Another group of peasants, in the left middle ground, are shown conversing. Throughout the scene the peasants are depicted individually, with each figure given unique characteristics. Moreover, the elevated viewpoint allows the viewer to see the entirety of the wedding dance activities. The perspective creates a noticeable distance between the actions of the peasant and those of the observing viewer. In showing peasants dancing and drinking, Wedding Dance has been interpreted as a moral lesson, demonstrating actions that are to be avoided by viewers. While Wedding Dance does have moralistic undertones, the dancing and drinking peasants are

Art Historical Scholarship

Peasants at Play: Dancing and Drinking in Bruegel’s Wedding Dance By Neil R. McLean Bruegel’s Wedding Dance, a 47’’ x 62’’ oil on panel painting completed in 1566, resides in the Detroit Institute of Arts. It is thought to be one of a series of three works, including the Peasant Kermis and Peasant Wedding, both completed in 1567. Wedding Dance combines the dancing, celebratory elements of Peasant Kermis and the feasting and drinking of Peasant Wedding. In Wedding Dance, the dancing and drinking peasants are primarily depicted for the urbanite’s comedic enjoyment, while teaching a moralistic lesson is secondary. Wedding Dance depicts talking and dancing peasants spread throughout the work, with the foreground figures as active as those in the far recesses of the background. Splotches of the peasant’s red and white garments draw the viewer’s eye around the work. The bride is absent from the spot reserved for her, under the crown attached to the tarp. Instead, she dances with a guest, their connected arms mark the center of the work (see Fig. 1).

primarily represented for the comedic enjoyment of the urbanite. Bruegel’s Wedding Dance seems to be an ethnographically accurate depiction of a peasant wedding. In the work, the changing colors of the leaves indicate the wedding is taking 24

acropolis

Fig. 1. Pieter Bruegel, Wedding Dance, 1566. Oil on panel, 119.4 cm Ă&#x2014; 157.5 cm. Detroit Institute of Arts. ReproducedÂ from ArtStor, http://www.artstor.org

Fig. 2. (detail)

acropolis

place in the fall, a common time for such events (see Fig 1). The harvest season was a time of plentiful food and drink, as indicated by the grain-filled barn (see Fig. 1). Consequently weddings, following the arduous, backbreaking labor of harvesting crops, were a well-earned celebratory event. The peasants celebrations allowed them to experience the bounty of their hard earned labor, through feasting and drinking. Moreover, weddings, as depicted in Wedding Dance, were large community events with over one hundred participants at the festivities. These large scale celebrations drew interest and attendance from outside the community. Attendance at peasant fairs was within the societal standards of the time, and as a result, city-dwellers often journeyed to the countryside. Consequently, there was an increased desire for country land. Architect Gilbert van Schoonbeke, for example, sold 44 country lots to Antwerp merchants in under two years. The city-dweller’s demonstrated interest in the countryside influenced their perception of the peasant. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, peasants were commonly seen as either “good” or “bad.”

“Good” peasants emphasized productivity and hard work, usually depicted in art as the peasant at labor. In contrast, the “bad peasant” focused on the peasant’s recreation, and often represented drunken peasants engaging in immoral behavior. In the Wedding Dance, scholars have debated over whether the “good peasant” is shown taking a well earned break from his labors, or the “bad peasant” is engaged in lustful and gluttonous actions. The depiction of sinful behavior, included kissing, dancing and drinking has led some to interpret the work as an exposé of the activities of the “bad peasant” (see Fig. 2). As a result, scholars have argued that the work is “didactic in function, expressing the contempt of the urbanite for the peasant, and exposing his pastimes as precisely the sort of sinful behavior to be avoided.” The dominance of the “bad peasant” engaging in indecorous activities in Wedding Dance supports the work’s moralistic interpretation. Bruegel’s Wedding Dance was intended to convey a moralistic lesson about lust and gluttony. Bruegel depicted the peasants dancing and drinking, self-absorbed within the festive event. ants also engaged in lustful acts. In 26

acropolis

The peasants also engaged in lustful acts. In the foreground, a couple is noticeably shown kissing while another couple is doing so in the receding hills (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, codpieces, the piece of clothing covering the male genitalia, were prominently portrayed in the initial row of dancing figures. While codpieces were worn by members of all social classes at the time, Bruegel emphasized their sexual associations by including them in the forefront of the work. Although much restrained compared to Bruegel’s earlier prints, such as The Kermis of St. George, the strikingly smutty details in Wedding Dance led moralists to decree that the lust depicted is an “abandon to human instincts.” The sexual undertones present in Wedding Dance support the notion that Bruegel’s painting serves as a moralistic teaching point for actions that are to be avoided. The works by Bruegel’s humanist colleagues also shed light on the moralistic view of Wedding Dance. Bruegel’s print publisher, Hieronymus Cock, expressed condescending views toward peasants in the series of prints he published by Heemskerck, Seven Planets. In the print Saturn, peasants were depicted in the midst of strife, war

and sickness (see Fig. 3). According to the bottom inscription, it is characteristic of those who are “jealous, idle, melancholic and avaricious and deceitful.” In striking contrast, the men and women in Heemskerck’s Mercury were engaged in intellectual advancement and practicing of the arts (see Fig. 4). The painters, sculptors, merchants and writers were shown as “honourable professional men, who do not run, shout, or jostle” and have “moderation in drinking.” Heemskerk’s desire to separate the two classes was evident by putting the two groups on separate planets, the furthest possible distance from one another. It is clear that both Heemskerck and Bruegel’s employer espoused the view that the lower class peasants and the middle class had large social differences. Their feelings of superiority over the peasant class would have no doubt influenced Bruegel’s view of peasants. Beyond Bruegel’s employer, the humanist milieu that make up his clientele held similarly demeaning views of peasants. The writers, publishers and artists that compose Bruegel’s humanist clientele believed that as creators and students of the arts, they were far superior to peasants, who “wallow[ed], like

acropolis

Fig. 3. Maarten van Heenskerck, Saturn engraving from the series of The Seven Planets, 1568. Print, 20.9 cm Ă&#x2014; 24.9 cm. Bibliotheque Arsenal.

Fig. 4. Maarten van Heenskerck, Mercury engraving from the series of The Seven Planets, 1568. Print, 20.9 cm Ă&#x2014; 24.9 cm. Bibliotheque Arsenal.

acropolis

animals in the midst of their vile instincts.” It is clear that Bruegel would have known of these views when painting peasants. As a result, Bruegel’s clientele were likely to interpret the iconography of the Wedding Dance as peasants engaging in sinful behavior that is to be avoided. Bruegel’s early works give precedence to the moralizing and didactic interpretation of Wedding Dance. In the series of works, Seven Deadly Sins and Virtues, Bruegel produced engravings of vice, greed, envy, and gluttony among other things. In the engraving, Gluttony, he depicted a fantastical, Bosch-like scene where creatures and humans alike engorged themselves with food and drink (see Fig. 5). Although much of the work features unidentifiable, anamorphic figures, in the bottom left corner of the work, three human-esque figures are shown heavily drinking. The drinking humans bear a resemblance to the drinking peasants in the middle foreground of Wedding Dance (see Fig. 2). The parallels shared between the peasants in Gluttony, a work with clear moralistic interpretations and that of Wedding Dance suggest that both works are didactic, moral lessons. Bruegel’s distinctly moralizing early works support the

interpretation that the dancing and drinking peasants depicted in Wedding Dance were intended to teach a moral lesson. The evidence for a comedic interpretation of the dancing and merrymaking in Wedding Dance more than balances the moralistic interpretation. Sixteenth century art historian Karel Van Mander believes that Bruegel was originally born among the peasants. He records that as a young man, Bruegel learned from traveled humanist and master artist Pieter Coecke. Bruegel also married Coecke’s daughter. His talent brought him to the educated middle class, where he befriended a circle of merchants, doctors and writers like Coecke. Van Mander reported that Bruegel and wealthy humanist friend, Hans Franckert attended weddings “disguised as peasants,” where there were “delighted in observing the droll behavior of the peasants, how they ate, drank, danced, capered, or made love.” Bruegel’s humanist interactions and demonstrated interest in peasant activities are important factors when interpreting the recreational peasants of Wedding Dance. Despite claims that Wedding Dance depicts peasants engaging in sinful activities, Bruegel’s peasants

acropolis

use proper dance techniques. The dancers in Wedding Dance do not engage in “undecorous” forms of dancing. For example, they have their knees hidden, legs together and their female partner on the ground. Moreover, kissing, as seen on the right side of Wedding Dance, was even seen as permissible. The details that appear to be morally relevant, such as the dancing and kissing peasants, are both ethnographically accurate and within societal standards of the time. Bruegel’s respectful treatment of peasants and their activities makes it unlikely that he would reduce them to animals, as some of his colleagues had done. Bruegel’s depiction of dancing peasants in Wedding Dance suggests that this work was created for reasons other than a didactic lesson. The upper class urbanites’ amusement with the countryside supports the interpretation Wedding Dance was created for their comedic enjoyment. In the sixteenth century, the middle and upper class were often reliant upon the countryside for labor and household production of goods through cottage industry. They often visited the countryside to do business and collect finished goods. As a result,

many middle and upper class citizens became familiar with peasant customs and activities. In fact, Gibson also notes that the many city dwellers envied peasants as “representatives of a peaceful and untroubled country life untouched by the cares and corruptions of the city.” Coupled with the noisy and increasingly crowded cities, the countryside provides a pleasurable escape from city life. While moralizers scrutinize festive scenes, such as Wedding Dance with didactic intent, it is evident that many city dwellers would have enjoyed viewing peasants engaging in carefree dancing. Therefore, the comedic interpretation of the work more than balances the moral perspective. This does not eliminate the possibility of a moralizing lesson; there is evidence to prove there are moralizing undertones. However, the urbanites enjoyment of bucolic countryside scenes is at least equally important. The peasants’ positive association with agriculture supports the interpretation that they were included in Wedding Dance for the enjoyment of urbanites. Living in the countryside, many peasants worked in the fields and harvested crops. Associated with the bible, the agricultural work done by peas-

acropolis

ants was seen as one of the “noblest occupations which is most ignored.” Furthermore, works such as the Wedding Dance which feature dancing and drinking peasants were intended to “evoke material prosperity and the bounty of nature” that lie beyond the city walls. Bruegel is providing the viewer with a pleasant image of the bounty and carelessness of the countryside. The peasants’ positive associations stand in stark contrast with other middle and upper citizens who viewed them as wallowing animals. Despite the moral analysis of the peasants’ actions, their associations with agriculture and harvest bounty support the interpretation that the work’s comedic value more than balances its didactic function. The individualistic depiction of peasants supports the notion that they were depicted for enjoyment of urbanites and debunks many negative connotations. Bruegel depicts the musculature and unique features of the individual peasants in Wedding Dance. For example, one can clearly distinguish the musculature and facial features of the central male figure in the foreground wearing a blue top with white trousers. While he is thin and has beard stubble, the figure to his left has a

larger build with a clean shaven, round face (see Fig. 1). The unique depictions indicate that the peasants were painted for their own sake. Their individuality thus, “renders them a far cry from the coarse and boorish stereotypes.” In doing so, the peasants are separated from the distinctly moralizing tone of earlier drawings. The engraving Saturn in Heemskerk’s Seven Planets depicts the stereotypical peasant. In Mercury, however, the musculature and individuality of the men and women is akin to that of the peasants in Wedding Dance. The inclusion of individualistic figures in Wedding Dance separates them from their traditional stereotypes and undermines the moralistic interpretation of the work. The interpretation of Wedding Dance as an opportunity for the nobility to comically observe the actions of the peasants more than balances the moralistic perspective. The nobility’s higher class did not preclude them from purchasing art of the lower classes. Many nobles, on the contrary, took a keen interest in peasant activities. Niclaes Joneglick, an upper class Antwerp urbanite businessman, was a substantial collector of Bruegel’s work. In addition to works from Floirs

acropolis

and Durer, he owned sixteen Bruegel paintings. With collectors such as Jongelick purchasing Bruegel’s paintings, it is clear that many of the viewers of his work would be among the social elite. Accordingly, looking at Wedding Dance through an upper class lens is revealing. In showing the peasants dancing and drinking, Bruegel provided an opportunity for the upper class to look upon the actions of the peasant with a comic sensibility, which also provides them a sense of superiority in judgement. The depiction of the peasants succumbing to their desires for pleasures, provides nobility with “assurances from [Wedding Dance] that they are able to control their passion for pleasure,” leaving them with a “sense of superiority.” The superiority gained from the nobility’s controlled and respectable mannerisms provides evidence for the comic interpretation. While it was recognized that all people have gluttonous and lustful desires, the upper class city-dweller supposedly refrained from succumbing to their desires, including gluttonous behavior, excessive drinking and lustful behavior. Furthermore, there was “no exoneration for the higher classes, no excuse if they were drunkards

and gluttons.” As a result, Bruegel’s paintings provide upper class patrons, such as Jongelick, feelings of superiority in judgement over the excesses of the peasant class. This view supports the notion Wedding Dance was created primarily for comedic enjoyment of urbanites. The elevated viewpoint supports the notion that Wedding Dance was primarily created for comedic enjoyment of the wealthy patrons. Viewing the work in this manner leads the urbanite to see the merrymaking and foolishness of the peasants from the perspective of an observer, above his activities. However, this perspective is not a feature common to Bruegel’s works as a whole. In Bruegel’s other works in the Wedding Dance series, such as Peasant Kermis, the viewer is on the same plane as the festive peasants, invited to actively take part (see Fig. 5). An elevated view, which looks down on the peasant’s actions, suggests the viewer has superior judgement. This allows the upper class patron to view the actions of the peasant as comical. Coupled with the urbanites interest in peasant festivities, the sense of superior judgement stemming from the elevate viewpoint supports the interpretation that the work was created for

acropolis

Fig. 5. Pieter Bruegel, Gluttony from the series Seven Deadly Sins and Virtues, 1556. Print, 22.3 cm Ă&#x2014; 29.4 cm. British Museum.

Fig. 6. Pieter Bruegel, Peasant Kermis, 1567. Oil on panel, 114 cm Ă&#x2014; 164 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum.

acropolis

the comedic enjoyment of urbanites. The comedically enjoyable interpretation of Wedding Dance is supported by Bruegel’s reputation as recorded by Van Mander. As Van Mander states, nature found Bruegel “as the delineator of peasants, the witty and gifted Pieter Brueghel.” It is telling that Bruegel’s wittiness was included as one of his primary features, aside from his artistic skill. His wit has been found in many works, including his series of paintings on parables, such as Blind Leading the Blind. As a result, it is well within his character to include wit and comedic values in his depictions of dancing peasants. While it is possible that there are moralistic interpretations, scholars note that “Bruegel respected people too much to want to disparage them. He could view them with humor, yes; he could seek out the ridiculous, no doubt—but derision was not in his character.” In interpreting Wedding Dance, therefore, it follows that the comedic interpretation of the work more than balances the moralistic purpose. The dancing and drinking peasants in Bruegel’s Wedding Dance have been subject to differing interpretations. Dancing, drinking and feasting were parts of Wedding

Dance that moralists claimed to be uncouth. These behaviors, they believe, support the interpretation that it was a teaching point for actions to be avoided by viewers. The views of peasants espoused by that of Bruegel’s humanist colleagues support this interpretation. However, Bruegel’s respectful treatment of peasants suggest there is more to his depictions than criticism. The dancing peasants, thought to be a morally relevant detail, only engaged in proper forms of dancing. Furthermore, the middle and upper class had an increasing interest in peasant life, enjoying portrayals of comedic yet bucolic depictions of countryside peasants. The peasants’ positive association with agriculture and individual depiction separates them from the stereotypes and lightens the moralistic interpretation. Coupled with the elevated viewpoint, the dancing and drinking in Wedding Dance afforded the nobility a sense of superiority, knowing that they could control their desires. While some believe the merrymaking of the peasants was shown as a lesson to be avoided, I have argued that the interpretation of the work as comedic enjoyment for urbanites more than balances the moralistic perspective.

acropolis

“It’s a story about escape from reality, true emotions without hiding, and dreaming.” Katarzyna Piróg

Katarzyna Piróg, from SELFI Project, 2017 35

acropolis

Kristie Turkal

acropolis

Eye Drops Zhengyang Huang I imitated an eye surgery I underwent about a year ago. I prepared a “surgery” for a peephole lens with various paint colors, a slice of lemon, grape jam, a table knife, scissors, eye drops, cotton swabs, water, blue cello paper, plastic sheets, mirror paper, and mirrors. The phone with front camera on works as a display screen for the “surgery”; while I needed to look at the phone screen to perform “surgery” on the lens, the lens picks up my face displayed on the phone. The “surgery” becomes a mediated form of myself. I edited the “surgery” video with a muffled voice reading questions taken from a DMV form—(“What’s your name? What’s your permanent home street address? Have you ever had a seizure, blackout, or loss of consciousness?”). The installation is set on a studio sink with the video projected onto black water with the question-voice playing on a speaker underneath the sink. The headphone hung on a pipe beside the sink has another sound: Shizuko Kasagi’s “Tokyo Boogie-Woogie” playing at a low volume on the left ear, and my voice whispering the rhythm and lyrics on the right.

acropolis

Untitled Zhengyang Huang Along with the mirror boards and red paper, a speaker with fireworks sound is set in the storage room. Viewers are given a pair of headphones which plays a recording of Pamela Hawkes reading excerpts from Yasunari Kawabataâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s novel The Scarlet Gang of Asakusa. The recording is not looped; viewers must hit the play button to begin the story.

acropolis

Art Historical Creative Writing

Letter to a Friend: Neolithic Chinese Art

This fall, Professor Xin Conan-Wu’s The Arts of China students were asked to write a fictional letter to a friend who dismissed neolithic chinese jade or pottery objects as “just a thing, often broken, and definitely uncool” and explain why the piece is a work of art. As the relevancy of art historical scholarship is often contested by people unfamiliar with the field, the following selected letters engage cynics with some of the processes and ideas central to the study of art.

One-tier tube (cong) with masks, Jades for Life and Death, Freer|Sackler, http:// archive.asia.si.edu/publications/jades/object.php?q=F1916.118 (accessed November 24 2018). 44

acropolis

Dear Friend, I take deep offense at your reference to the jade Cong as “uncool,” “easily broken and not beautiful,” and “just a thing.” Clearly you have not observed or analyzed this piece in depth. To begin, your assertion that the Cong is “just a thing” ignores the deeper underlying importance of art and sculpture. To say that because it is merely a “thing,” it is not art is misleading. Logically art must be material in some way, whether it is an installation, painting, or sculpture. In being material all art can be called “just a thing.” The logical fallacy in your statement comes from the fact that you merely call art by a different name to dismiss it. Anything loses its beauty if it is not named properly. One could call a painting “just a bunch of chemicals, pigments, and mixers on a dead tree” and in doing so, they would have portrayed a work of art as ugly and pedestrian. Similarly, you call the Cong “a thing” to dismiss it. I must ask, do you know of any art that cannot be described as “just a thing.” If by “a thing” you mean a practical item like a cup, then you are equally mistaken. Though the Cong might have had practical uses, that does not negate its existence as art. Art often comes about from a need to serve a function in a specific culture. Whether it is a historical function as we see in portraiture, a funerary function such as that of a memorial, or a religious function like that served by the Cong, the presence of art is never negated. Moving forward, your statement that it is “uncool” ignores the criteria by which art must be judged. It is anachronistic to call it uncool as you are judging a Neolithic work of art by today standards of “cool.” Of course, it lacks the broad appeal of the art you have grown accustomed to. Therefore, if you judged it the context of its own period, you would see the groundbreaking work of art that the Jade Cong is. Lastly, “easily broken and not beautiful” means little in artistic analysis. If it’s easily broken, it can still be meaningful in art. Glass is easily broken, this does not negate the value of glass art. Likewise, art’s value does not necessarily derive from its beauty, but rather from its function, cultural context, and visual form. Art is not made for beauty always. Sometimes it is made for a purpose, a practical use, which was especially true in the Neolithic period. Therefore, I believe your statement was flawed and that it came about from a response at first sight. I wish you could revisit this first impression. Yours, Jake Ferrara

acropolis

Dear Friend, Thank you for your letter! It’s good to hear from you. In your last letter, you mentioned your doubt that an object from Neolithic China is art. I happen to be taking a Chinese Art course now, and would like to share my opinion. I would argue that pre-historical objects are actually artworks because of their cultural context and archaeological significance, though they may not look “artistic” or “beautiful” to contemporary eyes. Before focusing on a specific object, I would like to ask you first: what do you think are the standards of “art” today? Some people recognize beauty as an essential feature of artworks. However, they may find the twisted figures and eccentric use of color in Dali’s works unpleasing. Others may believe that art follow the canons of painting, sculpture or installation. Nevertheless, Duchamp’s Fountain would require them to reconsider this belief. I personally believe that a piece of art has more than aesthetical value. Regarding pre-historical objects, I think that the stories behind them make them art. Here is a picture of an animal-like (zoomorphic, as art-historians call it) pitcher from Longshan Culture, a late Neolithic culture in the middle and lower Yellow River valley areas. Many characteristics of this object tell stories about the life of people who made it. The Pitcher’s shape and height (11.5 inch=29.7 cm) differentiate it from everyday vessels, manifesting its function as a ritual object. Thus, we can infer that people at the time already had some activities apart from daily life. Its shape with three legs and wave-like patterns shows that those people took inspiration from animals. Interestingly, although the whole object was made of clay, its handler mimicked the texture of a weaved fabric. This feature shows that people used their imagination to use one material to imitate another. It may also indicate that the makers adopted features from daily life vessels: Perhaps they weaved certain materials into ropes and used them as handlers on vessels. The pitcher’s design, date, location where it was found offer lots of information about Longshan Culture. Its very existence stimulates researchers to find more about people who made it, and also encourages public viewers to find out about the history behind it. Its power, which makes people contemplate it, makes it a piece of art. Admittedly, Neolithic people did not have the concept of “art”. However, For Neolithic people, this object was prettier than a plain vessel, and they designed it specifically to show homage to their god or gods. Its study even helps us trace back the history of our aesthetic taste, since, if we put it back into its cultural context, it was beautiful for people at the time. This object also shows creativity, sophisticated techniques and devotion of time that are even appealing to us today. In a word, the archaeological value of a pre-historic object makes it a piece of art. Best, Yilun Zhuang

acropolis

Dear Friend, I understand why you said this pottery was not beautiful and definitely uncool. From today’s aesthetic viewpoint, it is not a piece that would catch our eyes immediately. However, before I state my opinion, please let me introduce this pottery to you. This bowl with painted decoration is from the Yangshao culture, dating to the Neolithic period. It was found in Banpo in Xi An. By just observing it visually, we can say that it is a bowl-like pottery made of red clay. It has a caliber of about 15.7 inches, which can be regarded as a bowl bigger than normal. Looking it closely, we find two symmetrical human-like faces. Two fish patterns flank his mouth as well as his two ears. Between these two faces, two big fish are chasing each other in a circular composition. The decoration is dynamic and full of freedom and mystery. We may wonder, “what it was used for?” and “what those decorations represent?” After some research about Yangshao culture, I found more information to help you better understand this piece in its historical context. This bowl was used as the cover for a child’s funerary urn. The patterns in the bowl may represent crucial relationships between human and fish. People in Banpo believed that their ancestors came from fish, and wished the fish would pray for the dead child. I argue that this work can be defined as a work of art. First, when viewing a piece of art, we can’t always judge it by today’s standards. For example, you were at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. When you reached Giotto’s “Madonna and the Child,” your professor discussed Perspective and gave a one hour lecture on Giotto’s accomplishments. You may have found it tedious, as there were so many artists who could do perspective better than Giotto. However, a viewer in the 1300’s would have been amazed by Giotto’s artwork since he was one of the first men to use perspective in painting. The same viewing attitude should apply to the artwork we consider here. This bowl may seem ordinary today, but since it was made around 5000B.C.E., it is an extraordinary display of technique and decoration. Second, art is a means to state an opinion or a feeling. For the contemporaries of the Yangshao culture, the patterns in the bowl must have represented some common knowledge that they were all aware of, whether it was about worship or benediction. The artist successfully conveyed what he would like to express and what his audience could understand. Third, when it comes to the relationship between beauty and art, there’s always a hot debate. For me, art is about who has produced it, whereas beauty depends on who is looking. Beauty alone is not art, but art can be made of, about or for beautiful things. During the Neolithic period, artist’s main focus was on the practicality of the object. Later on, artists became aware of the aesthetic value of the object and focused more on painting technique. However, nowadays, artists who know traditional standards of beauty decide to go against them. Take Picasso, Pollock, Mondrian as example: they made a stand against these norms in their art. After all, the ultimate goal of art is to be experienced, connected and understood. There is a tendency for people to narrow down the definition of art. Art is not only about beauty, but about giving us insight about history, about expressing artists’ attitudes and about sharing meanings in artworks. My hope is that this letter would slightly change your attitude toward Neolithic pottery. Best, Ronghong Dai

acropolis

Dear Friend, “Beauty” and “Cool” and not the only standards of art. The essence of art is to put one’s personal aesthetic theories into practice and to embody the artist’s individual sense of beauty. Instead of general recognition, these ideas are all from artists’ personal views, and people are not forced to empathize with them. This jade plaque might not have attracted you at first glance, but only when trying to understand its cultural background and aesthetic values can we appreciate this art. This specially-designed object, the jade plaque, excavated in the Yangtze River Delta, is a typical item of Liangzhu Culture. It was made of jade, a kind of precious, hard and translucent rocks, showing that the owner was a powerful person with delegated power or abundant food surplus. The three-dimensional semi-human motif with headdress was like a man with extremely big eyes, twisted limb and a bird above the person. Observing in different angles, people could realize that this abstract pattern was not an existing animal——it was more like offering a kind of veneration to the animal. Despite the lack of anecdotal descriptions, researchers could recognize the supreme skills and advanced technology of Late Neolithic Chinese craftsmen by only observing the elaborate patterns and smooth surface. And this is the deeper implications of a work of art: it is not only a handicraft, but a symbol of an epoch containing more historical information. Archaeologists bring artworks to the public gaze, and the study of art history fills the lack of archaeological records. Art work is the creation of the conscious mind, expressing intelligence, imagination, aesthetic definition, veneration and so on. It can be in all manner of things- a particular object, a non-textual pattern, a combination of different colors- all are various forms of art work. But these criteria are not sufficient. As art should never be restricted by specific rules or styles, artists have the freedom to explore more expressions and more forms. Everything that is capable of carrying cultural and aesthetic issues can be regarded as art work. Perpetuating the stereotype of any historic definition of beauty would restrict the development of art. Yours, Yining Guo

acropolis

Dear Friend, I am writing in response to your comments dismissing the jade square tube (“cong”) that I showed you as “just a thing, often broken, not even beautiful” and “definitely uncool.” This “thing” is a work of art. Beauty is a very subjective qualifier that differs from person to person. With art, beauty comes from the successful rapport between the viewer and artist or the art itself. Therefore, some may not find this piece beautiful, while others find meaning, beauty, or “coolness.” Art expresses thoughts, emotions, gives insight into some experience of the world, and communicates concepts that may be foreign or familiar. For example, this jade cong from the Liangzhu culture in the Neolithic period of China, is thought to be associated with heaven and earth, though its actual role in burial rights is still unknown leaving room for interpretation and investigation. Furthermore, this piece has multiple layers of information that can be observed visually and then pursued analytically as well. Jade is as harder than steel and very difficult to carve, but the bi and cong from the Liangzhu culture were made between 3300-2250 BCE. By studying these pieces of art archaeologists believe bi were created with a bamboo-like drill and sand, and cong must have been even more difficult to create with its circular interior and square exterior. The details in the cong tube are evident, and when examining the piece closely you can even see the zoomorphic mask depiction that is a major motif in Chinese art. While you may think this is just a “thing,” jade was a revered material in China because of its durability, unique color, texture, and tone. Scholar Xu Shen even translated these into five virtues: charity, rectitude, wisdom, courage, and equity. By looking at works of art like this, one can see the special qualities prized by the Chinese. I hope you can see what they saw the next time you look at this work of art. Regards, Kyra Solomon

acropolis

Daria Lytvynenko Something is Alive Opposite: Me-More-Is

acropolis

Artist Interview: Steve Keen By Noah Woodruff

Steve Keene is known for creating large quantities of intensely colorful paintings. In 1997, Time Magazine called him the“assembly line Picasso” for his method of producing multiple paintings simultaneously. Keene creates a single mark on each board, gradually build-ing up the paint to render a finished image. According to his website, he has given away or sold over 300,000 paintings. During the summer of 2017, Steve Keene exhibited at Marlborough Contemporary Gallery in New York. His show disrupted the expectations of the traditional painting gallery space by incorporating elements of performance and installation. Piles of finished paintings were leaned against the walls and stacked on a plywood shelf opposite a platform where Keene painted. Plastic buckets filled with fluid acrylic paint surrounded him. The walls were covered in works in progress and poster-boards with mysterious phrases and folksy sayings handwritten in sharpie. I spoke with Steve Keene over the phone about his process and career. The following is a transcription of the conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Your style of working is so process-oriented. Do you think about the paintings as finished products once they leave your studio? I’ve been painting multiples for over 25 years. That was before a lot of stuff. You know if you had a band, you didn’t have a website, you weren’t on Facebook. I mean we hardly had answer-ing machines back then. It’s sort of like if you wanted to put out information about what you were doing, you’d make a little magazine, fan-zine, and then leave it at the local record store or bookstore or someplace like that. You’d try to get out information as logically as you could. You’d make something and put it out in the world and hope someone would see it. And I think that’s the way the paintings were. I just wanted to kind of accept that I didn’t want them to be treated like art. I wanted them to be treated like information, like trading cards. Something that exists in the world and then has many lives. Someone will get a

acropolis

bunch, give some to friends. When they move out of their apartment they’ll leave the paintings there, or they’ll get thrown out or something. I meant it to be something that just goes into the world and evolves. There are many more traditional and easier ways of making multiples. Why painting? I’ve always painted. I’ve painted ever since I was a little kid. I just think paint is interesting, its just interesting. I like picking up the paintbrush and looking at color and seeing how I can organ-ize color. You mainly create your paintings with cheap acrylic or tempera paint on plywood. Why did you choose these materials? It’s just super easy to store. If you’re going to have a show and you need 1200 paintings for the show and you start working on it 3 months ahead of time, you can’t do that with canvas. Things get holes, things get ripped up. It’s logical, it’s an easy way to make a lot of things and store them easily.

acropolis

At your show, I saw works you made with woodcarving and electric tools. Can you talk about how you’re experimenting with materials outside of traditional painting? I consider when I perform, when I’m in a gallery doing that I consider it a performance. And I think just as much about my stage and my storage areas. To me when it’s like when you walked into that room, you walked into my sculpture. My event, my sculpture. Painting is part of it, painting is sort of what electrifies the event. But it’s a whole event of you being part of it, of you digging through the art and making the decision. Painting is like a little part of it to me. The space seemed to be an important component of your installation; it felt different them just walking into an open studio. How do you come up with the staging? It just depends how close they are to your house. Unless I have big bucks funding a project, I can’t do something like that, you know 500 miles away. Because it’s a lot of wood. The materials are very heavy to move to a space. So luckily I was in a fancy gallery in Manhattan so they just pulled a truck up to my loft and loaded everything and helped me set it up. So that was a dream come true. Other shows that I have I have just as much work, but its less about the staging and more about the performance of just me there for a month or so doing my thing. Do you think of yourself as a performance artist? No, you know, I don’t know, its just kind of my thing. I mean most art like that is horrible so I don’t really attach any meaning to those phrases. There is a ritualized and durational aspect to your painting your process. Are you consciously thinking about the final image during the process? Not really, I’ve done it so long. It’s just work. I enjoy my work but its work. It’s like you go into get pizza and see someone making pizza dough. It’s my craft.

acropolis

Do you get a different from response from people who come to watch you in a formal gallery space versus passersby in public space? Not really, because its very accessible. It’s like a yard sale, so people just immediately kind of get it. It’s meant to be understood very quickly. You cover a wide range of material, but they feel united by the way you paint them. How do you choose your subject matter? Not really, I just find a bunch of images. This summer at MOMA there was a big Rauschenberg show and I’ve loved Rauschenberg ever since I was in high school. It was fun to see all that art again. He just, you know, uses a ton of different images and kind of collages them together. And that becomes the narrative - of having a bunch of things together. And you make up what the subject is of that. That’s what I think about a lot. The game of chance. The game of putting im-ages out there and writing words on the panels that might not make any sense and probably don’t, but its your job to think it over and come up with the idea of it

acropolis

The use of the words in your work often seems to have a sense of humor or irony.

Do you plan the word you write on your paintings alongside the image? It’s just after the fact. It’s mostly just stuff I can spell easily. I’m a terrible speller.

Your work uses a lot of iconic imagery related to American culture, but it feels more specific to that. Is there a personal element in what you choose to represent? I really don’t have anything to say about subject matter. It’s just shapes and colors to me. It’s just a structure. Just something that I react to. I look at it and react to it. I don’t try to copy and I don’t try not to copy. If I had my way I’d want all the pictures to look like Vermeer’s - something perfect – it’s a game when I set up 50 panels and run through it in a day. Do you feel like you’re getting closer to that perfect version of the image as you work? It’s everything put together. I feel like I’m painting an image and making decorations because there are multiple images, almost like wallpaper. It’s fun, I’m not really conscious of each individual picture because I’m working on all of them at the same time. So there’s no worry about “does this look good or not?”. If that stroke doesn’t work on one panel, I’ll do it better on the next panel. You lose yourself in the system. Your installation is constantly changing as you change what you’re painting and as people take paintings with them. Is this constant circulation important? I like it to feel energized with people in there. It’s fun when it’s being used. A record store isn’t fun if no one comes in it. You’ve spent a lot of time in Charlottesville, Virginia and in New York City. Does your environment affect your work? Is it important for you to be surrounded by other artists? I don’t have artist friends. I don’t really know anyone who is an artist. New York is

acropolis

just a fantastic place to live; I go to museums every weekend. I’m not there for the people. Do you keep up with the current art world? What contemporary artists are you interested in? I like a lot of stuff. It’s fashion. It’s the flavor of the month with a lot of this art. It’s all good art, but I’m old enough to remember someone else doing the same thing 15 years earlier. You know the older you get, the more you gravitate towards Rembrandt and Cézanne and Matisse and Titian. You start really looking at really good art, instead of what another 28-year-old kid is doing.