ART 272 Spring 2009, Department of Art Theory & Practice, Northwestern University
Thursday, April 2, 2009
"Beauty is but the promise of happiness" - Stendhal, early 19th century "Art is the promise of happiness, a promise that is constantly being broken" - Theodor Adorno 1969 Hans Haacke Right to Life 1979, Jack Goldstein Untitled 1982
I remember the Jack Goldstein piece from last quarter. It's an image of war and violence that Goldstein has beautified and disguised. This piece seems to question our standards of meaningfulness and aesthetic pleasure. What does it suggest when we're drawn to a deceptive piece like this one? What we think are the image's meaningful qualities are in fact artificial, the result of a clever use of silhouette and color. The true, horrific image lies beneath the surface and carries an entirely different connotation. Are meaningfulness and the beauty it defines for us some sort of sham, an illusion?
I'm assuming the term "right to life" is an ironic one. In this piece Haacke exposes the methods by which corporate America attempts to protect its behavior from public scrutiny and criticism- by constructing meaning and framing the issue. Framed as a pleasing portrait vignette, the central image of the girl establishes an immediate rapport with the viewer. Her attractive features and bright, confident smile lure the viewer into a mood of trust and complacency. However, as in the Goldstein, what appears beautiful and aesthetic is deceptive and false. In this case, beauty is used to mask the implications of the text, and the corporation's rather disturbing choices. Instead of re-working the production process to decrease the workers' exposure to toxic materials, if the worker wants to protect herself and her child she must leave or be demoted, neither of which is an attractive option. It seems as if the company punishes someone for the "right to life."
2 comments:
I remember the Jack Goldstein piece from last quarter. It's an image of war and violence that Goldstein has beautified and disguised. This piece seems to question our standards of meaningfulness and aesthetic pleasure. What does it suggest when we're drawn to a deceptive piece like this one? What we think are the image's meaningful qualities are in fact artificial, the result of a clever use of silhouette and color. The true, horrific image lies beneath the surface and carries an entirely different connotation. Are meaningfulness and the beauty it defines for us some sort of sham, an illusion?
I'm assuming the term "right to life" is an ironic one. In this piece Haacke exposes the methods by which corporate America attempts to protect its behavior from public scrutiny and criticism- by constructing meaning and framing the issue. Framed as a pleasing portrait vignette, the central image of the girl establishes an immediate rapport with the viewer. Her attractive features and bright, confident smile lure the viewer into a mood of trust and complacency. However, as in the Goldstein, what appears beautiful and aesthetic is deceptive and false. In this case, beauty is used to mask the implications of the text, and the corporation's rather disturbing choices. Instead of re-working the production process to decrease the workers' exposure to toxic materials, if the worker wants to protect herself and her child she must leave or be demoted, neither of which is an attractive option. It seems as if the company punishes someone for the "right to life."
Post a Comment