Art of the Millennial Generation: Showcasing Technological Influence

The 2009 Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition at Washington State University showcases five artists whose works all reflect the growing fragmented confusion of life in the twenty first century. Most of the artists utilize mixed media, a possible manifestation of their experiences growing up in the globalized digital culture. Their works are the logical continuation of the path the art world has taken towards digitized, non-linear, abstract pieces. Viewers of the exhibit who are not as aware of current art trends may find themselves confused and without a focal point to connect the varied art pieces, the influence of virtual and digital technology can be discovered with minimal effort, and elucidates the underlying themes of this exhibit.

Lauren McCleary’s large installation piece is one of the first artworks viewers to the exhibit encounter. While McCleary’s work inhabits one specific area without any defined boundaries, three pieces are actually combined seamlessly: Elephant Splat, Between Being, and Walk Wonder appear to be one overall piece. Viewers can essentially walk into the artwork, as it extends out from the walls and hangs down from the ceiling, but few do because of the respectful distance people are ingrained to leave between themselves and art. If viewers do choose to break the norm and walk into the art, they can look more closely and actually find the three blue elephants which reside in completely different areas; one lays on the floor, one is framed on the wall, and one is on a Styrofoam plaque hanging from the ceiling. The distinct separation of these three elephants reinforces the notion that the three art works are all interwoven together and cannot be separated. McCleary could be commenting on the way that modern life is a conglomeration of many disparate elements, and how with new technologies like iPhones and Twitter, parts of life that used to be compartmentalized are now blended together inseparably. McCleary’s piece is effective when considered in a cultural scope, despite the inherent confusion she creates for her viewers.

Other artists at the exhibit who create confusion are not as successful because their purpose is never explicated, and viewers are left entirely up to guesswork. Tobias Walther’s Sailor is one such piece. Sailor consists of two side-by-side television screens showing black-and-white images of the Palouse hills and various other scenes around Pullman. Random images are flashed in an almost subliminal way, combined with periodic flashes from a concealed camera. The heavy breathing of the unseen cameraman as he runs up and down the hills is the only narration. This confusing mix of elements combined with the seemingly non-sequitur title, gives viewers nothing in which to ground their understanding of this piece. As Sailor is Walther’s only piece at the exhibit, viewers cannot examine his other works to attempt to draw comparisons. Walther’s piece again showcases the impact the digital and technological advances of the past decades are having on the art world, though no other meaning can be derived.

Brad Dinsmore and Dustin Price also both utilize mixed media, creating abstract pieces which can be very confusing but reflect the growing anxiety and digitized culture of modern America. These two artists present the most varied types of work, showcasing broad experimentation on many levels. The fifth artist, Heather Losey McGeachy, has the most traditional looking art, which seems to fit in the least with the other artists’ work in the exhibit. However, McGeachy’s artist statement shows that she, too, was influenced by technology. She says she felt “compelled… to seek out the difference and similarities between virtual and physical worlds” as “the boundaries between physical and digital life [continue] to blur.” Obviously all of these artists’ works, while exploring various mediums and messages, reflect the great influence technology has had on their lives.

To top off this thorough connection to the digital world, a “Second Life” of the Master of Fine Arts Thesis Exhibition itself was displayed near the entrance to the exhibit. “Second Life” is a virtual world within a website similar to “The Sims,” which allows people to experience an altered reality through the internet. This is almost a meta-commentary on the exhibit’s purpose: a virtual world depicts the exhibit which reflects the growing influence of the virtual world on the artists showcased in the exhibit. Plato would be greatly disturbed by this trend in art, as artists are actually embracing imitation of the virtual digital world and using it to construct pieces which speak back to their technological origins. If this exhibit can be seen as a microcosm of the current state of the art world at large, works into the second decade of the century will continue to reflect digital culture, mosaic thought, mixed media, confusion, and buried messages as the Millennial generation grows up and brings its contributions forward.

D) None of the above

I think this week’s blog prompt is a trick question. Freud and Foucault in my mind have such opposing theories of art criticism that they cannot both be perfectly applied to any of these three options.

In considering a Freudian analysis, I thought I would pick Spiderman. Not only does the character seem to be an expression of Stan Lee’s own daydreams, but Peter Parker openly shares with the audience his own daydreams concerning Mary Jane, at least before his transformation and following success in “getting the girl.” For the audience, this is a satisfying storyline because Peter Parker never had his own mother, just his aunt, and he now can capture the idyllic family life he has yearned for his whole life, and he can do so with the beautiful girl next door he has always loved from afar.

In addition to these elements, Spiderman also fits Freud’s description of the hero which the audience can vicariously live through: “The feeling of security with which I follow the hero through his dangerous adventures is the same as that with which a real hero throws himself into the water to save a drowning man, or exposes himself to the fire of the enemy while storming a battery… this insignificant mark of invulnerability very clearly betrays—His Majesty the Ego, the hero of all day dreams and all novels” (504). Spiderman’s many adventures, his rises and falls, satisfy repressed desires the audience may have towards their childhood dreams of growing up to be someone important and brave. And the comic, television show, and recent movies allow audiences many avenues by which they “can enjoy [their] own daydreams without reproach or shame” (506).

But then an attempt to look at Spiderman for a Foucaultian analysis brought me up short. I do not think there is a deep meaning which Stan Lee meant to dominate the aesthetic quality, especially considering the painstaking care Lee took with the detailed comic books. I do not think Spiderman reveals anything about individual representation, or challenging power structures (unless you consider his battles with corrupt company CEOs to be challenging the status quo). I do not think Spiderman is capable of deconstructing any traditional notions. And for that matter, I do not think Madonna is any more capable than Spiderman. Which leads me to believe that only Jackson Pollock could be read in a Foucaultian analysis, because he did challenge the prevailing notion of what constituted art, and left behind many possible interpretations of his work. And a Freudian reading could be imposed on him, if I knew more about Pollock’s childhood and possible daydreams. But since I do not, I stand on the 5th and declare this a trick question.

Pro-Female but Anti-Feminism

While this may not make sense, I guess I kind of consider myself pro-female, but not pro-feminism. I think that feminism as a movement is too demanding and unforgiving on women who may want to be mothers, who may feel more fulfilled as a stay-at-home mom than as a chief executive of some company, or who show vulnerability through emotion. I think that equal rights and equal pay should be given to women, but that women should still be allowed to act like women. It is just a matter of fact that men and women have different genetic makeup and therefore have different needs and desires during their lives.

I think that Heidi exemplifies a woman who might understand my bizarre ideology concerning this issue: she never seems to fully embrace the feminist movement itself, but she does act out strongly at the Chicago Art Institute, demanding more female artists. She allows herself to be in a relationship with a womanizing man because of the way he might make her feel, and at the end she does decide to become a mother. Yet she doesn’t believe that her child has to be “her 10” as Scoop says, referring to his work being his 10. The audience can tell that Scoop and Heidi may actually place the same level of importance on their children, as evidenced by Scoop’s discussion of what he has to show his children to prove that he is worthy of being their father.

I think that this play shows that there has historically been an unfair representation of female artists, but that we are now at a point in our social advancement that females should become included as great artists. Whether they are added via the “add and stir the pot” method Freeland describes, or simply added hereafter, does not seem as important as the fact that they simply be added. Heidi does discuss great female artists from the past who were overlooked, and how their work has a ethereal feminine quality to them which separates them from masculine works. I do not necessarily agree with Heidi on this, but in looking at the two versions of “Judith Beheading Holofernes” I think it is clear that the female artist has a better understanding of what females are truly capable of than the male artist, who depicts Judith as timid and unsure of herself. Females as drawn by men can never be as true to life as females drawn by females, who understand their true natures and complexities.