|
|
My Final Votes by Eduardo
Navas
| |
My votes are in. Now I
am about to display them on the discussion area. I have thought
about the judging process and must admit that many naturalized
issues came to the fore as I read the postings in this forum. I am
now in the process of re-evaluating these biases and developing a
different critical position, which hopefully will need to be revised
not long from now.
One thing that I always wondered about
juried competions, such as MTV vs. The Oscars, is the drastic
choices made by the mass public vs. the elite critics. This, I
always thought, was due to differing critical paradigms. The
public's choice (MTV) is often based on preconceived ideas that have
been commodified to the level of convenience, while the critics (who
consider themselves the elite) often frown upon the conventional and
look for the new, or reinvigorating piece of art. Something which
may not be understood now, but may be understood at a later time;
hence the principle of the "avant-garde" upon which the art world
thrived for so long until pluralism broke loose around the late
sixties, leading to what today we call postmodernism.
Having
stated the above, I will admit that the Oscars is more of a
politicized event dealing with issues beyond criticism. The choices
made are often based with career moves rather than actual objective
judgment. But, nevertheless, the mythical premise upon which such
judgments are passed are based on the speculaitve criticism as
described above.
Now, about this exhibition. I was really
surprised as to the choices that have been posted up to this point,
mainly because these do not live up to my criteria. This does not
mean that I am right and others are wrong, but rather that I thought
I was more objective and open minded than I realize at this point I
am not.
My criteria, is based on criticism that may be
considered snobbishly elitist by some people -- that of theoretical
writings (poststructural) which scrutinize the form and hold it up
for close examination for its relationship to ideology. If the form
is empty of criticism (for simplicity's sake let's call it social
commentary) then the piece does not live up to the criteria upon
which my judgment is based. This is how I approached the work in
this exhibition, and with which my votes below were made. I think
artists of all backgrounds have the same basic approach when judging
works of art (though not necessarily a poststructural background),
but I know that some simply look for form development, along with
basic issues of beauty. and do not expect to hold art responsible
for the political aspects in society. It is this difference which
makes art so interesting and enriching rhetorically.
The
diversity of opinions in this forum made me realize that people are
more different than I thought up to now. I realized that my idea of
diversity in terms of critical opinions is not even close to the
actual situation. This is because people around the world know the
rest of the world through a media construction carefully monitored
by the countries in which they live. So our understanding of
diversity is truly biased, limited and problematically otherized to
some degree, no matter how hard we try to be open minded. This is
what I take from this exhibition. This is something I can grow with
for some time to come, and that is truly worth the time I spent
writing and reading on this forum.
The downside of this
realization is that we, as a diverse people, are far -- very far
away -- from being able to understand difference. Marginalization
and deterritorilization is now stronger than ever. But the first
step is to understand and push for change through action. This can
only be done through constant communication and open dialogue.
Something which I hope everyone who did not participate on this
forum and is part of the show may be willing to embrace as a habit
in the future. It takes effort to communicate, and we must find the
time, making a living will not go away. Making the time for
discourse will (and already has) become a liberal myth for
many.
It has been a learning experience, and I look forward to the
rest of the process in the unique and often unpredictable Art on the
Net.
Best to everyone,
Eduardo Navas
http://www.navasse.net/
_____________________________
These are the pieces that
I find most interesting:
1) Brook A. Knight -- This is
probably the most effective piece as commentary
on consummerable
patriotism. Flags went up all over the U.S. as though they
were
cough syrup for a cold. The never-ending pop-up windows are a good
metaphor to the flag phenomenon.
2) Sakana Sato -- Very
poetic. I do not favor music in many net pieces, but
this
particular interactive installation works well. It is not
romanticizing
the 9/11 incident but rather questioning the
tendencies of universalizing such
an event. The tension between
the subject (or individual) and the society in
which he/she
functions is brought out quite eloquently, by asking the user to
constantly submit a statement of some sort.
3) Antonio
Mendoza -- The violent voice stating "fuck you, leave me alone" is
quite effective in relation to the pop-up windows that come up.
This is a
good "theatrical" piece dealing with media influence
in understanding major
events.
4) Chatonsky Gregory --
This is an abstract piece simulating a plane which
never
crashes. There is not much to say, except that it works. It reminds
me
of the obsession with movie experiences and how often people
equate major
events to mythical Hollywood films. I admit this is
a comment which probably can only be made by someone living in
Hollywood or Los Angeles (me), and deals with such influence from
day to day.
5) Andrey Velikanov -- This is among the weaker
pieces, as it simply relies on
imagery without making much of a
statement. But it is better than many others
in the exhibition.
6) Erik Salvagio -- though the piece is not necessarily
critical in the sense
of asking for re-evaluation of the
incident, I think that it is formally well
developed. It works
as art, and that, in the end, is the only thing that can
transcend politics to some degree.
7) Jim Punk --
The piece is very good, but what kills it for me is the part
stating "remember" Something more powerful could have been
stated instead of
the expected cliche... nevertheless, it is
very good. I do like the
simplicity.
|
| Saturday, October 19th,
2002 at 01:41 |
|
|
