high art, text style

since high art is more than just visual, i decided to share some pretty awesome poetry with you all. i have some other stream of consciousness types of writing that ill post later. im really interested in this as a literary technique as of late. im not sure it actually exists, because i believe we filter everything. but its interesting to try and even more interesting to contemplate.
i wrote this about the phonejacker, who seems to be my muse lately. i also wrote a piece titled Baby about a guy that i hung out with for a short time. i wrote Baby because i was inspired by Jamie Stewart of XiuXiu and how he uses his words in his songs. Baby was directly inspired by Fabulous Muscles. Its my take on my own personal experience.


“phonejacker text message”

now in your mouth (sick
fuck ) practice (on you)
gagged (sorry) on it
uh huh

deep in your throat (makes my
eyes water) press your tongue against (tell
me) lick it while sucking
spit on it (my favorite)

suck the top half (sometimes
too boring) jerk the bottom half
(make it better) rub my
while i tease your (say it)

feel your (h
ow) lick up and down
sucking (good boy) on your lips
ill gladly do it

take my (no you)
i want (me) you to come (w
here) on me
on my (your face) face
_________________________________

"Baby"
I grate away my expectations of decency on the abrasiveness of your attitude towards the idea of commitment. Yet I continue to call you baby and pretend you didn’t say it because I’m disgustingly shallow and in love with your body that is covered in tattoos, secretly hoping that your mind could be just as beautiful if I just kept thinking it could be.
I allow myself to be something for you to do and I love it because for those few minutes I think if I keep doing it long enough I can convince you to change, baby.
I was hanging my hopes for courtesy and consideration of me on your ten-inch dick. It was honest. When you get soft, baby, those hopes fall off and go crashing to the floor.
I pick them up and save them for next time.

technicolor masturbation fantacy

James Bidgood was a young gay man in Manhattan in the late 50's early 60's. His photographs embody the essence of Sontag's meditation on Camp (the love of the exaggerated).
Originally aiming to be an actor, he ended up taking photographs for magazines and appeared regularly as a drag performer at Club 82 in the East Village.
His photos are usually of young naked men in elaborate scenes which draw from mythology. His work deals with self-invention. Glamorous identities assumed by so many who came to NYC from someplace else, roles that gay men assume, ect. He makes huge elaborate colorful sets for photos about masturbation fantisies. His images have a technicolor type look and are extremely glamorous.

Now Walk It Out

The following two video clips are an example of the continuity of the happy, dancing black tradition in society. The first is 1903 cake walk. A cake walk was a 'comical dance' performed by black people for entertainment. When I saw the cake walk clip, I immediately connected it with some of the dances that our out now, especially walk it out. The second is a group of kids dancing to walk it out in 2006. 104 years later, the tradition continues.

1903- Cake Walk


2006- Walk It Out

The blacker the berry, the more sour the juice

Quick Note: My last few posts haven't been very art related, but have focused more on culture. I strongly believe that in order to have a grasp of art, people must have a understanding of society and culture, all of which is reflected in art. My last few posts, and probably my next few to come, will deal with race on some context. Race is such a huge deal around the world, and I hope that what I post will shed some light on the representation of black people in all forms of art (including literature, film and music).

Image: 1800's Gollywog. A gollywog was a doll representation of black people.
Now on with the post!

In my Obama connection post, I wrote about the frustration of many people of black heritage not being considered black, based on the way they act. I was doing research on master-slave relationships when I read some very interesting material which shed some light on the classification of blacks.

In the 1800's when DNA testing was not sophisticated at all, scientists stated that 37 percent of all black people were part white. The bulk of that 37 part white percentage were slaves that were free and living in the north. This number is very surprising, especially when faced with theses facts: Masters definitely had sex with their females slaves and had children...regardless of how prominent this was, and indentured white servants mated with black slaves. In the north, although black people were free, race mixing was still taboo. Wouldn't it then seem that black people with white heritage would be evenly dispersed in the north and the south?
Although the obvious answer is yes, society at the time would not want to own up to that...leading to the root of the black classification issue present in the United States now.

Free black people had more access to education than enslaved black people. White people, and especially those making up statistics for the percentage of blacks with white lineage, were well aware of this. By stating that blacks in the north were more white than blacks in the south meant that the less black you were, the more educated and refined you were. The blacker you were, meaning that you were less refined, less education, and rebellious. This is shown clearly in an ad looking for a runaway slave which loosely stated that a slave was light skinned, but was not partially white. Lets think about this...a light skinned slave that's not partially white? Africans are generally darker skinned, a lighter color at this time would mean that the slave was partially white. Of course, a white person would not want to connect themselves as sharing the same lineage as a rebellious slave, but would have no problem saying that an educated black person in the north was part white. The blacker the berry, the more sour the juice.

Same story now, a person is considered to not be black enough if they act a certain way, but are more black if they are seen as within the stereotype.

This thought process has spread, not only among white people, but within the black community as well. Current studies shows that all black people in American are on the average 25 percent white. Black people pretty much share the same genetic make-up, so the way we act doesn't make us more or less black. This really proves the point that society constructs being black as how you act than a racial identity.

Video Posts, Nigger

A musical journey of Nigger

Nigger is word that is surrounded in controversy, and rightfully so. As a black person, I must say that I really don't take offense to it, depending on the context. I am a firm believer that words change meaning. And I think it is so powerful that the black community took a word that was used to demean, and shifted the meaning into something positive. A word that was once used to mean ignorant darkie, is now a friendly interjection in black conversation. I don't even know if a lot of black people realize that the meaning shift is powerful, but it is and worthy of noting. A similar word meaning shift happened with the word gay.

The prominent use of the word means that it can be used by a variety of races in cultures. Black people can't hold exclusive ownership of a word and use it often, then get offended when another race of person says it. I don't get my panties in a bunch if I hear a white person say to another person 'I'm hungry..niiggaaaa', because obviously they were using the word nigger in different context than 'ignorant black person'. Update : I read an interesting statement by Cornell West, which I loved. West stated that the rhythm and flow in conversation is very important. When used in a sentence, nigga is important to retaining a certain rhythm. If using another word to replace nigga, such as homie or dog, the lyrical nature of the sentence is lost and the flow is broken. I am aware that people do still use the word in it's original meaning, with the intent to offend and demean, and that's something that really isn't okay.

The following music videos all contain the word nigger, but used in various ways. They show the importance of listening to all words, not only nigger, in their context to reveal a meaning beyond the surface meaning. Most notably is Patti Smith's Rock and Roll Nigger, which says that Jesus Christ was a rock n roll nigger. She wasn't saying that Jesus was an ignorant black man, but rather a wonderful outcast that did some great stuff.

Ice T and Jane's Addiction "Don't call me Whitey, Nigger"



John Lennon's Woman is the Nigger of the World


Patti Smith's "Rock and Roll Nigger"


NWA- Always into Something


NAS - Be a Nigga Too

The Joy of Blaxploitation

I know I have voiced my opinion about black people chuckin and jivin for the man to be accepted, but blaxploitation is great. I think that there is something beautiful and wonderful about taking a stereotype, exaggerating it, playing up the role, and doing something great all at the same time. Blaxploitation did that, and played a crucial role to getting black people main roles in movies. Also, it wasn't a white man doing these movies and casting the black people to be a certain way, but rather black people taking the power back, creating a genre, and influencing movies from that point on.

The Legend of Nigger Charley




Boss Nigger

The Obama Connection / The plight of the acceptable negro/ TV on the Radio...madness

-Cover of the 1899's children book "Black Sambo". Sambo being a racial slur for black.

First off, I need to point out my love of TV on the Radio, and especially Barack Obama. Now on with the point of this...

I'm really sick of political commentary, and a lot of other people in the world debating over how black Obama is. Because he doesn't announce his blackness on a daily basis, put an strong emphasis on only black relations, speak in Ebonics, or break out into dance every time he hears a beat, somehow he really isn't really black but more of an 'acceptable negro'.

I'm having the same problem in my life as a black female. I am obviously black, but am often excluded from my race of people because of the way I speak, the way I wear my hair, and the things I like. The two most prominent examples of exclusion I can think of now is when a girl said she there were way too many black people in the club, and she didn't like that, but I didn't count because I was a 'pretty black', and people I work with saying that on a scale of blackness, I was at the low point and not at the high point and therefore not really all that black.

Blackness now has less to do with heritage or skin color, but more to do with the stereotypical idea of black people and how well they fit into that realm of blackness. Obama, me, and a few of people I know go through the same problem. I think as a country, we really need to examine how we classify black people and learn to take into account the rich history, the complex mix of races that might be a part of a black persons lineage, and that being black isn't just talking loud and eating fried chicken.

As black people, we deal with a lot of issues regarding expectations of how we should be. TV on the Radio has a song about blood diamonds which is called 'The Wrong Way', when I hear it, I can't help but to take the first part of the song out of context. It states:

woke up in a magic nigger movie
with the bright lights pointed at me
as a metaphor
teachin' folks the score
about patience, understanding, agape babe
and sweet sweet amour.

When I realized where I was
did I stand up and testify
oh, fist up signify
or did I show my soft shoe
maybe teach 'em a boogaloo
busy playin the whore

When I heard it in the recent months, I always think of Obama, and now I think about myself and black people in general. We are some great people, and have lots to contribute to the world, but they don't want to see that. People want us to be the entertainers, the bojanglers, the silly clowns in bright colors and big clothes that can bust a funny rap, and chuck a jive every now and again. If a black person isn't that way and reflect a different black outside of the stereotype, the discourse quickly shifts from the great things they are doing, to how they aren't black enough. If a black person is chucking and jiving every 3 minutes, they are accepted as being black and can fit into mainstream culture, but then are talked about for how 'black' they are acting and put down, therefore being accepted, but not an acceptable negro. It's a situation that seems like it can't be won. A sick cycle which keeps repeating itself.

I guess it'll be okay in the distant future. When you think about it, being black in America is a fairly new concept. We were shipped her from Africa or Caribbean islands, had our culture, religion, family and freedom stripped from us, and had to develop a new culture out of basically nothing. I think we are all, black...white...red, trying to fine tune things. Maybe one day black people will just be able to be black, without being analyzed and placed on a scale of blackness.

Welcome Back Nia!

I was anticipating your return to the blogosphere. Thanks for posting those great papers. Here is your welcome back gift, a fierce picture of Andre J. I'm done with classes for the summer, so be expecting some boss posts dealing with race and religion in art. Until then, enjoy the radiant Andre J.

Perverton Papers.

so basically, i wrote these three papers on morality in art, and the purpose of high art and yada yada yada. i know i havnt posted in a while and when i do, its usually awesome pictures and virgin mary barbies and shit, but im really excited about how these turned out. and after today, ill be freeeeee to post whatever fuckery i can think of, since my kids are done with their finals. woot. so without further ado, please enjoy and read this in a state of pure shock and joy:

PAPER1:
Art and Moral Function
Art and its moral function can only be determined on a piece by piece or artist by artist basis. A universal statement about whether or not art as a whole can make us better morally is impossible to make. Art can make us better morally, but should it have moral authority? The latter should not be believed to be true, and the thought of it as being such is slightly terrifying.
It is certainly not the place of art to project a moral authority of influence. It was said by Robert Hughes in his essay Art, Morals, and Politics that “there is just no generalizing about the moral effects of art, because it doesn’t seem to have any. If it did people who are constantly exposed to it, including all curators and critics would be saints, and we are not” (Hughes, 23). Hughes’ statement is notable because he believes strongly that you cannot make a blanket statement about the moral effects of a work of art. This statement is arguably the most accurate in determining the morality of art. Traditionally, the artist is not known for being the most upright of citizens, thus assuming the artist’s (as well as the curators and critics) role is to generate work that should make us better morally is somewhat absurd.
Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe also makes an interesting point with regards to the role of an artwork and the moral function. In the end, his definite place in the matter is still somewhat unclear, however, he makes a good point in the defense of art not serving a moral function in Seriousness and Difficulty in Contemporary Art and Criticism by saying that “the work of art is inherently irresponsible because its open to the possibilities available to the signifier when the latter is freed from the constraints of the signified” (Gilbert-Rolfe, 144). This remark relates directly to the into the idea that the work of art cannot can not have a general statement be made for or against its moral place in the world. Gilbert-Rolfe goes on in his essay to de-value the intent of artists such as Jenny Holzer, saying that her work does such things as “pretend that difficult ideas can be reduced to simple formulations” (Gilbert-Rolfe, 145). It seems as if he is opposing the moral authority or agenda of the artist by saying that sometimes the matter at hand is a bit heavier than its representation by the artist. He is for an art that makes the audience take responsibilities of themselves and of the artwork, by making them a “citizen instead of consumer” (Gilbert-Rolfe, 145).
Donald Kuspit talks about Jenny Holzer’s agenda as well in Art and the Moral Imperative: Analyzing Activist Art. In his writing he goes on to discuss the fact that her work is a “confused result” of an art that is “intending to be socially catalytic” and “deals with an issue that has become not just an urgent matter of survival but entertaining, ‘popular’” (Kuspit, 139). Both writers dismiss her work and basically say it is irrelevant because it is a popularization of serious, heavy issues and it becomes more entertainment than political statement. This position is agreeable; Holzer’s work, although aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, is oversimplifying serious issues, thus canceling out any hope of moral effect on the part of the audience. Entertainment is not moral and should not aim be moral.
The writings of Suzi Gablik and Allan Kaprow are entirely unclear, however give the impression of being in favor of the moral influence and authority of art. Perhaps the uncertainty over the agenda of these writers comes from the complete inability to personally be able to connect with the idea that art is/should be moral, at least in a political sense.
In closing, the moral influence of art exists, however, the moral agenda or authority on the part of the artist should not. People can be effected by a work of art whether that was the intent of the artist or not. It is the audience that is moral and assigns morality, not the artist or the work of art.

Works Cited
Gilbert-Rolfe, Jeremy. "Seriousness and Difficulty in Contemporary Art and Criticism." Theories of Contemporary Art (1993): 141-155.
Hughes, Robert. "Art, Morals and Politics." The New York Review April 23, 1992: 21-27.
Kuspit, Donald. "Art and the Moral Imperative." New Art Examiner January 1991: 136-143.

PAPER2:
The Relationship Between High Art, Kitsch and Mass Culture Today
In his essay Avant-garde and Kitsch, Clement Greenberg does not hold kitsch to very high regards at all. Greenberg insists on constantly reducing the value of kitsch in society. According to Greenberg, it is “popular, commercial art and literature with their own chromeotypes, magazine covers, illustrations, ad’s, slick pulp fiction, comics, Tin Pan Alley, music, tap dancing, Hollywood movies, etc., etc” (Greenberg, 543). It is noted that the relationship existing between the avant-garde and kitsch is somewhat like the relationship between the bourgeois and the folk culture. The former exists as a minority, however is cultured, and therefore more powerful. The folk culture is poor and ignorant, and thus cannot appreciate the avant-garde, as it is too advanced (Greenberg, 546). One is clearly better than the other.
With this being said, it must be stated that this writing came to existence in 1939. This is a time period before the advent and accessibility of the mass culture of today, as well as the theories that go along with it. One must wonder how much the world and its relationship to art has changed in over six decades. Greenberg makes a very clear definition of kitsch as it was in the time his writing was composed:

“Kitsch, using for raw material the debased and academicized simulacra of genuine culture, welcomes and cultivates this insensibility. It is the source of its profits. Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money-not even their time.” (Greenberg 543)

This statement begs to be analyzed according to today’s standards. Does kitsch still exist in line with these terms? If kitsch is “mechanical and operates by formulas” and demands “nothing of its customers except their money” then could it be said that the “high art” of contemporary America functions as the true kitsch? The absurd cost of studio space in New York’s famous Chelsea neighborhood, combined with the sheer insanity of fairs such as Art Basel Miami has forced art into business. If kitsch is about popularity, not thinking, and the degrading of culture, then the art world is definitely kitsch. It no longer holds its high place because it has given way under the constant weight of capitalism, making it sellable, and pleasing to the masses, thus “kitsch”, as defined by Greenberg. If it wasn’t pleasing to the masses, then Art Basel Miami would not exist. If “high art” was still as high as Greenberg describes, then southern California housewives wouldn’t be trolling the Miami Convention Center buying up Rauschenberg’s as if they were a supermarket special. This was an eye-witnessed event. It has become too much about academia, name-dropping, and theory; all of which can be boiled down to a formula. Art is mass culture. Art is Hollywood.
Mass culture and popular culture, although cheap, perhaps produces more in terms of the moving forward of culture. It doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is, and is constantly changing with each developing trend. It doesn’t lie about its purpose. The capitalist intent is still there, but some new kind of simulacra is without a doubt blinking in front of your face every second of the day, begging to be contemplated. The fact that we, as a society, are fully aware of this and it still works, makes popular culture much more intelligent than we give it credit for.
With the constant beating of mass culture and popular culture into our lives, and the art world giving into this as well, it should be said that the role of “fine art” today does not exist. Perhaps the avant-garde and the kitsch have merged. Maybe the kitsch is the high art and the high art is the kitsch. It could be a bit of both, however, if one considers the art world in its current state art, then one must consider mass culture to be art as well.
I today’s world accessibility is key. Most importantly, accessibility to all people is essential, not just ones who can afford it. Literature such as the WHY CHEAP ART? Manifesto clearly exemplifies the condition of being that the art world should be in by stating, “people have been thinking too long that art is a privilege of the museums and the rich. Art is not business! It does not belong to banks and fancy investors. Art is food. You cannot eat it, but it feeds you. Art has to be cheap and available to everybody” (Bread and Puppet Theatre, 1984).
The definitions and relationship of avant-garde and kitsch as discussed by Greenberg are moot in contemporary society. We must move past these dated
ideals and look toward a world where we either broaden the terms, or fully allow them to merge.


Works Cited
Bread and Puppet Theatre, the WHY CHEAP ART? manifesto. Glover: 1984.
Greenberg, Clement. Art in Theory: 1900-2000. 1st. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003


PAPER3:
Is High Art Essential Today?
Before discussing the essentiality of High Art in today’s culture, it is imperative to define what High Art means. According to Clement Greenberg in Avant-Garde and Kitsch the avant-garde or high art, as it were, exists to keep culture moving, requires intellect to enjoy and is harder to produce, since it requires so much intelligence to create. Kitsch, on the other hand, is artwork that more or less takes the path of lease resistance, and is easy. Kitsch is a diluted version of the capitalist world. It is popular and taken for granted. (Greenberg, 541-543)
This definition is limited and out of date. First, it is important to understand that, although Greenberg makes many good points in his writings on the subject, it is no longer necessary in contemporary times to rely on such black and white fascist ideas of, not only what art should be, but what high and low art should be. This is not to say that we should all completely abide by the “anything goes” rules of postmodernism, but rather allow a broader idea of what value is within the art world and mass and popular culture.
With the movements of Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, and, most importantly, Pop Art which all have broadened the scope of what high art is, we must now push this idea even further by, not only challenging the notions of high art, but completely changing the perception of such ideals. Who decides what moves our culture further? Who decided what was to be considered intelligent and what was to be considered motionless?
It should be noted that social theorists such as Jean Baudrillard have made it possible for the world, specifically America, to consider the effects of mass culture in his essay Simulacra and Simulations. This writing is aimed specifically at the effects of the media, or “images”, on “reality” (Baudrillard, 166-184). After reading this, and learning about the images which equal “reality”, such as Disneyland, and its implications on the population, which Baudrillard discusses, it could be argued that mass culture and popular culture itself could be considered high art, despite its place within the realm of kitsch, as defined by Greenberg.
If high art means intellect, difficulty, and the moving forward of culture, then how can popular culture and mass culture be considered low? The design and sheer amount of consideration that must go into the planning of the simulacra (because it doesn’t just come to be, it is, in fact, invented), is noticeably profound, such that, its effects are incredibly wide spread. The so-called high art of today, such as the painting of Richard Estes or worse yet, Thomas Kincade, relies solely on conventions of the past, conforms to universal standards of beauty and does not challenge or move anything forward in terms of culture. It
should be argued that movements, performances, and people such as the Harajuku street style, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the advent of self-reflexive entities such as the iPod, YouTube and MySpace, along with the people behind proverbial curtain, is the real high art. If the definition of high art, according to Greenberg, is about the moving forward of culture, and the difficulty of the work’s production because of the intelligence level required to fathom the idea of the concept, then no doubt, popular culture and mass production is high art. One has to be incredibly genius to invent it, and properly market it so that it catches on and people “buy it” (no pun intended). The people that are involved in the machine that is called mass culture and popular culture define us, the consumer. This constant rule over the masses also requires the very essential knowledge of the power which the persons involved possess, thus the incredible sway they have over the world. This argument could be dismissed as being willfully ignorant to the people and objects involved within the machine, as it were, however, it must be noted that if one exists and functions within the mainstream world, then the machine has won. However, perhaps one never even has a chance to decide whether or not to even play.
This being said, the question of the necessity of high art must now be addressed. If high art should be defined as Greenberg has defined it, then it has not been essential since the days of Dadaism. In fact, it is dead. However, for the
reasons described above, with the newly defined high art discussed within this writing, it remains not only essential, but also necessary. We need it in order to exist. Without it, we are nothing.
It is stated clearly that perhaps mass culture and popular culture are the real high art, and because we, as Americans, have become dependant on such, it (high art) is essential and necessary. It should be said, however, that when it really comes down to the argument that Greenberg makes about high art and low art, combined with the essentiality of high art today, we must note and become aware and comfortable with the fact that the two have almost completely merged.

Works Cited

Baudrillard, Jean. Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1988.
Greenberg, Clement. Art in Theory: 1900-2000. 1st. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.







SO basically, art is too pretentious. make entries about this.