Questions Unanswered

A quest for that which cannot be answered. Those are the words that come to mind as I delved into the depths of the pieces of art at the “Masters of Fine Arts Thesis” exhibit. The work, at first glance, seemed unimpressive and to steal the words of a classmate, was lacking in aesthetic quality what it supposedly made up for in meaning. But what was the meaning? If the exhibit had an overall lack of beauty about it, then the meaning must be obvious, right? That was the question I posed to myself as I surveyed the pieces in the exhibit. One of the artists, Dustin Price, was particularly interesting to me and his work is the subject of my further review because I believe it best captures the overall theme of the entire exhibit.
The work of Price was a series of pieces, two with the same title while the others were titled differently. However, each piece of work was related to another by either the material used or the subject, with the exception of a life-size untitled tree. The pieces displayed incredible placement of both the works hanging on the wall in the series and the materials within the piece itself. The arrangement drew the focus to one area of the piece, but also encouraged the viewer to look at other aspects as the search for a clear meaning commences. I found myself searching for a clear meaning behind his pieces, and for awhile, I thought that I might stumble upon it as I reviewed all that was displayed. However, as time wore on, it appeared that the meaning was not going to come so easily - - my sentiment quickly turned to frustration as I struggled to grasp why an artist would exhibit work that had no true meaning. As I turned to alternative sources to search for the meaning, I stumbled upon an excerpt from the artist’s statement that provided a bit of clarity. He stated that he “understands that my process repeatedly gives way to questions that cannot be answered, but I believe attempting to understand these questions if often just as significant as answering them” (Dustin Price, 2009). Apparently, there was a reason behind the lack of meaning.
For as long as we’ve been taught, questions are followed by answers, whether implied or actually supplied. This social norm of question and answer is the way we were taught to gather information about the world and how it works. However, at points throughout life, we encounter questions that cannot be answered and it is these types of questions that invoke self-discovery. These are the questions that help us discover how we fit into the world - - they are necessary to existence, but can the same be said of their place in the artworld? After spending time looking for the meaning of a piece of work and learning that the intended meaning was the search for the meaning, I do not believe these self-discovery questions are appropriate in art. Forgoing aesthetic quality for a deeper meaning detracts from the work itself. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to decipher the message and not enough time appreciating the spatial arrangement within the piece and the unique materials used to create the piece. Art should be about appreciation of technique and creativity - - not an exercise in dealing with frustration, especially when the meaning is clouded. In pieces of art, all questions should be answered.

A "Foucaultian" View of Spiderman

I feel that the pop culture Spiderman character lends itself to a Foucaultian review better than either of the other two choices - - however, I am definitely not an expert. My view of Foucault after Friday's presentation is that he is interested in breaking "codes of culture" down and interpreting their existence and meaning. He does this with normal daily activities and then uses this same technique to critique "Las Meninas", a very famous painting from the 17th century. As Kevin and Erik explained to us, "Foucault is uncovering truths and making interpretations about knowledge; breaking knowledge down into its basic components" with his work.

Spiderman was, at one point, a "normal" boy and went about his life doing daily activities that would be classified by Foucault as empirical orders. They are behaviors that are associated with social norms such as going to school and participating in extracurricular activities, and the "boy" version of the superhero spent the majority of the day in this manner. I believe that he spent little of his time in the third region of knowledge - - the intermediary region - -as he very rarely questioned the way society worked during his time as a "boy." However, I think that as he changes into Spiderman, he changes the way in which he looks at the world as he moves away from what is generally accepted as "normal" in society.

As Spiderman develops into a known figure in society, there seems to be more controversy as to his existence and the reasons behind his existence. He no longer follows Foucault's "fundamental codes of culture [that are] established for every man, from the very first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home." There are no established codes for the actions of a superhero and there are definitely no philosophical interpretations for why superheroes do exist. I feel that the internal struggle that Spiderman feels as he deals with his national hero status stems from his inability to follow the "normal" empirical orders of society. No longer does he have to wait to decide if a building is safe to scale or test the waters before he jumps - - he has no knowledge of these tasks but is able to do them anyway due to his superhuman abilities. This would be a struggle - - to be able to do things without anyone before to tell them if it is the correct or right way to do it. At this point, I feel that Spiderman definitely expands his third region of knowledge that causes him to question the knowledge that is often overlooked. He is able to question the empirical orders of society because he no longer has to follow them in the way that others do. In this process, I believe it can lead the rest of society to discover that Spiderman's superhuman abilities do not mean that he is a harm to society. Instead, they must come to understand that society is simply changing - - new doesn't always mean bad.

The Heidi Chronicles

Feminism is not a cause I have ever aligned myself with or have felt the need to follow and support. Sure, I support equal pay and equal opportunity, but I feel that fighting in the manner that women have over the past 4 or 5 decades can actually close doors on opportunities. They are too busy fighting for the cause to notice doors opening as well as slow, but gradual progress being made in the corporate world. I will continue to stand up for my own rights as a woman in the "working" world, but do not plan on spending my life wishing that women were considered equal when I have a chance to make a good life for myself right in front of me.

All that said, I found the script of "The Heidi Chronicles" a so-called good read. I enjoyed the banter between Heidi and Scoop, and understood the friendship between her and Peter. I understood the issues, but reading it made these issues easier to overlook. To me, it was simply a story that related to art and explained the history of the feminist movement - - well-written and to the point. However, the play was a different story....

At first, I walked out of the play wishing I had spent the past 3 hours in a very different manner. I couldn't quite understand how a script that was so easy to read could have possibly taken that long to act out - - it just didn't seem possible! I felt that Heidi came across as "wishy-washy" and was never able to make up her mind about whether or not she wanted to be a true feminist. Her friends continued to fight for the cause, but also continued to be very unhappy - - often a "red" flag for people that something might need to change. Overall, I felt the play gave a good background on the feminist movement and was well-executed, but at this point, really did not enjoy it.

However, after listening to the actors speak in class in Friday and hearing that actor playing Heidi had the same thoughts as I did, I can soften my critique a little bit. I had felt the whole time that Heidi was simply a spectator to the feminist movement - - she was never able to make up her mind - - but I felt that everyone thought that she was a definite part of it. When I heard the woman speak who acted as Heidi and explain that she tried to portray Heidi in that way, it made a bit more sense why she seemed so "wishy washy". I do think that the actors did quite a good job portraying these characters while maintaining their own interpretation of a complicated storyline and movement.

I do not think that I will ever be behind the feminist movement, but I do understand a bit more as to where these women are coming from. My own opinion is that maybe they need to be more open to the opportunities in front of them instead of always fighting for better ones - - they might be surprised what doors open up.