New Feature: Feedback And Responses From IADT Students On The Following Speakers:

Eda Cufer
Dr. Paula Gilligan
Aislinn O'Donnell
Marcus Steinweg
Professor John Protevi
Professor Hugh J. Silverman
Dr. Beth Lord


Eda Cufer

‘What is Overidentification? A Mousetrap for Post-Moderns’

17 October 2006

Pamela de Brí

Eda Cufer’s talk entitled ‘What is Overidentification? A Mousetrap for Post-Moderns’ reflected on and referenced Yugoslavian Socialist society of the 1980’s. Ms Cufer discussed her artistic involvement with the experimental Slovenian music group Laibach and with NSK, the Slovenian art collective. The lecture was innovative and inspirational.

What I liked most about her talk was how she portrayed the genuine feeling of frustration by artists from the former Eastern block countries when they encountered the commercial attitude of most western artists. She showed how the sense of political comment and leadership was not dead when it comes to artistic expression in these countries. I began to think of the real meaning of art and its role in the twenty first century. In the past artists were often associated with left-wing thinkers and activists. They had the ability to make a point about society through their work. It seems to me that many contemporary artists have lost sight of their power, I would even say their role, in society, of exposing and commenting on such things as the commodification and commercialisation of art, injustices and inequalities in the world and in commenting on the meaning of life.
Pamela de Brí

3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Dr. Paula Gilligan (Head of Department of Humanities, IADT)

‘What is (a) Public (culture)?’

7 November 2006

John Murray

In a lively presentation lasting little over an hour, Paula Gilligan, Head of Humanities at IADT, outlined a vision of artistic endeavour that to my mind had a lot to do with politics and not that much to do with art.

Gilligan kicked off her talk by denouncing as myth the traditional notion of the artist as isolated, independent, apolitical and subversive. Citing Pierre Bourdieu, Gilligan argued that the artist is subject to the same influences as any other member of society. By extension, she implied, what the artist produces is bound to be the fruit of whatever set of influences to which the artist is subject. No arguments here, except that I felt already at this early stage of the talk that there was a certain hostility to the notion of the mysterious or magical in art.

I also wondered whether Gilligan was suggesting that the output of anyone producing art should be judged not on the art itself, the ‘what’, but on how the artist has responded to his or her particular circumstances. Furthermore, I wondered whether according to these criteria there was any absolute or intrinsic value in a piece of art or whether, to cite an example used by the speaker, there was as much art in kids making Halloween bonfires in Tallaght as there was in a painting by Matisse? To me the suggestion was that there was indeed no essential difference in these artistic endeavours.

Gilligan referred to the case cited by Michel de Certeau (in his book The Practice of Everyday Life, 1984, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press) of Fiat assembly-line workers in Italy being disregarded in their attempts to suggest creative solutions to the problems at the factory because they were not designated as creative thinkers. This she condemned as discriminatory, citing Edward Said, with whom she shared the view that culture (of which art is a subset) should be inclusive and not exclusive (see, for example, Said’s Culture and Imperialism, 1993, New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Taking ‘creative’ as a synonym for ‘artistic’, in my view Gilligan’s talk implied that the assembly line workers were not deemed artists (or creative thinkers) because they had not been named as such, ie that the problem was one of denomination. To take this thought further, might Gilligan be saying that everyone is an artist, or that everyone has creativity? If so, this is also a truism, but possessing a creative capability, surely, does not mean one is an artist.

This notion of inclusive (good) and exclusive (bad) seemed to be the key to understanding Gilligan’s notions in relation to art. The problem lies not with the – again, self-evident – truth that not enough people have access to artistic expression, but the implied suggestion that merely by giving someone access to artistic means of expression, that person will produce something of artistic value.

Nobody would deny the ‘validity’ of any piece of art that anyone might produce. To do so would be stupid. But what does ‘valid’ mean? Does it not merely mean that it is permissible, enjoyable and maybe even psychologically healthy for people to make art? It cannot mean much more. Perhaps, politically, it could be seen as a positive spin-off of the democratic project to spread the good stuff (art) around and take it away from the traditional art world, owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes. Again, most people nowadays could have no serious argument with this.

But the problem arises: if, after people are given means to express themselves, what they produce is no good, where does that leave the artist and the public? To the person who makes the art, it makes precious little difference, or should, but to the public it makes all the difference. A bad piece of art is not only of no artistic value; it clutters up the visual landscape and adds nothing of value to the public space.

Gilligan’s talk seemed to equate giving people access to art, teaching them the medium of art, with art itself. But is it not more true to say that giving people the language in which to express themselves artistically is precisely that: equipping them with the means to produce art. It is decidedly not the same as transforming people into artists. In fact, there is nothing artistic in teaching someone the basics of painting or drawing, or how to use a camera. But without some knowledge of the grammar of an artistic language, what they produce will be of limited artistic value.

This is not to say that one must be a master of technique before one can produce anything of value, but it is to say that ignorance of the medium, the language in which the artist chooses to express him or herself, can only produce ignorant work. One can draw a parallel with learning languages: if you only have a rudimentary grasp of, say, Italian, you cannot produce a sonnet in Italian, access to Petrarch and Dante is barred and while what you may produce might have some charm in its unschooled naivety, it won’t really mean that much as an exemplar of the Italian language.

John Murray

3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS

______________________________

Aislinn O'Donnell

'The Fragile Self: Deleuze and Affect’

21 November 2006

Pamela de Brí

Aislinn O’Donnell impressed me greatly with her talk ‘The Fragile Self: Deleuze and Affect’. Her talk was presented with accessible concepts and comprehensible language. She introduced me to ‘Deleuzean’ thinking on identity and difference, which led me to explore general meanings of identity, truth and difference in some of my work. As a result of this talk I have found myself regularly doing the exercise with which O’Donnell began her talk. She began the lecture by asking us to concentrate on the idea of thinking. We were asked to think about what thinking is, to observe our thoughts, to try and imagine or see what colours and shapes they are and to be consciously aware of how they come into your mind. I was reminded of Proust and the way he portrayed the fact that certain things, such as smells, can transport you into a past that never happened, that never existed. Deleuze explores the relationships between identity and difference and, while I may not agree altogether with his thinking, I have been motivated to research other philosophical thoughts on this subject and to seek out representations of the concept of identity and difference. This was the first time I could see really clearly the need for the exploration of philosophical thinking and its influence on art practice.

I imagine that I would really enjoy further talks on the role of philosophy in our thinking by Aislinn O’Donnell. Her enthusiasm was infectious. Her anecdotal references were relevant and interesting. The question and answer session was handled admirably and Ms O’Donnell ably fielded the questions with interesting responses.

Pamela de Brí

3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Marcus Steinweg

‘Touching the Untouchable: Philosophy and Art’

7 December 2007

Mary Quinn

Marcus Steinweg was born in 1971 and currently lives in Berlin, he writes on philosophical and literary themes and for several years he has been collaborating regularly with the artist Thomas Hirschhorn. Steinweg’s IADT lecture was focused on the relationship between art, philosophy and politics.

The information notice for the lecture promised an evening that would address a diverse range of questions that were in equal measure, profound and puzzling “What is human being? What is philosophy? What does it mean to affirm an exaggerated-ness, to undersign for its blindness, impotence and overtaxing as a subject of exaggeration? Can art and philosophy be such signatures of a subject that starts to assume responsibility for it’s overtaxing and its innocence and blindness? What is responsibility as excess and for the excess, for the exaggeration? What is the subject that constitutes it’s life out of this exaggerated responsibility?’

While Marcus Steinweg was an articulate speaker, at times it was challenging for this listener to grasp his particular use of language, as it wasn’t the normal language of art and artists, but rather the specialised discourse of the philospher. None the less, one of his ideas that really stood out for me – particularly in terms of thinking about and artmaking – was the idea of reaching beyond what we know to exist; and beyond the limit of reality to get “in contact with the untouchable”. I found it a very interesting and challenging notion. My understanding of this was that Steinweg was stressing the importance of reaching out beyond ourselves, to experience leaving our ‘selves’ altogether and stretching out into the universe, into the unknown – and suggesting to me the inspiring idea that your soul can take flight and find energy from a higher deity.

I also liked his ideas about freedom. My interpretation of what he said about a “space of infinite freedom” is basically to be open-minded and non-judgemental, or to use a philosophical term to ‘self-deconstruct’. Steinweg also seemed to be suggesting that we should at times leave our minds totally open – just like a blank canvas, in order to reach a state of nothingness, where we will find the possibility to ‘touch the untouchable’.

Steinweg discussed how we are all ultimately responsible for our own happiness and state of mind. He asserted the importance of taking more risks, being more courageous and not being so precious about ourselves. As Steinweg bluntly said “there is no alternative to being happy”. He argued that we make a decision to be ‘happy or to be depressed’.

Steinweg spoke about how we can often become ‘victims of circumstance’ and how we can all become prisoners of ourselves – and often we lack courage to break free from ourselves. As he pointed out, maybe it is our childhood or other aspects of lives, that hold us captive within our own minds. It struck that most people could identify with this idea – nobody escapes some damage on the journey through life. From Steinbeg’s analysis, it is easy to appreciate the idea that none of us is total master of our own destiny, and that each of us is a ‘victim’ of life or of living in which every day is a battle for survival. Moreover, his argument suggested how each of us is at war with a world – that tends towards chaos; and we all have our own invisible wounds.

Reflecting more on Steinweg’s lecture, I think it highlighted how we all experience demands on our busy lives – and artists are no exception – but we have to fight this idea of letting life getting us down; and work on keeping ourselves happy. This, to me seems what the lecture asserted, was the reality of life – we must guard against internalising and even wallowing in our depression. We are expert in the field of becoming victims to ourselves and we can be our own worst enemy. This way of thinking is the opposite of freedom of the mind and freedom from reality.

Steinweg’s lecture also reminded me of the concept of ‘emptying oneself of oneself’ and finding that part of our selves that is our ‘core being’. It’s only when we can reach that part of ourselves that we are really free to create something that is truly unique and truly ours. I believe that this is the secret to being happy.

The main point I left the lecture with is simply that we are free to choose. To some extent we are ‘products of ourselves’ and we therefore have the ability to change or reformulate ourselves in relation to what is limiting our freedom. As artists it is our responsibility to know who we are and to be free to express ourselves in our own unique way which best expresses our own identity. As Steinweg said we must ‘take the risk to be free’.

As someone new to the world of philosophy I found Marcus Steinweg’s lecture challenging to follow in places, but ultimately uplifting and inspiring – I went home with the ‘good news’ of ‘how to be happy’!

Mary Quinn
3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Professor John Protevi, (Department of French Studies, Louisiana State University)

‘Hurricane Katrina as a Natural and Social Event’

12 December 2006

Lorraine Byrne

John Protevi lives and works in Louisiana, which is not far from New Orleans. His talk centered on the social and cultural significance of the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina. Protevi’s talk was set out under four headings: ‘The land and the river’; ‘The sun; ‘The wind’ and ‘The sea – Hobbes and the people of New Orleans’.

What I found most interesting about John Protevi’s talk were the geographical and geological aspects of the causes of the flooding, and the historical and social element of how the population came to be. I enjoy geography and geology and have an interest in how the physical attributes of an area of land develops over time. I am always fascinated to hear of stories about man trying to control nature. Nature always finds a way of getting her own back!

Protevi began his discussion with an in-depth account of how shaping and management of the land and waterways in the area contributed to the large-scale devastation caused by the Hurricane. As he explained, through the years, the levees on the banks of the river were built and rebuilt in order to prevent flooding. The river channel was deepened to allow ships to come in from the ocean. This dried out the surrounding flood plains and killed the natural vegetation. It also resulted in coastal erosion, which in turn, did away with local industries such as shrimping. Ultimatley, the reclaimed land had no natural defences against storms and the sea.

Under his heading ‘The sun’, Protevi discussed a range of topics including the history of sugar cane crop production in Louisiana since the 1800’s. Along with this he also considered how it is the heat of the sun on the ocean that produce the ‘trade winds’ that propelled ships filled with cargo’s of goods, materials and slaves to the Southern States. He also noted that in particular the sugar industry, and its spin-off businesses, account for how the racial mix of the current population arrived in the New Orelans area.

Discussing ‘wind and sea’ Protevi noted a few facts about how the ocean and the wind combine to produce a storm or hurricane which I found fascinating.

His last point was about the culture of the current population of the area. In New Orelans the city has a both a high African-American population, and poverty rate. 80% of the city’s inhabitants were able to evacuate. Most of those left behind were African American.

Protevi noted that the media had made a big deal of the crime and disorder in the aftermath of the storm. There were many reports of looting, crimes against people and property, and others trying to protect what was theirs. The media implied that African American people were the main cause. Descriptions and analysis included notions such as the city as going back to a “state of nature”. He also explained that, in terms of the people who remained in New Orleans in the aftermath, Media coverage focussed on their efforts to protect their properties through the use of security patrols and guns – the message being reported was ‘every man for himself’. It seemed that as is usual in these situations, the more positive but less sensational stories about people who helped both neighbours and strangers make their way to safety, were not widely reported.

I also found the anthropological aspect of Protevi’s talk fascinating. He outlined a story of how peoples from very different backgrounds, came to co-exist in New Orleans and the surrounding regions. Protevi traced the history of the area, starting with the French invasion of the Caribbean island of Haiti, which under their governance was named St Domingue. The French set up sugar plantations to supply the European market. The people of the island were used as workers in sugar cane production – and to supplement the workforce, they took slaves from West Africa to the island. And to keep up with the demand for sugar, the French further established plantations in Louisiana. By the 18th century there were African, Caribbean, French and Native Americans living and working on the plantations. As Protevi pointed out, it is their descendants who make up the population of the region today.

Lorraine Byrne
3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Professor Hugh J. Silverman

‘Vestiges of Responsibility and the Art of Making Differences’

13 January 2007

Pamela de Brí

The title of the lecture by Professor Silverman was ‘Vestiges of Responsibility and the Art of Making Differences’. He spoke of the need to be responsible for one’s own acts and behaviour but not for the behaviour of others and he produced examples of this to re-enforce his point. Professor Silverman began his talk with an extract from the film on McCarthyism in 1950’s America called ‘Goodnight and Good Luck’. He finished his talk with an extract from a contemporary film ‘Crash’ to clearly illustrate his points. He interspersed his very dense lecture with a variety of visual representations of ‘The Annunciation’. Professor Silverman divided his lecture into three parts which was delivered with little attempt to entertain the audience and although not totally incomprehensible, his talk was extremely difficult to follow mainly because of the complicated language he used. He quoted regularly in French from St Exubery, Jean Luc Nancy and Merleau-Ponty.

My first impression and reaction to the talk was that of confusion and difficulty in understanding what exactly Professor Silverman was trying to discuss. However, I found myself revisiting various points which he made concerning the role of art in society. It seems to me that Professor Silverman has discovered a role for fantasy, magic and myth in modern commentary on society. I realised how one could explore these elements in ones art practice without it becoming merely illustrative or decorative. In hindsight I can see the relevance of his ideas about taking responsibility for behaviour in our lives and our creative production. Professor Silverman has had the effect of making me think again about how I represent my own thinking which can only be beneficial to my art practise.

Pamela de Brí

3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Dr. Beth Lord

‘The Relationship between Philosophy, Museums and Curatorship’

20 February 2007

Maíre Keogh

Dr. Beth Lord is a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Dundee. Her interests are in “how ontology, epistemology and metaphysics intersect with philosophies of nature, life, and production”. Her other area’s of research include philosophy and museums.

For her talk at IADT Dr. Lord looked at museums – how they are curated and the philosophy behind them.

In her lecture she raised a number of questions. How can objects be used to communicate history without presenting history didactically? How can museums return power to objects without making the exponents merely aesthetic? Is the object related to the past? What are the traditional models of history in the museum? Is there a current trend between didacticism and aestheticism? By way of examples she looked a three museum spaces – The Grands Galerie at the Louvre Paris; the ‘enlightenment gallery’ in The British Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum.

In the course of her discussion she considered platonism – Plato’s philosophical questioning of how objects might represent particular instances of universal concepts; and how we recognise universals through our encounters with particulars. She then discussed the notion of hermeneutics (the art of interpretation) and she explained how this works in the museum context – (i) by multiple interpretations of the object; (ii) interpreting the object by replaying its truth in the present and (iii) understanding the past by projecting the self back in time, and thereby gaining empathy with the past. In other words the visitor leaves the museum enlightened with a new sense of something.

In terms of the traditional history of the museum; and taking the Imperial War Museum North as an example (www.ivm.org.uk ) she noted “people love this museum. It always receives great reaction from the public – but why?”. Dr Lord suggested the answer lay in the ways that the museum replicated a ‘historical trajectory’ and that it presented historical objects as tools for recognising concepts and connecting with the past. For example, visitors are issued with WW2 style identity cards – which connects them with the history. Lord noted that this is proving to be a successful tactic in museums – it creates feelings of empathy, whereby the visitor engages more with the past.

However Lord was also interested to see how can a “history of memory” be promoted, rather than just empathy. By way of example she spoke about the ‘Museo de America’ in Madrid, which is Spain’s museum of its colonial past (www.museodeamerica.mcu.es) Lord discussed how this museum operates – emphasizing that it offers (i) no continuous historical narratives, (ii) no general concepts of cultures and (iii) objects are not used ‘illustrativly’.

Citing Micheal Foucault, Lord made the case for this more open approach, stating that “total history assumes that the past can be understood in its totality, according to a single principle. It moves from the monument to the document. General history starts with the differences, specificities and discontinuities of the past and moves from the document to the monument.”

She then went on to explain that in order to make the telling of history in museums truly effective, it was necessary to “reject universal concepts and the idea of a fixed past” but instead “focusing on the power of an object to unfold multiple stories without aestheticism; to reject the fixed subject and refuse the hermeneutic leap and start not with universal concepts or historical continuities, but with relations of objects.”

Concluding her lecture, Dr. Lord made some brief summary points – (i) “The 21st Century history museum can give power to both objects and visitors; avoiding both didacticism and aestheticism”(ii) The visitor engages in the work of history (iii) the museum experience is enjoyable.

Further reading:
1. Foucault’s Museum: Differences, representation and Genealogy. Article by Dr. Beth Lord printed in ‘Museum and Society’.This is an interdisciplinary journal which brings together new writing by academics and Museum professionals.
2. Museums and how to use them: Alexander Eugenie.

Maíre Keogh
3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________

Dr. Beth Lord

‘From the Document to the monument: Museums and the Philosophy of History’

20 February 2007

Pamela de Brí

The title of the talk from Dr Beth Lord was ‘From the Document to the monument: Museums and the Philosophy of History’. Dr Lord spoke of the methods of display in traditional and modern museums and of what ‘atmosphere’ the museum creates by the methods of display they adopt. She spoke of ‘hermeneutics’ – or in other words the art of interpretation; and whether the aim of the display is that of multiple interpretations or of emphasising information of subjective response. Also Dr. Lord considered how ‘history’ – instead of memory, thinking – instead of empathy is promoted in the museum of today. Dr Lord compared and contrasted the Imperial War Museum in Manchester with the Museo de America in Madrid.

At first I wondered what this had to do with my own understanding of art.My immediate reaction was to dismiss the talk as irrelevant to me and my art practise. But as the talk progressed I began to see connections. This talk had lots to do with looking – and how we present our artwork for display. For example, without presenting a continuous historical narrative the Museo de America, starts with the object itself – and does not use them to ‘illustrate’ particular era’s, as it is aiming not to fall into the trap of the assumption that the past can be understood in its totality.

However, I am inclined to disagree with this concept, mainly because of the regular revisionism that occurs in the representation of history in a lot of countries. This was very evident in Ireland in the eighties with the complete revisionism of nationalist history during the time of the ‘Troubles’ in the North. I think that this new thinking allows the various countries, their governments and societies to deny a past role in the exploitation, even annihilation of the culture, language, traditions and values of another (usually an occupied) country. I feel that this is what is happening in the Museo de America where the Spanish government takes no historical responsibility for the plunder and destruction by their forefathers, of ancient cultures in Central and South America. In my opinion these type of curatorial approaches add to the ‘dumbing down’ of historical events in the interest of expanding economic globalisation. History has a very important role in all of our identities and I think that truth should not be sacrificed in the interest of selfish economics.

Pamela de Brí
3rd Year, Visual Arts Practice, ACCS
______________________________