Guest Post by Young Joon KwakHello from Los Angeles! Â I’ll be posting a monthly series of conversations with art folks in Los Angeles for the next couple of months. Â These conversations take place at my current studio/beauty salon, aka Mutant Salon. Â The salon atmosphere is particularly conducive to dishing real talk and shooting the shit, which is why I thought it’d be the ideal setting for these in-depth conversations to take place. Â The first person I talked with was man-about-town and big sweetie Michael Ned Holte. Â Happy reading!
Michael Ned Holte is a writer, curator, and professor of contemporary art history at CalArts; along with Connie Butler, he is the co-curator of the upcoming LA biennial Made in LA, which will take place at the Hammer Museum in 2014. Â In 2012, He curated the exhibitionÂ Temporary Landmarks and Moving Situations, which was featured at Expo Chicago art fair at Navy Pier. Â Originally from southwest Wisconsin, Michael Ned Holte moved to LA in 1995. Â He got an MA in Art Theory and Criticism from Art Center in 2004, at the same time artists like Stephen G. Rhodes and Sterling Ruby were in grad school. Â When I first met him for a studio visit last fall, I had recently moved from Chicago to LA for grad school, and he made me feel welcome to the city by assuring me that there were great local communities of weirdo/artist/musician/mutants to get to know and become part of. Â I invited him back to Mutant Salon for this interview in June, where we discussed teaching, studio visits, writing, the next Made in LA exhibition and catalogue, his book Proper Names (fromÂ Golden Spike Press), and how ultimately he hopes to help artists articulate what they do.
Young Joon Kwak: How would you describe what you do to someone whoâ€™s unfamiliar with your practice?
Michael Ned Holte: Â What I do now is primarily teaching, writing, and making exhibitions, probably in that order. Â Thereâ€™s a quote from Lucy Lippard in her preface to the reprint of her book Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972, where she talks about being a critic, and starting to make exhibitions when it was unusual for a critic to curate exhibitions, and she would do projects with artists that seemed sometimes to be breaking boundaries of what it meant to be a critic, but she held to this idea that a critic should be allowed to have an expansive project the way that an artist can have an expansive project. Â So as a teacher, writer, and curator, I can think of those as being a very fluid and expansive project.
YJK: Â It seems like writing is central to all of these activities.
MNH: Â Yes, text is primary to everything I do. Â Thereâ€™s a discursive element to everything I do, and with studio visits, I try to help artists articulate what their project is. Â And thatâ€™s true of me as a criticâ€”writing essays and reviews, and me making an exhibition as well. Â In putting together an exhibition Iâ€™m always thinking about the text that accompanies it.
YJK: Â Like the catalogue or the press release for an exhibition?
MNH: Â Yes, both. Â I did a show at Wallspace in 2007 called Laying Bricks, and for the press release I made a multiple-choice, true-false exam. Â There was also a publication for that show that was printed on newsprint, and I had each of the four artists do a poster for the publication. Â None of them knew each other at the time, and they all did something different without knowing what the others would be doing. Â And then I wrote a text for it called â€œFrequently Asked Questions,â€ and I used that format of a frequently asked question, so it was almost a self-interview, and at some point, the kind of cool neutrality of that format gives way to this kind of schizophrenic tussle with myself. Â In part, it was a rejection of wanting to write an essay to explain my show and how it worked, and trying to find other ways of talking about it or talking around it.
YJK: Â Do you have plans to similarly explore the relationship between the Made in LA exhibition and the publications for it? Â What does the catalogue bring to oneâ€™s experience of the exhibition, or is it a site unto itself?
MNH: I think you just said it. Â We are thinking about the catalogue as a site in and of itself. Â Itâ€™s the thing that lives on in perpetuity. Â Only so many people will see the show in the three months that itâ€™s up, and the catalogue is the thing that sticks around. The catalogue is a different structure with a different temporality to it, and it runs parallel to the exhibition, and Iâ€™m interested in how these things work together and separately. Â I canâ€™t talk too much about the publication for Made in LA because weâ€™re still working on it, but I will say that Connie Butler (co-curator) and I will each write our own essays, along with some additional writers, which is already different from the format of the last Made in LA catalogue, where all five curators wrote a single five-part essay. Â But the conversation of the publication has been happening from the outset, in tandem with the exhibition. Â In some ways, the conversation of the publication is leading the conversation about the show.
YJK: Whatâ€™s a bad studio visit like for you?
MNH: Â Umm, Iâ€™ve had them, but maybe you should ask the artists whoâ€™ve had bad studio visits with me. Â I donâ€™t know; theyâ€™re all different. Â Artists are like snowflakes, and studio visits are like snowflakes, haha. Â Iâ€™m not a super judgmental person, and perhaps that makes me somewhat less effective as a critic, but Iâ€™m always curious how artists think about what they do. Â I think the worst studio visits for me are the ones where the artists are really fixed on what theyâ€™re doing and arenâ€™t interested in entertaining a conversation about change. Â I might define a bad studio visit as one that I may forget a day later. Â Most of the time, I take part of it with me, which is why I can usually do no more than two a day in the world. Â The best studio visits are often my second or third or fourth visit with somebody. I met with somebody last weekend, and it was the third time Iâ€™ve done a visit with him. Itâ€™s probably been about four years since Iâ€™d last had a visit with him, and Iâ€™ve been kind of tracking this person for a long time, so we can kind of dive in to a conversation at this point. Â The first time you meet with somebody, itâ€™s like two dogs sniffing each otherâ€™s butts, and thatâ€™s inevitable.
YJK: Â What are some trends or common things youâ€™ve seen in recent studio visits?
MNH: Â Iâ€™m intensely resistant to trends. Â I have to say, going into the process of organizing Made in LA, one of the words I kept on coming back to was â€œheterogeneity.â€ Â Iâ€™m really interested in difference. Â Iâ€™m really excited about difference, and itâ€™s the thing Iâ€™m looking for I think the most. Â Which is kind of the opposite in some waysâ€”thinking about an artist who is making work in a way thatâ€™s completely different from the way any other artist I can think of, to the degree thatâ€™s possible. Â I mean, Iâ€™ll see things that my students will do that are possibly trends or familiar solutions to recurring problems and Iâ€™ll see an MFA student do something I saw an MFA do three years earlier, because itâ€™s a common solution to a certain problem, and artists are always a product of their time. Â Me too. We canâ€™t escape the context of living and working in 2013 in LA or wherever, and most of us are involved in a community or communities of artists, and we know what our friends are doing. Â If we were all doing things that were completely different, there would be no basis for conversation. Â So, Iâ€™m also interested in proximity of things too, or maybe the way two artists will arrive at something from completely different places. Iâ€™m asking myself a lot of questions about those very things right now. Â But Iâ€™m hesitant to identify any trends.
YJK: Â When was the last instance that a studio visit with an artist has shaped how you think about or talk about art?
MNH: It happens all the time, really. Yesterday I had a studio visit with Jennifer Moon, and sheâ€™s an artist Iâ€™ve known about from afar, but had never met before. Â She did a show at Young Chungâ€™s space Commonwealth & Council, and most recently at Transmission Gallery in Glasgow. Â I had such an exciting conversation with her about the boundaries of what sheâ€™s doing as an art practiceâ€¦. I should also say Iâ€™ve been trying to reframe the word â€œpracticeâ€ as â€œprojectâ€ lately, and thinking about the difference between those things. Â How Iâ€™ve defined it to my students is: Â Practice is the way you do what you do to pay your bills, or what you do to imagine how you pay your bills, and a project is the thing that gets you up in the morning. Â Anyway, Jennifer and I got into a conversation about where the boundaries of her project lieâ€”in terms of revolution and making art, and there are objects that can be displayed in a gallery context, like photographs and books and artifacts and relics, like a lot of performance projects too, where the audience wondersâ€”what is this thing? Â Is that the residue of the thing, or is it a byproduct or the product? Is this where the art resides, or does the art lie somewhere else in the performance, in a live context for example. Â I said to her, maybe the better question isâ€”when are you not making art? Â And then we both kind of looked at each other likeâ€¦? Â Itâ€™s true for me tooâ€”when am I not working? Â Iâ€™m working on an essay while Iâ€™m driving or making dinner.
YJK: Â Yeah, Iâ€™ve been thinking about how certain routine patterns of procrastination in the studio are essential parts of my project.
MNH: Â In the fall, I taught a class called Routine Pleasures, which is named after the Jean-Pierre Gorin film, and this is where the idea of the project bubbled to the surface. Â At some point, in the process of planning one of my lectures for the class, I came to the realization that my project or at least the thing that I think I do really well, is procrastination. Â So for most of my life, extending back to my teenage years, Iâ€™ve thought of myself as a really terrible procrastinator. Â And then, last fall, I said, what if Iâ€™m really a terrific procrastinator? Â What if thatâ€™s the thing I do really well?
YJK: A radical procrastinator?
MNH: Â Haha, maybe. Â Or just a really good one, and that realization transformed things for me. Â Anyway, in this meeting with Jennifer Moon yesterday, just asking her this basic question really opened up something for both of us. Â I think thatâ€™s fair to say. Â And when oneâ€™s doing a lot of studio visits, itâ€™s inevitable that questions that get raised in one that will carry on to the next, and thereâ€™s a kind of viral quality to the discourse that happens.
YJK: Who were some writers or other people that were influential when you were first starting out?
MNH: Â Â Iâ€™ve often referred to Bruce Hainley as my guardian angel. Â I think Bruce is the person that helped me most get on my path, and remained a mentor out of school. Â He was a really great guide, and then at some point I decided I needed to leave him alone and make my own decisions. Â There are also people like Lucy Lippard, whoâ€™s been an important model for meâ€”in terms of thinking about what I do and how these compartments overlap or intermingle. But Iâ€™ve never met her.
YJK: Whatâ€™s your approach to teaching art history at CalArts?
MNH: Iâ€™ve learned to teach art history while teaching art history. Â There is no art history department at CalArts. Â Within another higher education institution where there is a degree being offered in an art history department, part of what oneâ€™s doing when oneâ€™s teaching art history is perpetuating that field. Â I donâ€™t feel like I have that same pressure because my students are artists. Â Some of them might become art historians, and I alert them to that possibility. Â I also tell them that Iâ€™m not trained as an art historian. Â But I want art history to be useful and relevant and alive to them, and also something that they can engage with critically, and the thing I leave them with is that they have a lot of control over shaping art history, because art history is continually being revised and reshaped.
YJK: Â With art history as a field, thereâ€™s always a delay in the legitimization of projects that are more experimental or make use of unconventional materials, which makes it Â difficult for some artists to find role models within art historical discourse. How do you feel artists, and especially students should negotiate with art history, when it is essentially on them to be brave in breaking certain conventions of that field?
MNH: Â Well, thatâ€™s what artists get to do. Â Artists get to remake history by virtue of what histories they decide to channel and acknowledge and smash together at some point. Â Itâ€™s important to be brave. Â I try to encourage my students to be brave and occasionally irresponsible. Â Because theyâ€™re not art historians, theyâ€™re artists. Â But I also love the idea that some of my BFA students could go on to be art historians after going through a BFA studio program at CalArtsâ€”I mean, what a great thing for art historians to have knowledge and experience of having a studio practice.
YJK: Â As much as I am interested myself in the blurring of disciplinary boundaries, some of these boundaries provide context for measuring the successes and failures of the work one does in these fields. Â I just wonder, what are some of the criteria by which someone like you or other critic/writer/historian/curators judge the successes and failures of the work they do? Â How is the work being checked?
MNH: Â I donâ€™t know if there is a system of checks and balances in the art world that we work in. Â Thereâ€™s such an overwhelming shadow of the market right now. Â In some ways itâ€™s like the movie Independence Day or something, where a giant spaceship shows up and the shadow covers NYC, or DC, or Los Angeles. Â In some ways, I feel like the market has that omnipresent shadowing effect, and itâ€™s a little grotesque, and teaching at CalArts helps me feel at least 34 miles away from that shadow some days, though not everyday. Â If thatâ€™s true that the market is the only metric of the art world, I feel like itâ€™s only a reflection of our larger society.
YJK: So do you feel like the market is our only metric right now?
MNH: Well, I think itâ€™s a very temporary metric. Â I think history actually revises things so we eventually realize the importance of certain people, like Lee Lozano, who is one of my favorite artists ever. Â Lozano wrote herself out of the art world, but has now been reclaimed by it, and is now represented by Hauser & Wirth, which is an extraordinary turn of events that Iâ€™m sure would shock her. Â But, history has written her back in, and thatâ€™s not just a product of the market. Â I think time will tell if what any of us does is important historically. I do think of how my writing as a critic could shape how historians write about certain artists or write about my peers, twenty or 30 or 40 years from now. Â Iâ€™ve often thought about that, in part because Iâ€™ve spent so much time looking at art magazines from 30 or 40 years ago, and I am acutely aware how important it is that those critics wrote about those artists at that time. Â But information travels differently now. Â There was no Internet then, of course. The other thing I should mention is that when I organize an exhibition, thereâ€™s usually criticism written about it, so organizing an exhibition can be an interesting way of inciting a dialogue. Moreso than when I write criticism. Â And when I have professional peers commenting on something Iâ€™ve done in another context, Iâ€™m always excited to read those reviews.
YJK: Â Do artists who youâ€™ve written about not so favorably ever hold grudges?
MNH: Â I donâ€™t know. Â The only case I can think of came after Iâ€™d written one of those little 200 word Criticsâ€™ Picks on Artforum.com. Â I didnâ€™t know the artist at that time, and have gotten to know her better since, but it was about two or three years after the review when I got a card in the mailâ€”to thank me for the review, and also to correct some statement Iâ€™d made in the review. Â That moment revealed to me that the artists Iâ€™m writing about tend to be the most important audience for what Iâ€™m writing. Â And that was really important for me. Â It led to a studio visit, or several. And thatâ€™s why I go back to what I was saying about the one thing I do in all of my various guises is to help artists articulate what it is theyâ€™re doingâ€¦even if they donâ€™t always agree with what Iâ€™m saying.
YJK: Iâ€™m very interested in your book Proper Names, because it seems very much to me like an artistâ€™s book. Â How would you describe this project?
MNH: Â When I give that book to people, and people seem puzzled by it, I say itâ€™s a book of a list of names, and thatâ€™s what it is. Â Some people have read it as an artistâ€™s book or an artistic project, and I can understand why, because it certainly has some characteristics of such a thing.
YJK: Â What your book does for me, and one of the reasons it seems like an artistâ€™s book is that through the format of a list, you dissolve the signifying power of singular names/signifieds, by which you propose an open and continuously changing meaning by each nameâ€™s relationship to the collective.
MNH: Thatâ€™s a nice way of putting it. Â Itâ€™s a collection of 1000 readymades. I wanted it to be a big enough list that one couldnâ€™t guess how many names there would be, but also a number that someone could realistically sit down and read from beginning to end. Â I was interested in how much significance we attach to a name, and what happens when you put two things next to each other. Â This is an old trick of collage from Dada or the Kuleshov Effect from filmmakingâ€”if you put any two pieces of film next to each other, it produces meaningâ€”and you can do this with names too. Â Listed names appear all over the place, in an ad for a group show in Artforum, or a list of names on a donor plaque, or a list of names on my class roster. Â But they are usually gathered in a way that we can identify a kind of coherence, and in that coherence there is also usually some connotation of value, whether the list is democratic or elitist. The way one encounters those names in my book is not unlike how one would encounter names in the world, because there are students of mine intermingled with celebrities, intermingled with theorists, artistsâ€¦
YJK: Â Yeah, I love that names of subjective significance are included, and names that you have claimed or reclaimed, like your motherâ€™s, with her maiden name.
MNH: But my mother with her maiden name is also the name of an artist in San Francisco, which I think is really funny. Â I saw her name on a list for a show in Artforum. Â I love the idea that my mom is secretly an artist, and has kept that from me, even as I was writing for Artforum.
YJK: Â And theyâ€™re not all people you can get behind, some are contentious with each other.
MNH: There are some truly terrible people on that list. Â Itâ€™s not necessarily people I like, or even necessarily names that I like. Theyâ€™re names that went through my head and stuck. Â I wanted it to not be systematic. Â I donâ€™t want there to be some kind of legible system, and thereâ€™s not. Â Maggie Nelson, whoâ€™s a writer I respect enormously, asked me if it was done with free association, and I responded by saying I donâ€™t know if there is such a thing as free association after Google. Â The way we encounter information, and the way it can lead us into different information is something that Iâ€™m really interested in. Â I think a lot of people who see the book will look up a lot of those names as theyâ€™re going through it. Â And I like that somebody would read that book while working Google on their phone.
YJK: Â My boyfriend loves it and thinks itâ€™s hilarious.
MNH: Â Yeah, Iâ€™m just happy to get it out into the world. Â It got read on kchung on Reading Radio, and they fucked up almost every name, which I think is kind of perfect. Â One of my favorite things about the book is how much it destabilizes hierarchies in terms of the values we place on specific names, collectively and individually, and their reading of the book further destabilizes hierarchies by fucking up so many of the names in the book, including the authorâ€™s own name. Â I couldnâ€™t have done that, but they nailed it.
by Jen Delos Reyes
Two countries. Five conferences. Seven years. 14 partnerships. Over 700 presenters. Over 1600Â attendees. Since the ï¬rst Open Engagement conference in 2007 this event has become a keyÂ meeting point for people interested in socially engaged art. Open Engagement: Art After AestheticÂ Distance began as a hybrid project that used a conference on socially engaged art practices as itsÂ foundation and incorporated elements including workshops, exhibitions, residencies, pedagogy,Â curatorial practice and collaboration. I wanted to foster a different kind of conferenceâ€”one thatÂ worked in the way I wanted to see it work: with a sense of togetherness, putting emerging andÂ established voices side by side, highlighting different ways of knowing and learning, and serving asÂ a site of production, as well as reï¬‚ection. I wanted to contribute to the discourse on sociallyÂ engaged art in a meaningful way. When Open Engagement began it was a student project. I was aÂ graduate student. The conversations that I wanted to engage in were not happening at my schoolÂ in Saskatchewan, so I decided to create the situation that would allow for me to have theseÂ discussions with people doing similar work. Open Engagement was the basis of my education, andÂ now is a major foundation of my work as an educator.
This year as in most years my experience of Open Engagement happens mostly in the lead upâ€”inÂ conversations with students to determine the themes of exploration for the year, in the selection of keynote presenters, in the scheduling, planning, writing, partnerships, and all things organizing. InÂ the day to day of the event itself I get to attend very few sessions, usually only the opening andÂ closing sessions, keynote events, and a hand full of other projects and for a limited amount of time.Â My time during Open Engagement is mostly spent assisting and making sure things are runningÂ smoothly. But in that way of moving through the conference I intersect with people all throughoutÂ the day that I ask what they have attended, and what their thoughts are on the experience at theÂ conference so far. This idea of needing to talk to others to fully experience the conference isÂ intentional. Because of the parallel programming no one person can take in all of the projects andÂ sessions that form the event on their own. We need to work together, and see from multipleÂ perspectives to get a full sense of the ï¬eld.
In 2010 at Open Engagement Pablo Helguera said that he had always heard that a conference isÂ meaningful in as much as it generated new questions to follow up. If you didnâ€™t ï¬nd new questionsÂ then maybe it was not successful. I had a similar feeling about conferences, and it had been one ofÂ the ways I was measuring outcomes. The conference begins with a series of calls and questions,Â and throughout the course of the event and the conversations there are undoubtedly more that areÂ generated. At OE 2013 we were making a concerted effort to capture that questioning throughoutÂ the weekend, and on Sunday before Tom Finkelpearlâ€™s keynote talk were reminded by MichelleÂ Swineheart of one of Sister Corita’s “quantity assignments” of generating 100 questions whenÂ embarking on intensive work and research. With this in mind, as well as earlier feedback from theÂ day at a session between the Creative Time summit and OE where I heard from many participantsÂ that they wanted to work together to generate something during the conference and that in generalÂ there was a desire for sessions that allowed for formats other than being talked at, I decided thatÂ the ï¬nal event would be an opportunity for just that.
For the closing event of Open Engagement 2013 instead of having a panel discussion betweenÂ only keynotes and curatorial representatives we instead set out to collect 100 questions generatedÂ by the group assembled to further get a sense of what is emerging, what people are thinking, andÂ where this conversation is going. The Sister Corita assignment felt ï¬tting for a group of presumably invested individuals, who wish to continue to be involved in research and practice, to take this onÂ together. It was a hope that as we would move out into the world after the conference that weÂ could then reï¬‚ect on this list of the questions we are currently asking ourselves about sociallyÂ engaged art. The format was that each of our six panelists joined one of six seated groups thatÂ each had about 40 chairs (based on past years we were planning for between 200-300 people atÂ the ï¬nal panel), and we then had about 35 minutes to work together and for each group to write 17Â questions and then we reconvened and the panelists shared the group work. After the instructionsÂ were given, at least 20% of the assembled group left instead of joining the break out groups. As IÂ stood at the front of the room watching people choose to stream out, I wondered if I had made aÂ mistake. The people that remained formed groups and were led in discussions to generateÂ questions. There was one group in particular that voiced resentment, yet not enough resentmentÂ for them to have just left. This all came out in sharing of the questions at the end of the session.Â After many weeks I heard from someone who was part of that dissenting group how difï¬cult it wasÂ to contribute questions, to have a discussion, and to feel like they could share. Days after theÂ conference I heard some thoughts from Michael Rakowitz (who was the person facilitating thatÂ group) on the conference and the ï¬nal event in general and he said, â€œYou created a space forÂ people to get upset, and that opens up possibilities for things that havenâ€™t been done yet.â€ While IÂ had no doubt that we had created a place for people to get upset I wondered what else the spaceÂ was a possibility for. I thought of other conferences and their goals, Suzanne Lacyâ€™s City Sites:Â Artists and Urban Strategies (1989), and Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art (1991), theÂ Creative Time summits that began in 2009, and the more recent Homework conferences organizedÂ by Broken City Lab. Lacey was trying to create a space to develop language for socially engagedÂ art that went beyond the limitations of forms like performance and conceptual art, and with theÂ latter intended that the activities of Mapping the Terrain would come together as a publication. TheÂ most simple way to describe the Creative Time efforts is an attempt to become the TED talks forÂ socially engaged contemporary art. The latest incarnation of the Homework conference takes aÂ similar approach to Mapping the Terrain with a end goal of a collectively generated publication, andÂ a similar format to Open Engagement with three keynote presenters and framing devices.
My last memory of Open Engagement took place at Boxxes, the club that hosted the wrap partyÂ for the conference. I showed up after a late dinner and took a seat behind the DJ booth where PaulÂ Ramirez Jonas was virtually spinning tunes for the party. I was approached by a woman I metÂ earlier in the day who is a funder at an arts organization dedicated to supporting socially engagedÂ art. I found myself captive behind the DJ booth during a moment of celebration hearing out herÂ frustrations with the conference. The parts of her dialogue that rang out the loudest in my mindÂ were, â€œI am not here to learn with you, I am not here to generate your content.â€ I noddedÂ throughout, and thanked her for so openly sharing her criticisms. I meant it. I still do.
This encounter made me think of who was present Open Engagement, and what they expected,Â and how at least for this person how much of a radical departure it was from what I thought peopleÂ were there for. I revisited some writing from 2007 that I had done after the conference:
What does it mean to be open? What does it mean to be engaged? What if one were to be both open andÂ engaged simultaneously? Openness is honesty, generosity, a sense of possibility, freedom, free of boundariesÂ and restrictions. To be engaged is a promise. It is a commitment, an obligation. It is also a sense ofÂ involvement and participation. To have an â€œopen engagementâ€ implies a commitment that is potentiallyÂ limited or short lived. But what if the two terms once united could keep their respective deï¬nitions makingÂ openly engaged a term that would embody an obligation to honesty, sharing and possibility?Â
It happened, we did create a place of possibility, a place for honesty and sharing, one where manyÂ boundaries and expectations were crossed and left behind. What should Open Engagement be?Â Who should it be for? How can we adequately capture what is generated? Over the last few days IÂ have been thinking about the possibility of an online community archive for Open Engagement thatÂ would be a collective effort that would be open for all to share their documentation, writing,Â thinking, and stories related to the conference.
I had always seen Open Engagement as a site of learning. In an online video conference with RenÂ Morrison from the Atlantic Center for the Arts weeks following the conference he off handedlyÂ referred to Open Engagement as being his â€œeducationâ€. The conference has for the past four yearsÂ been a site of convening for many of the MFA programs with a focus on publicly/socially engagedÂ art. The fact that this conference is so embedded in the structure of an MFA program makes theÂ very nature of it educational, as well as the fact that even the very beginning was in an educationalÂ framework. In my mind we were all working together, learning together, and teaching one another.Â How we organize this conference collaboratively echoes the spirit of our program and ourÂ approach to learning. An education in our program is emergent, unorthodox, and at times unruly.Â This translates into Open Engagement feeling slightly unkempt, and in ï¬‚ux. And while this might beÂ a point of criticism for some, I would not trade this instability for rigid professionalism or a setÂ structure. It is important that we remain open to this conference and this conversation shifting andÂ developing in unexpected ways. It is also important that we remain open to the realization that thisÂ may no longer be a site that is necessary, or that it might need to take a completely new form andÂ possibly a new grounding. I hope that whatever becomes of it, that Open Engagement can be aÂ site to work together, learn together and see what we are contributing to the ï¬eld of sociallyÂ engaged art from multiple perspectives. I am open to whatever comes next.
Jen Delos Reyes is an artist originally from Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Her research interests include the history of socially engaged art, group work, band dynamics, folk music, and artistsâ€™ social roles. She has exhibited works across North America and Europe, and has contributed writing to various catalogues and institutional publications. She has received numerous grants and awards including a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant. Jen is the founder and director of Open Engagement, a conference on socially engaged art practice and herself speaks widely on Art and Social Practice at conferences and institutions around the world. She is currently an Assistant Professor at Portland State University where she teaches in the Art and Social Practice MFA program.
Guest Post by Carolyn Okomo
Though Kansas Cityâ€™s Middle of the Map Fest ended this past May, the curators of the month-long salute to Midwestâ€™s arts scene are getting ready to make preparations for next yearâ€™s activities. The festival, which just concluded its third year, is not-so-slowly but surely becoming an important cultural staple in the Kansas City-metropolitan area, the Midwestern United States, and arguably the nation. Its fusion of music, film and technology dialogs could make it Kansas Cityâ€™s answer to the SXSW Interactive Festival, though Nathan Reusch — one of the festivalâ€™s founders — is caution in drawing too direct a comparison to the Austin event.
â€œI would say that we take plenty of notes from SXSW but I think we have tried to make it our ownâ€ says Reusch. â€œThings like spreading across multiple weekends have given each event a chance to have their own identity where SXSW has so much going on all at once.â€
Reusch, along with Mike Russo and Richard Robinett, run The Record Machine — a Kansas City-based independent music label thatâ€™s been releasing music for local and national acts since 2003. Since then theyâ€™ve assembled a heartily diverse ensemble of artists. At the heart of The Record Machineâ€™s mission is a desire to â€œmake an organic community of artists and help connect them with listenersâ€ according to the the labelâ€™s website. The rapid growth of the Map Fest — co-curated along with local lifestyle and entertainment weekly Ink Magazine — certainly serves as a testament to the labelâ€™s successes in realizing this objective. This yearâ€™s three-day music fest was headlined by Brooklyn-based outfit Grizzly Bear and featured 140 local, regional and national bands; its first year just 50 bands were showcased, according to Reusch. In 2012 the Map Fest also added a 50-speaker Forum component to provide a platform for local creatives, entrepreneurs and community leaders to discuss topics like social connectivity, curating responsibility and sustainable wellness.
For the first time since premiering in 2011, the Map Fest incorporated a five-day film event that featured over 25 films. Â The event kicked off on May 1 in Kansas Cityâ€™s Alamo Drafthouse with a screening of 1986 cult fantasy film Labyrinth (and opened with a David Bowie set by local band Soft Reeds). The film festâ€™s curator, Kansas City-bread filmmaker Mark Harrison, says he began the process of identifying films for the event at the beginning of the year after being commissioned by The Record Machine to help out. The process included building a dream list of films the planners hoped to screen during the festival then individually pitching either the filmmakers and movie distribution companies.
â€œAt the end of the day, I wanted to bring to films to Kansas City that I thought I could stand behind, that I personally wouldnâ€™t Â think twice about paying $25 to go see, and that I felt offered unique voices to the festival that could be discussed by any and all who attendedâ€ says Harrison.
Harrisonâ€™s own whimsically shot, self-described â€œfactumentaryâ€,Â Vanuary, chronicled the month-long adventure of its star, Dave Drusky, as he completed challenges whilst living in a 1982 Volkswagen Vanagon Westfalia camper van during the month of January. Both Harrison and Druksy fielded questions about their experimental film post-screening to get a sense of whether it could work as a feature length film and were met with positive responses from the crowd.
â€œThis was the first time people were watching it that didnâ€™t know me or didnâ€™t know Markâ€ says Drusky. Â And, itâ€™s one thing to say â€˜hey, friends and family, sit down and watch this hour and a half movie of me and Mark just having fun and doing Â all these activities in the van. But to have people not connected to us watch it and saying â€˜we want moreâ€™ was kind of an inspirational moment.â€
The filmâ€™s curatorial slant was unmistakably musical, Harrison admits (his band, Capybara, is a featured act on The Record Machineâ€™s label). Andrew Bird: Fever Year (2011, directed by Xan Aranda) — a film about about Chicago-based singer/songwriter Andrew Birdâ€™s return home after a year-long tour — was just one of the films showcased. Another music-doc featured was The Frames: In Deep Shade (2013, Conner Masterson), which chronicles the Irish band, The Frames, and their 20 year musical relationship; Â A Band Called Death (2012, Mark Christopher Covino & Jeff Howlett) shed an incredibly gripping light into the lives of the newly-discovered first all-black punk rock band out of Detroit.
Other documentaries that screened included Eating Alabama (2012, Andrew Grace), which recounts young coupleâ€™s attempt to eat only locally-grown food; Â Mincraft: Story of MojangÂ (2012, Paul Owens) looks into the company behind the hugely popular virtual game.Â We Are SupermanÂ (2012, Kevin Bryce), expounded on the struggles of a group of Kansas City residents working feverishly to revitalize several blocks of a long-ignored urban neighborhood.
The film festivalâ€™s roster also included a number of independent feature films. Campy martial arts-infused action Miami Connection (Y.M Kim, Woo-Sang Park, 1987) provided comedic nostalgia for fans of over-the-top 1980s action films. War Witch, a film that took its director Kim Nguyen a decade to complete, depicts the tragic pains faced regularly by African child soldiers through the story of 12 year-old Komona, played by a non-professional actressÂ Rachel MwanzaÂ and filmed over the course of a decade. Romantic drama Save the Date (2012, Michael Mohan) — a film loosely-based on the comics of graphic novelist Â and co-writer Jeffrey BrownÂ (readÂ interview)– also screened.
Reusch says he, Robinett and Russo are slowly easing into the planning process for next year, which patrons of the festival should undoubtedly appreciate given its steady successes throughout the years.
â€œWe have always tried to keep evolving the event organically and not trying to push things out that don’t seem to workâ€ says Reusch. â€œWe are still taking a little bit of a break and clear our heads start planning for next year.â€
The Map Fest was a much-appreciated introduction to region’s cultural landscape for this author (an admitted newbie to the area). For years,Â The Record Machine and others (Golden Sound Records, the Kansas City Film Fest and the Midwest Music Foundation, to name some) have buttressed Kansas City’s profile as a cultural hub amongst larger metropolitan regions like Chicago, Austin, and the obvious New York and Los Angeles. While one may not typically think to stay (or move ) to a place like Kansas City to make it big, the Map Fest could very well a spring board for many successful careers as it continues to expand and evolve in years to come.
â€œThe Cardinalâ€ by designer Jeff Laramore behind the Wishard Slow Food Garden near Washington & West St.
Greetings from Indianapolis, friends!
I spent the majority of June rolling up the west coast, visiting other lovely cities, giving out poetry broadsides, and spreading Indpls lore and legend.
Here are a couple of things that I was really looking forward to that I missed in June:
Image via Nuvo.netÂ
Independent Music and Arts Festival (IMAF)/ INDIEana Handicraft Exchange at the Harrison Center for the Arts: a yearly exchange of hand-made goods, visual art, and lots of music.
However, there were still plenty of artistic experiences to be had in the last two weeks of June.
When I arrived back to work at the Indianapolis Art Center I was greeted by a new exhibition called Under Construction that gets more fascinating every time I see it (which is every day). Giant wall “tapestries” made entirely out of duct tape by Garry Noland, paper cuttings of microscopic views of tree bark by Katie Vota, and objects handcrafted entirely out of pennies by Indianapolis-native Stacey Lee Webber.
The very next week at work I had an awesome experience of facilitating an Andy Goldsworthy inspired land art workshop with a group of about 80 urban teens. They made some seriously incredible stuff in just an hour and a half:
The following Saturday I joined a different group of teens on a public art bike tour in the city’s center.
This got me thinking that I should share a few of my favorite pieces of public art here in Indy!
This project is part of the legacy project that came out of Indianapolis hosting the Super Bowl in 2012. In just a few months, 46 new murals went up all over the city. Here are some of my favorites:
Image via Arts Council of Indianapolis
Indy’s Always on A Roll by Michael Cooper at the intersection of Virgina, Maryland and Delaware.
Image via Arts Council of Indianapolis
Trivergence by Carl Leck at the 10th st/Mass Ave gateway.
My absolute favorite mural in all of Indianapolis is a bit older though:
Color Fuses by Milton Glaser (1975) on the brutalist-inspired Minton-Capehart Federal Building. (corner of Penn and Michigan)
The mural is a giant rainbow that completely wraps the first story. The mural was recently restored to its former glory, and Glaser’s vision completed with the addition of a fully functional system of lights for enhanced viewing after dark.
I stopped by my friend Megan Hart’s show with Beth Eisinger, Archaeornithology – an Excavation of Urban Artifacts.
All of the objects and imagery included in the show were found in the neighborhood I live in on the near southeast side of Indianapolis – Fountain Square.
The show included Beth’s incredible (and affordable) handmade bird’s nests:
Including an enormous human-sized one:
Megan is fascinated with the act of collecting and categorizing urban artifacts (trash) to learn about the secret lives of her neighbors:
This show, coupled with homesickness from being out of town, has got me thinking a lot about art in Indianapolis, and how a lot of it celebrates our city, our neighborhoods, our streets, our friends.
And then, perfectly, this video about my favorite, wacky, DIY theater group, Know No Stranger was released! Video via our central Indiana contemporary art blog Sky Blue Window
Until next month!
Wendy Lee Spacek is a poet who lives and works in Indianapolis, Indiana. She likes her city veryÂ much. She is a core volunteer of the Indianapolis Publishing Cooperative (Indy Pub Co-Op), publishes small editions of handmade books under the name Soft River and is an arts administrator at the Indianapolis Art Center. She will be posting monthlyÂ all summer long about her encounters with art, culture, creative experiences and resources in her city.
Guest Post by Robert Burnier
Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.
Â From the Cosmology Hymn of the Rig Veda, c. 2000-1700 BCE
In the initial remarks of his recent lecture at Northwestern University, Tim Griffin offered as foundational that there is no timeless or natural state for art. G. Roger Denison, in his polemic on the Museum of Modern Artâ€™s exhibition, Inventing Abstraction, employs a cyclical view of history to reel in some of the statements made by that exhibitionâ€™s curators, suggesting that a â€œRe-â€ in front of the title would have gone a long way to calm his nerves. Richard Kalina writes of painting born from its perennial destruction, calling the prevalent cross sectioning and boundary exploration not a â€œstasis, but rather a new kind of growth.” These discussions can feel quite esoteric in a way, and yet if one pauses to consider the Sistine Chapel, for instance, and the way it sadly and slowly deteriorated over time, only to stir up an outrage at the garish colors produced after itâ€™s restoration, it becomes apparent that the public is constantly wrestling with its own expectations of artâ€™s duration. Additionally, Griffin spoke of a compressed, lossy JPEG image â€“ seemingly complete and yet missing most of its original information â€“ as a metaphor for spontaneous creation by art viewers and art historians; the radical necessity for reconstruction in the mind of someone observing. Denison takes a somewhat formalist approach as he draws comparisons among the art of differing eras, but nonetheless produces striking examples of historical syzygy, such as when he aligns the distant planets of Tantric and Supremacist painting two centuries apart or points out the sleek â€œmodernâ€ character of a Cycladic head carved perhaps 2,500 years ago. Kalina, for his part, seems compelled to fashion an outline of historical typologies as a kind of deck the artist can shuffle. He calls for â€œa non-judgmental format for viewing painting, and to allow for growth and expansion in a non-linearâ€ way. From this I take the author to mean that nothing is entirely off limits form the standpoint of art history and time; that we should think instead terms of consolidation and dispersion, linking and decoupling. Similar to what I said in an earlier essay about craft, when I suggested we look for â€œusage before material specificityâ€, we should look for the usage of an historical precedent in present terms. All of these views are reconstructions of history â€“ welcome ones for me. Even as the historical lines they push against are themselves constructions, they revitalize an openness in how a single work of art endures. But this also points toward how contemporary art production can have access to this shifting ground as a generative source. As things have come back around in the past, they can do so again for us â€“ the same but different. But this is not a merry-go-round, nor is it a journey toward some definite horizon. It is a widening field of activity expanding around us even as it reverberates and echoes the waves of the past. We can observe the freedom art and artists have had to loop and interact with, and not necessarily march through, history, even as they exist for the present and point toward the future.
Aside from any categories we might apply to our work, I like to think in terms of how things move; what dynamics keep us in the search, trying to create something, and trying to look critically at what is happening. There are aspects to life around the artist that change, like technology, politics, social tension and geography. These kinds of things morph at very different rates, some daily while others are fixed for millennia, which can create openings to explore as currents slide past each other. The artist can also look back and find a great deal unresolved, perhaps seeing something that was abandoned that could bear a lot more exploration. Alternately, in light of present circumstances, one can seek new meaning through an old, established idea. So in view of the approach to grappling with these issues as suggested by Kalina, I submit a few observations to consider in addition to the framing devices he offers us. I will touch on a few of these notions here, mainly focused on examples in painting and photography, knowing that they are only sketches or pointers toward a deeper investigation of these dynamics in future writing.
One steadfast source of change, as mentioned above, has been technological development. But as art observes this change it will necessarily index what came before as well. We can look far into the past, such as to the innovative oil painting of the 15th century Flemish master Jan van Eyck if we want to see the effects of a new technique or technology. He achieved a fidelity in surface and light that greatly added to the visual depth and presence of his paintings, enhancing the experience of story, idea and imagination in subjects that were themselves very well established. His Virgin of Canon van der Paele (1434â€“36) contains many of these innovations in the myriad facbrics, reflective surfaces and patterns, all bathed in a convincing light. And however utterly familiar the subject of Madonna and Child may have been, it is instructive how the artist could bring so much to it through his particular technique and vision, drawing it closer to the viewer than previously possible. And the cultural expectation to illustrate such subjects as the Passion of Christ, as exemplified in the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych (c. 1430â€“40) is fulfilled with new urgency and impact. The subject is reborn.
In our own day we can look at the work of an artist like Cory Arcangel, who has also tried to chisel something out of art history through new technological means. Although it got some mixed press, I thought there were a number of things to take from his 2011 Whitney exhibition, Pro Tools. There we saw a series of his Photoshop prints, which present themselves initially as machine-perfect geometric abstraction and color fields. On this level they speak plainly enough about modern art history, but more deeply they are conjugations of the character and limits of that digital medium on a most basic level. They seem to point toward a repeating, overarching pattern in history of medium exploration and technique discovery; of finding uses for them and expanding on the possibilities. Itâ€™s also worth considering that many of the functions and terms in Photoshop are themselves borrowed from other traditions that just werenâ€™t worth changing, so they stayed in the software. Iâ€™ve also always thought of Arcangelâ€™s work as both â€œfastâ€ and â€œslowâ€, liable to be obsolete in a year or sooner and yet connected to ideas that are truly glacial. An example would be his Paganiniâ€™s Caprice No. 5. It is resolutely about the way change affects us as we strive to remember who we are or were. Paganiniâ€™s romantic era composition is cut to ribbons by a software program that auto-tunes and selects the notes in the musical composition from a pool of amateur musical videos of mainly dudes on their couches playing guitar. The extremely short clips are reassembled back into a â€œsongâ€ of a decidedly estranged character.Â This double-facing view â€“ an old thing strained through new means â€“ is essential to the way the work speaks of loss (or lossy-ness) through a distorted nostalgia, but also issues of the democratization of esthetics through a DIY impulse and the technological dispersion of information, for better or worse. In the end, as with van Eyck, our relationship to a cannon of art has been forever altered, but not erased.
Besides generally contrasting with something prior exists the possibility of flowing with and redirecting it. Chicago artist Jeremy Bolen takes a position that mimics some prevalent aspects of the post-industrial age but draws radically different conclusions. He essentially hijacks the scientific method, but collates his â€œresearchâ€ in a way that produces more questions than answers. His alternate use of such a tried medium as photography â€“ whereby, in his words, he makes it additive rather than subtractive â€“ continues this line of redirection. The photographic plane is thus a base on which he accumulates rather than frames. Specifically, the images result from visiting the sites of particle accelerators throughout the world, and capturing echoes of the energy nearby on sensitive photochemical paper. It problematizes institutional research in the sense that it is not necessarily authorized (the scientists at the research facilities arenâ€™t always aware of where Bolen is working or what heâ€™s doing) and that the energy particles heâ€™s captured are arriving at locations they werenâ€™t ideally â€œmeantâ€ to go â€“ they are traveling beyond their preferred targets, such as in the series 350 Feet Above the Large Hadron Collider #1-4. Bolen not only captures the stray energy in these images, but re-situates them in a displaced representation of the location by layering a â€œconventionalâ€ photo of the site beneath. This also causes a rift in how results are obtained, as his are essentially esthetic, provocative and non-deterministic. It is as if heâ€™s running behind the scientists plucking out the seams of everything they try to sew up. Bolenâ€™s work not only expands on the possibilities of photography with his alternative approaches of imprinting an image but broadens our thinking about empiricism and knowledge acquisition in general.
Even going back to using some method of photography to simply record something, we can see how photographic reproduction causes shifts in meaning based on its place in time. Veroneseâ€™s The Wedding Feast at Cana (1563), now at the Louvre, Paris, was recently painstakingly scanned, duplicated, assembled and â€œreinstalledâ€ in Palladioâ€™s refectory at the San Giorgio Monastery in Venice Italy, where it originated.Â The reproduction of Veroneseâ€™s work is an expression of a longtime trend to â€œoriginalizeâ€ works of art from the past, either by restoring them to a location nearer their origins, in proximity to their original people, or by providing a context for them to be seen in a way somehow closer to what people in their time might have. The process by which this was achieved is fascinating enough; but almost like an artificial appendage, it is provocative to think about how it both provides a useful, educational facsimile even while it underscores loss and speaks to shifting world political power as a kind of prime mover.
If weâ€™re not necessarily breaking new ground all the time, does that mean weâ€™re only fussing with details and adding adornments, or is there another way to see this? As Kalina says, we can draw from these accumulations to â€œmake new spaces between existing areas, [and] reference new subject matter as the world around us changes.â€ I think of Robert Smithsonâ€™s Spiral Jetty as a fitting metaphor. He was very interested in the idea of entropy, but instead of focusing on its implications of dissolution and decay, I prefer to think about how a crystal forms by the same process of lowering its energy state and yet arriving at more structure than before. The jetty seems to disintegrate slowly, even disappears and reappears as the water level changes, but it is in fact also accumulating accretions of salt crystals. To this we could add more earth, continuing the outward spiral. From any point we are free to look toward the center or toward the open sea, but weâ€™d always be standing on its shore.
Â Formerly the editor-in-chief of Artforum and currently the Executive Director and Chief Curator of The Kitchen, a non-profit, interdisciplinary arts organization.
Â Critic, essayist, novelist and screen writer living in New York City who has written on art and culture for Art in America, Parkett, Artscribe International, Flash Art, Bijutsu Techo, Kunstlerhaus Bethanien, and numerous other international magazines and journals.
Â Colonizing Abstraction: MoMA’s Inventing Abstraction Show Denies Its Ancient Global Origins, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/colonizing-abstraction-mo_b_2683159.html
Â Painter and critic. He is a Contributing Editor at Art in America and is represented by the Lennon, Weinberg Gallery in New York. He is Professor of Art at Fordham University, where he teaches art history and studio art.
Â The Four Corners of Painting, The Brooklyn Rail, December, 2012, http://www.brooklynrail.org/2012/12/artseen/the-four-corners-of-painting
 Operations like cropping were, of course, previously quite physical undertakings with scissors or blades. Masks were just physical barriers to light in a photochemical process, and layers were simply layered negatives. The list could go on.
 Bruno Latour and Adam Lowe, The Migration of the Aura, or How to Explore the Original through Its Facsimilies, Switching Codes: Thinking through Digital Technology in the Humanities and the Arts, ed. Thomas Bartscherer and Roderick Coover (University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 275-97
ROBERT BURNIER is an artist and writer who lives and works in Chicago. He is an MFA candidate in Painting and Drawing at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago and holds a B.S. in Computer Science from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. Recent exhibitions include The Horseless Carriage at Andrew Rafacz Gallery, Salon Zurcher at Galerie Zurcher, New York, the Evanston and Vicinity Biennial, curated by Shannon Stratton, and Some Dialogue, curated by Sarah Krepp and Doug Stapleton, at the Illinois State Museum, Chicago.