Caz_College: Creative process

a blog for students of the course: creative process in the arts at cazenovia college, ny.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

weds. nov 30th

Hello all,
There are two important issues here for you:
I got all the video loaded on the machines and they are ready to go. I have also put the dv files on the server:
plucky/visual art&design/studioart/transfer
If you want to view the files (it would be a good idea) you can drag them to your own machine and watch them.
Lets all meet in the ICT room. Please organise the groups effectively. The members of each group that are not directly involved with video editing should be preparing documents (digital or otherwise; drawings can be scanned) for your groups' part of the dvd menu. Your 'script' should be available; any other references you would like to include should also be available.

Let me know if there are any problems.

Your essay. its:
5 pages minimum;
11pt font; 1.5 spaced
The readings you have had so far include:
Walter benjamin 'the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction'
David davies ' the work of art in the age of digital reproduction'
Clement greenberg 'art & kitsch'
Noel carroll 'the nature of mass art'
Deleuze & Guattari 'anti-oedipus' chi
Critical Art Ensemble 'the molecular invasion' -ch1
Deleuze -Negotiations 'on anti oedipus'

You've also had a lot of info about grafitti, led throwies, graf research lab, etc; info about the kurtz vs FBI trial.

For the essay I want you to go through this material on the first pages. Explain where you see connections, and what you find interesting about these connections (this is important, you will come back to it later on).
Through this section pf the paper you will exhibit that you have read and are familiar with the arguments of these texts, and you will start to go deeper by tying together concurrent ideas.
Through the rest of the paper I want you to research through the texts as much as you can for closer connections in content. So use the foundation you have set up above to express something that you find curious, of interest, or deficient in the works you have read. Then conclude the paper by talking about the nature of the creative process, which hopefully you have learned something about by now!!
Please let me know if anything is unclear or there are problems.
See you tomorrow,

Friday, November 03, 2006


thanks to those of you who posted today.
for those who did not know about today here's what i had said in class on monday:
i wanted you to use the CAE links to the tactical media section of the site and the first chapter of 'the molecular invasion' as the impetus for discussion. if i could not find an alternate stratey, this was to be the default, therefore the thing you would assume you are doing. thnks to those who followed through.
for those who didn't i'll try to be much clearer in the future, although i think i will be there for all future classes, barring illnesses of course.

ok, about the posts. its good that you are producing evidence of the reading and reaction to it. please try to think about the approach to these subjects that CAE takes, and then explain to yourself how this fits into your understanding of this thing as art, and pull references from greenberg, from benjamin and from carroll.
how do the activities of a group like CAE deal with art historical theories that propose totally differing forms for art? how are CAE successful? how are they not? how is the use of political material valid/invalid?

try to think along these lines and refer to the tectical media projects when you are doing this.
the point of this is to look back into your own process as you went through the ad project and deconstructed the ad down to its constituent elements, in order to be able to build it back up using your own voice/ how do CAE do this?
has the ad project process helped you in understanding this side of art's contemporaneously operative strategems?

please try to apply yourself to this as much as you can over the snowy weekend. in NYC its sunny and 53degrees. what a difference 300 miles makes.

monday the class will meet again in the A&D building in room 119.
this time i WILL be there (apologoies again...)

if anyone has any questions, about any of the things we have done in class, the readings or the point of the approach to the creative process , or would like to see me in office hours for any other reason, please let me know what time works best for you. i can offer some flexibility.

I took the first chapter about the Fourth Domain as a description of the hypocricy of capital that encourages something in one direction (towards money) and discourages it in another (towards empowerment/informed decisions.) Though in some places it seemed that they were talking about transgenics as a positive thing, I think it was actually a warning to be cautious about its application. When people are in a constant state of fear, superstitious or otherwise, they tend to let those perceived as authority figures make decisions for them. This chapter is basically a mission statement for CAE in that it means to take advantage of the discrepancies which are visible to the People concerning genetic experimentation to give people the chance to become informed, empowered, and thus less afraid. If we know what's really going on, we are in a better position to say, "ok, that's far enough" or "Let's not go there with this technology."

Moltov Morning Hommiez!

The idea that pollution and purity are polar opposites are simply a form of westen catagorizing. The reason we as a culture percieve that pollution is unnatural, is party because we cant face it. By creating this black or white asssessment in our culture litterally dominates our entire judgement system. What I find alarming here is what was said of cancer treatment. We give you electric poisoning to get rid of the cancer. Because there has been a previous system of judgement of good or bad, right or wrong, and natural vs. unnatural.


I know that one thing Andrew wanted us to do was to continue the conversation about Steve Kurtz, after reading his comments. He referred to 'McCarthyism' . That's what they called it (in the 60s?) when everyone was on a witch hunt for communists, and everyone was pointing fingers, blacklisting people, right?

critical art ensemble - kurtz - ch 1

Critical Art Ensemble brought gm foods and food purity in the attention of public which caused discomfort we the finial results were in. So I learned a bit about biotechnology and how it's used by capital known as bioproduction. The ethical integrity of American companies and labeling of gm foods is based solely on their bottom line. Critical Art Ensemble states "biotechnology and science behind it have one of the most misunderstood areas of production in the cultural landscape.”

ch. 1 of the molecular invasion

not entirely sure where this was going, but i think it was a criticism of peoples' fears of new ideas and the creative spirit. there's something in there towards the end that seems to say our technological advances at the molecular level will bring about other advances, like social/political advances, or maybe i read that wrong

Caz_College: Creative process

Im here

Monday, October 30, 2006

round up

hello all,

you'll see that i commented to a few entries fromthe steve kurtz issue. please keep these going as much as you can.\ its a useful thing to keep a conversation going across days and weeks if you can. this way the ideas transform and its always interesting to trace its lineage.

ok, so as you know the CAE material i gave to you today is closely linked to the steve kurtz issue above because he is a founding member of CAE and because this book deals with the body and its usefulness as a machine of capital (ultimately).
if there are sections of the chapter that you are stuck with please email me directly. we will go over some of this stuff in class although i think that you will need a lot the remaning class time to go throught the performance with you groups.
so please keep reading 'the molecular invasion' and i will refer to it on weds. class.
as promised i will let you know if i can get a sub for fri or if you will be on the blog.
links given out today:

-->look at tactical media section click here

-->read chapter one of 'the molecular invasion': click here to download

--i thoguht the intro could be useful, it may help explain things to you if you feel lost in this text; click here to download

\this is a .pdf file, you may want to right-clikc and save it to your computer rather than reading it in your browser...

ok, thats all for now.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Important Friday Info

Sorry that has come so late in the day but i just got to a computer in NYC.
My wife, Natalia Mount will be the sub teacher for the class tomorrow. She is the Executive Director of Stone Quarry Hill Art Park and has a MA in Arts Administration. Please attend this class and remember Monday class will be held in Room 119 in the new Art Building at 8 AM. Please be prompt as we will only have an hour at our disposal with the computers.
Looking forward to seeing you all then.
Andrew Mount

Friday, October 20, 2006

4th branch

the 4th branch of the goverenment is the media .

Flow like the blood of Abraham through the Jews and the ArabsBroken apart like a woman's heart, abused in a marriageThe brink of holy war, bottled up, like a miscarriageEmbedded correspondents don't tell the source of the tensionAnd they refuse to even mention, European interventionOr the massacres in Jenin, the innocent screamsU.S. manufactured missles, and M-16'sWeapon contracts and corrupted American dreamsMedia censorship, blocking out the video screensA continent of oil kingdoms, bought for a bargainDemocracy is just a word, when the people are starvin'The average citizen, made to be, blind to the reasonA desert full of genocide, where the bodies are freezin'And the world doesn't believe that you fightin' for freedomCause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demonIt's open season with the CIA, bugging my cribTrapped in a ghetto region like a Palestinian kidWhere nobody gives a fuck whether you die or you liveI'm tryin' to give the truth, and I know the price is my lifeBut when I'm gone they'll sing a song about Immortal TechniqueWho beheaded the President, and the princes and sheiksYou don't give a fuck about us, I can see through your facadeLike a fallen angel standing in the presence of GodBitch niggaz scared of the truth, when it looks at you hard[Hook]It's like MK-ULTRA, controlling your brainSuggestive thinking, causing your perspective to changeThey wanna rearrange the whole point of view in the ghettoThe fourth branch of the government, want us to settleA bandana full of glittering, generalityFighting for freedom and fighting terror, but what's reality?Martial law is coming soon to the hood, to kill youWhile you hanging your flag out your project window[Talking]Yeah..The fourth branch of the government AKA the mediaSeems to now have a retirement plan for ex-military officialsAs if their opinion was at all unbiasedA machine shouldn't speak for menSo shut the fuck up you mindless drone!And you know it's seriousWhen these same media outfits are spending millions of dollars on a PR campaignTo try to convince you they're fair and balancedWhen they're some of the most ignorant, and racist peopleGiving that type of mentality a safe havenWe act like we share in the spoils of war that they doWe die in wars, we don't get the contracts to make money off 'em afterwards!We don't get weapons contracts, nigga!We don't get cheap labor for our companies, nigga!We are cheap labor, nigga!Turn off the news and read, nigga!(immortal technique)

Read ... art is media that is not contolled by the goverenent or is it? federal funding is a form of control over the 4th branch of gov't.


he seems little bit crazy by experimenting w/ diseases and biohazard stuff. but i guess what is an artist without expermienting ?...he wasnt out to hurt people and be a terrist he was an artist sometimes think teh goverment takes things little far. i know there just being percauious but if they knew he was an artist then shit woulnt happen.

capitalism can start at the tip

piont 2

the nature of his work is another big thing. Qeustions about how his work was going to literally "spread" much like recent imperialism. He eas bringing something to the table here they didnt want people thinking about. Hell the idea of chemical warfare isnt something the government wants us thinking about. His work totally was about political issues. I think it went something like this....

CIA Guy: "Mr. Pesident, there is an artist who is using biological agents to comment on the crrent social situation, your orders sir..."

Bush: Well I dont much like science, besides aint that what them terrorists been using?"

Chaney: Qiuet George, (eats live embryo) we need to silence this individual, it would be bad for the nations mental health (munch munch) I say we just take care of this before there is a problem. (slurp) Besides that whole bacteria spreading nonsense will just screw up the minds of the people, I mean hell we are gonna be invading Iran, and North Korea this year. Pass me extra chrispy.


Somehow it doesn’t surprise me the police assumed the worst of Steven Kurtz when arriving to his home. I am not saying what happened was right however the police see the worst of people and society on a daily basic. We are all being led to follow are fear of terrorism over good judgment...So that bush can continue to break world agreements and play king of the mountain.

im not really exactly sure where kurtz is going with the idea of this chemical warfare as a creative process, does anyone have an idea of the process through his eyes or maybe even your own eyes based on what he had to say.


So the FBI refusses to comment. Big suprise. This goes beyond the illusion of "counter terrorism." His lawyer was even qouted saying that everything they were doing was legeal. From what Im seeing here, there is three points that are unaviodiable.

Point 1

He has been in the legeal guidelines of the Empire. He has posed no threat openly about the establishment. This is the the fact I feel is most incriminating against the prosocution. So here we have a post 911Land mentality, literially silencing an artist. The articles all had mentioned his involvement with CAE. This tie was probably what got him. I mean Christ our government can dissapear you, and torture you if they feel like it. (in recent legeslation look up new torture/detainee laws) They saw the threat of a social crituqe in the works and nailed him. Obviously he was gonna lay down some heavey shit, if they arrest him as his wife is dead, and clean out this guys exsistence. Kurtz wasnt just another picket sign wavin granola munching hippie. He was on to something, something they didnt want the world to see.

S. Kurtz

So Steve Kurtz was charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud because he asked a friend for help on attaining some bacteria?
I think a big problem with this country is that it seems to be very difficult for people to admit they've made a mistake. I think in the Steve Kurtz example, the feds realized they made a mistake, but instead of acknowledging it and letting him go, they couldn't disappoint their egos, so they still have him on this petty charge when it seems that all he did was ask a friend for help on how to attain some bacteria, which I can't see how that is illegal.

I am so confused on the links that Andrew gave us to look do they deal with the Creative Process?

Good Morning!

I really liked that article about government funding for the arts. I would have to agree with the NEA amendment because federal funding is really taxpayer funding, and if this is a democracy, the taxpayers should have the final say as to where or how they want their money spent. I can bet the majority of the US population would have voted against their tax money being spent on the piss christ or the homoerotic photos. It is not sensorship because it doesn't prohibit these artists from expressing their viewpoints, it just doesn't support them financially. I think these artists should have a deeper respect for where this funding comes from, and they shouldn't have an attitude that they are entitled to it. The American people should decide how they want their taxdollars spent, not art directors with their individual preferences. If these artists want funding, they should turn to other organizations other than the federal government. I'm not saying these arts should be banned from museums; I just think they shouldn't get my tax money for their support.

Kurtz Bush Problems

Okay frist of all, this guy in my opinion is crazy for working with this extreme deseases, but he was using these elements as Art not as chem war fare ... yea sure there illegal and he got busted with it but it was for Art sake not Bushes War on Terriorism ... I really stongly disagree with calling Kurtz a terriorest hes an arist, not one that i really admir but he is an artist and so are we ... terriorest do things to hurt it's or other countries not try to understand the true from of these deseases.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Steve Kurtz/Friday class

hello there,

please browse through the links below for the friday class. the info contained here is more than enough for you to understand the issue and go on to look into other perspectives, through documents and authors etc. please be present at 8am pn friday and be prepared to discuss the issue of eroding civil rights and freedom of expression. please then try to look intothe group project within this framework. its important that you understand that i am not asking you to simply be reactionary but rather reflective. there is a very important difference. i want you to think about the issues dealt with in anti-oedipus and see if there are any overlaps between the text you are using for the performance and the issues at stake here for steve kurtz (which ultimately become our issues, as artists.

cae defense fund
couner punch article
l.a. weekly article
wikipedia entry
guardian article
the nation article

here is the NY Law Journal article i promised, (also relevant to the topic above):

Copyright 2005 ALM Properties, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

New York Law Journal

October 3, 2005 Monday

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3 Vol. 234

LENGTH: 2120 words

HEADLINE: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties;
Government Funding of the Arts and Ground Zero

BYLINE: Christopher Dunn


With last week's decision by Governor George Pataki to bar a proposed museum at Ground Zero, the role of government in artistic expression has emerged as a major point of contention in the debate about the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.

Though that debate has not focused on its legal aspects, the controversy raises substantial and unresolved First Amendment issues. And the controversy behind this debate brings together an intriguing cast of characters, including: former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who spawned the most notorious arts-funding litigation in New York City history; soon-to-be-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who authored the Supreme Court's most significant foray into this area; and Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a caustic concurrence to Justice O'Connor's opinion and who just two weeks ago spoke here in New York City about government funding of the arts.

International Freedom Center Controversy

The initial plan for redevelopment of the World Trade Center site envisioned a museum, and in February 2004 the agency overseeing the site's development called for one with "international programming allowing for the exploration of issues and traditions around the world, both secular and religious that could highlight the values of tolerance, diversity and understanding among nations." Four months later, the agency selected as the site's museum what is now known as the International Freedom Center.

This past June, as work on the museum was proceeding, the sister of a man killed in the attack on the Pentagon published a piece in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the proposed breadth and focus of the museum, likening it to "creating a 'Museum of Tolerance' over the sunken graves of the U.S.S. Arizona." As The New York Times put it, "an uproar followed," with some vehemently objecting to any prospect that the museum's exhibits might stray from a very narrow view of the events surrounding 9/11.

Governor Pataki then demanded that the agency overseeing the museum obtain an "absolute guarantee" that the site would "never be used in a way that is going to denigrate America, denigrate our heroes, denigrate the sacrifices of Sept. 11." And then, with controversy building, the governor announced last week that he would not allow the museum to occupy its designated spot at Ground Zero.

The governor's decision, based on an edict that a publicly supported, private museum "never...denigrate America, denigrate our heroes," directly raises the question about the extent to which the First Amendment allows the government, when providing public support for artistic expression, to dictate the viewpoint of that expression. That question is far from resolved.

At one end of the spectrum is Justice Scalia, who when he spoke on Sept. 22 at the Juilliard School declared, "The First Amendment has not repealed the basic rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune." At the other end is Justice David Souter, who has taken the position that the First Amendment plainly bars government viewpoint discrimination in the funding of the arts.

Somewhere between these two points is the rest of the Supreme Court (or at least the rest of the Court as it existed seven years ago), as reflected in a 1998 decision that marks the Court's most significant ruling in the area. The law in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remains similarly unresolved, as the major arts-funding controversy that came before it--the 1999 fight prompted by Mayor Giuliani's attack on the Brooklyn Museum--was settled before the court could issue a decision. An appreciation of the First Amendment aspects of the current dispute over the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero requires an understanding of these two cases.

Government Patronage of the Arts

In 1989, a public controversy arose over two exhibits made possible by grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), a federal agency that provides substantial public funds for artistic expression. One exhibit included homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe and the other featured artist Andres Serrano's work "Piss Christ," a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine.

The public controversy over these works triggered a congressional debate about the use of public funds to support the arts, which ultimately led to a compromise amendment to the NEA's statutory authority. Under the amended statute, the NEA, in assessing grant applications, was to "tak[e] into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public."1

Four artists, whose works might fairly be considered controversial and who subsequently had NEA grant applications denied, sued. The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit both ruled that the NEA amendment on its face was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed in an opinion by Justice O'Connor. Justice Scalia concurred in an opinion that took a radically different approach, and Justice Souter staked out a third approach as a lone dissenter.

Writing for the Court (including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist) in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,2 Justice O'Connor sidestepped questions about the extent to which the First Amendment limits the government's use of artistic viewpoint in making arts-funding decisions. Rather, she based her opinion on the contention that the proposed amendment was "advisory language," suggesting that, at least for purposes of a facial challenge to the statute, it was not concrete enough to pose a substantial First Amendment problem: "[T]he 'decency and respect' criteria do not silence speakers by expressly 'threatening censorship of ideas.' Thus, we do not perceive a realistic danger that [the amendment] will compromise First Amendment values." Given this, the Court rejected the artists' facial challenge to the NEA amendment.

As for the propriety of the government actually making funding decisions based on the viewpoint of an artist's work, the Court's opinion refused to address that. Though Justice O'Connor noted that "absolute neutrality" in making decisions about artistic worth is "simply inconceivable," she would only state that, in a challenge to a funding decision based on viewpoint discrimination, "we would confront a different case."

Justice Scalia could barely contain himself in an opinion that opens, "'The operation was a success, but the patient died.' What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court's opinion in this case is to law." As an initial matter, he argued that no basis existed for suggesting that the amendment was "advisory," as it required that the decency and respect factors be considered when assessing all applications. Given this, artistic work that did not meet these criteria would, all other things being equal, lose out to work that did, meaning the amendment in fact created a scheme of viewpoint discrimination in funding of the arts.

Turning then to the substantive issue not addressed by the majority --whether viewpoint-based arts-funding decisions run afoul of the First Amendment--Justice Scalia, with classic gleeful disdain, enthusiastically rejected any such suggestion:

With the enactment [of the NEA amendment], Congress did not abridge the speech of those who disdain the beliefs and values of the American public, not did it abridge indecent speech. Those who wish to create indecent and disrespectful art are as unconstrained as they were before the enactment of this statute. Avant-garde artistes such as respondents remain entirely free to epater les bourgeois; they are merely deprived of the additional satisfaction of having the bourgeoise taxed to pay for it.3

More broadly, he argued--consistent with his remarks at the Juilliard School late last month--that when it comes to funding decisions as a general matter, the government is free to fund or not to fund any viewpoint it chooses. As far as Justice Scalia was concerned, "It is the very business of government to favor and disfavor points of view on (in modern times, at least) innumerable subjects--which is the main reason we have decided to elect those who run the government, rather than save money by making their posts hereditary." Because he concluded the government was free to exercise viewpoint discrimination in the funding of the arts, he found the NEA amendment constitutional and concurred in the Court's judgment.

While Justice Scalia was the only Justice to endorse arts-funding viewpoint discrimination, Justice Souter was the only Justice to reject it. In a dissent, he agreed with Justice Scalia that the NEA amendment created a scheme of viewpoint discrimination. But he readily concluded that that scheme violated the First Amendment: "So long as Congress chooses to subsidize expressive endeavors at large, it has no business requiring the NEA to turn down funding applications of artists and exhibitors who devote their freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry to defying tastes, our beliefs, or our values."4

Giuliani, Brooklyn Museum

A little more than a year after the Supreme Court decided the Finleycase, an arts-funding controversy erupted in New York City around a proposed exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. Though the two have not been linked, that controversy closely parallels the current dispute over the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero.

In the fall of 1999, Mayor Giuliani --already in the midst of a series of high-profile First Amendment controversies--focused his ire on an upcoming Brooklyn Museum exhibit featuring works of various contemporary British artists. In particular, Mr. Giuliani denounced a work by Chris Ofili entitled "The Holy Virgin Mary," which offended him and he declared "is sick."

The mayor therefore ordered the city to withhold funds it had committed to support the museum, which the city was paying in monthly installments of nearly $500,000. In terms that echoed the arguments of fellow Catholic Justice Scalia, Mr. Giuliani defended his decision as follows:

You don't have a right to a government subsidy to desecrate someone else's religion. And therefore we will do everything that we can to remove funding from the Museum until the director comes to his senses. And realizes that if you are a government-subsidized enterprise then you can't do things that desecrate the most personal and deeply held views of the people in society.

The museum promptly sued in federal court over the payments, which the city answered by filing suit in state court seeking the museum's eviction from the historic building it rents from the city.

In Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences v. City of New York,5 Judge Nina Gershon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled for the museum. Relying on Supreme Court decisions addressing government appropriations outside the context of arts funding, she held that the mayor's viewpoint attack on the Brooklyn Museum violated the First Amendment. As for Finley,she concluded that it did not support the city because "the Supreme Court upheld the 'decency' and 'respect' considerations only by reading them, on their face, as not permitting viewpoint discrimination."6

The city appealed to the Second Circuit, where its arguments were met with near derision by the panel hearing oral argument. Before the court could issue a decision, however, the city abandoned its position, ending the controversy.

Lessons for Freedom Center

These two cases frame the First Amendment analysis of the debate over the International Freedom Center, but they offer no easy answer. Governor Pataki's directive that the World Trade Center site "never be used in a way that is going to denigrate America, denigrate our heroes, denigrate the sacrifices of Sept. 11" plainly imposes government viewpoint discrimination on the artistic expression planned for Ground Zero. Less clear is whether that edict violates the First Amendment or whether, as Justice Scalia would have it, the government gets to "call the tune" at Ground Zero.

Though the current controversy seems unlikely to lead to litigation, it highlights the unresolved nature of the First Amendment's application to viewpoint-based, arts-funding decisions by the government. And the departure of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist create the possibility of significant changes in this important area of First Amendment jurisprudence.

1. 120 USC §954(d).
2. 2524 US 569 (1998).
3. 3524 US at 595-96 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (italics in original).
4. 4524 US at 614 (Souter, J., dissenting)
5. 564 FSupp2d 184 (EDNY 1999).
6. 664 FSupp2d at 202.
Christopher Dunn is the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
LOAD-DATE: October 10, 2005

Friday, October 13, 2006

Group Projects

hello there

i wanted to say thank for coming through and posting your day's progress on the blog. i am very happy that you are making such progress.
yes i will reserve this room asap. lets discuss the issue of collaboration across the groups on monday, OK?

again, thanks very much for your input. i hope you are all getting excited by the project. i think it will have a lot of potential for you all in therms of the development of your critical thinking in relation to creative process(es) but also it will be a great thing for you to take away from the course.

ok, see you monday. anyone liking the Mass Art paper?
at least he's less arcane than wittgenstien...

bye from NYC.


Friday's Class

As the asnwerers sectretary we had a few questions:

1. Can you reserve the room upstairs (SCB130) for the performance on Wed. Oct 25th?? And if so can you do so ASAP?

2. Can the two groups communicate in planning?? --we kinda answered this in class but just wanted your input--

3. Are we in the same room (SCB130)?? -- Also discussed in class-- figured yes

Now we also dont want to discuss too much on the blog and give away any details but in class we made lists of who is doing what and producing it how.. What each person will be doing in the presentation, and where they will be located... Things that we still need to accomplish and who needs to do it.. and the types of clothing we will be wearing.

I have made photocopies of the notes i made for everyone in class and you.

See you Monday..

-Kari, The Answerers

We ask The Questions?

What We Do?
- Computer & Photo
- Question #?
Jess B
- Digital Art & Drawing
- Question #?
- Digital Art, Painting, Music
- Question #?
- Digital Art & Sound
- Question #?
- Interior Design
- Question #?
- Painting, Drawing
- Question #?
- Fashion, Drawing, Type, Drama, Singing!
- Question #?
Jess T
- Digital Art

- descussed the different skills and placed them with the questions, we dont feel that we can post alot on the blog bc alot of what we are working on is top secret ... shh ...

Thursday, October 12, 2006


hello all,

i have just read lydia's post. if your group has not shared information (numbers, email etc) about contacting eachother by now, i am suprised - make this the first order of business on friday AM.
also, if you can't be there for a meeting for some reason make sure you are aware the obligation is then upon you to keep in touch and inform yourself about the progress that has been made within your group.
communication is key to this project. don't forget that!!
ok, good luck and read through the last post i made - there are specific intruction that i expect you to follow through on.
be nice to kim as well.


Wednesday, October 11, 2006


hello all,

ok, i have been in contact with Kim Waale who has graciously agreed to stand in this comng friday. so here's what i would like you to do:

use this time to continue planning your group projects.

the outcome of this meeting should be a schematic diagram or a list that will function thereafter as a basic structure for the preformance. details can be added and deleted as you go along, so don't get too sidetracked by this right now. perhaps each group should choose one preson to draw a floor plan of the room, as near to scale as you can, copy it and distribute this to all your group members. some people think better visually than through lists or discussions. just as with this example, start to divide up the tasks and remember that practicality is key here. we are in an area that is somewhat limiting in terms of resources and you need to allow for that as much as you can.

i would also like each group to nominate one person to post the results of friday's class to this blog so that i can read and respond from NYC.

so this is a practical class. start to try to understand what is going to be necessary for your group to go from where you are now to generating all the creative content (physical and theoretical) to being ready for implementing the project. remember i asked both groups to draw up a list of abilities in the group? start with these, then you will know if your plans are outstreching your abilities.

i am very much looking forward to finding out how the class goes. remember all the answers to how to dothis project are already in your head, and the impetus for that is inthe text, so if you are feeling foggy keep reading and if this doesn't help, jot down notes of what you think the authors are saying - you can email me with specificities. just going through this simple procedure of clarifying for yourself will help enormously.

good luck!!


Friday, September 29, 2006

friday class

here i am

was also wondering if anyone could ellaborate on their advertisements with ideas, etc..

I think that this explains more about the process of grafitti in an propaganda way, I don't think that it is about obcenities and rebellion as much as getting a spoken word out. "On top of the political aspect of graffiti as a movement, political groups and individuals may also use graffiti as a tool to spread their point of view. One can label this as "propaganda graffiti". This practice, due to its illegality, has generally become favored by groups excluded from the political mainstream (e.g. far-left or far-right groups) who justify their activity by pointing out that they do not have the money -- or sometimes the desire -- to buy advertising to get their message across, and that a 'ruling class' or 'establishment' control the mainstream press, systematically excluding the radical/alternative point of view. This type of graffiti can seem crude, for example fascist supporters often scrawl swastikas and other Nazi images. Because of the strong associations between Nazi images and racial violence, many see this type of graffiti as tantamount to a threat of violence, and thus some would classify it as a form of terrorism."

So.. does anyone feel that the things we are discussing are helping them in their advertisement projects? Is collaboraation useful in this case? I know that I have a tendency to work in seclusion. I may look at the work of other artists--say, on the internet--but that is about as far as I have ever come to "collaboration." Anyone have a comment on the advantages and disadvantages of working together?

In response to Andrew's comment to me the other day.. if I was skirting the central issue of graffiti, it was unintentional. To be honest, I knew little about the subject, and am only now learning. It is not something that interests me particularly, but I am giving understanding it a shot. As for the collaboration in the world of graffiti, it can be both a good thing and a bad thing. For the creation of larger, more complex works, such as an entire wall or train, etc., collaboration seems to be a good thing. Also, for the advancement of the artform in general, everyone builds upon it, whether they mean to or not. Each artist develops a style that influences future writers. They say, afterall, that no artists works in a vacuum, that no man is an island. However, this can also be bad for the individual, because certain groups become rivals and try to outdo each other or destroy each other's work. This seems petty to me; not art for art's sake but for ego's sake, and this is less worthy of praise in my opinion. To be honest, I have mixed opinions about graffiti. Some I find interesting and some just creates visual noise for me. I am not ashamed to say that sometimes I would rather look at a blank brick wall than at scribbles and profanities. I can see brick as a pattern to be appreciated in of itself.

When is our new project for the Advertisement due?? has a date been set yet?? Just wondering.

I have actually done graffiti. Long ago, when my brother and I were kids, we were best friends. We roamed around our neghborhood getting into all kinds of harmless mischief, like spying into people's windows and building forts and things like that. There is a building at the top of my street where people had written graffiti with giant permanent markers, and the markers were still there. We wrote on the wall "Nick and Chelsea D." These were the aliases we had adopted in case one or both of us were ever caught. It meant a lot back then, because we wanted to document our lives at that moment. It's funny, because I never went back there. And my brother and I really aren't friends anymore.

i am here

i am here This is a good site on out subject, what is it that makes grafitti so effective as political propaganda?

vito- friday here

Good Morning -Tasha

In response to the first link Andrew provided today- I like how it pointed out how "The "real" painting on the train is powerless. The copy and its simulacra are what hold the power." People still find a way of reproducing which ultimately changed the art itself. I still can't help but feel like these people who take pics of their train graffiti and disperse it publically are mostly just looking for attention and recognition more than anything.

Ok, in response to Andrews response to my thoughts & ideas:

I think that the LED throwies are art and the graffitti they are creating is an art because they are an expression of someone's thoughts and ideas and they temporarily deface the structure they are attached to, making them a form of graffiti. I wish that we had something around here like that to look it because i think it would be really interesting to actually see. I have seen LED lights before which I'm sure alot of us have but never attached to a magnet of any sort. I also think the LED throwies are "amazing" because they are unique in their own way and not too many people would think of them as being an art but I do. It takes alot of time and thought to make something like that come alive and be created. Teamwork and dedication are also involved and its just very unique how they are able to form these throwies onto the structures.

When i say "well thats what i think anyways" it was my way of saying that i really dont know if im right or even close to being right and im looking for feedback from other people, because thats what this blog is for.


friday AM

hello all,

i am glad that you are continuing the discussion and very encouraged for the future for what we may be able to create throug the class.

seen as how graffiti is the motivator right now here is a short text for you to reference online:

external linkhere


here is another:
link here


i am going right now to get a plane back to syracuse.

i wil log on as soon as i get back. thanks again to all those who have posted.



Though i believe as graffiti as an effective means of conveying thoughts and beliefs, I do feel, and know that many abuse this form of communication. Alot of teenagers in todays world think that just spray painting some nasty words on a concrete wall, or even on someones private property is graffiti. It's not. It's just defamation. If there is no message for others to see and consider, than it's just someone who needs to get a constructive hobby. ---- in reference to the question of whether or not I have participated in graffiti myself, I guess I could say that I have. In a class that I am taking, Protest and Propaganda, our whole class had to create a stencil graffiti in regards to issues in politics or society. We then displayed them on campus. I'm sure some people in this class saw them -- they were all around the quad and Eddy. It was an interesting and enlightening experience. But never have I, on my own created graffiti.


Graffiti... like most subjects we discuss in this class... is a hard topic to delve into. I looked up the meaning of civil disobedience - Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. (for those who didnt have a chance to look it up). Obviously, in most cases that is exactly what graffiti is. I'm all for it, as long as no one gets hurt, or severe, irreparable damage is caused to someones property. If it weren't for graffiti (in any form), many social changes would not have taken place. I mean, in a way, back in the 1500's, when Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of a catholic church in protest (which led to a seperate religious group), that was, in a way, graffiti. Civil disobedience is and has been one of the most effective methods of social reform... it's a way for all people to be heard.


Graffiti is vandelism its aganist the law but everyone breaks laws and I know its someones property and they pay for it. I just want to know is there a place where people can go and put graffiti without them breaking the law? I don't love graffiti but I don't have a problem with it and some artist that create certain forms of graffiti I do like and if people want to express themselves why can't they, I don't think its right for them to destroy someones property but sometimes I think that the graffiti that is added makes the bulidings or whatever look much unique and much better and not plain. It depends what type of graffiti it is. I might have written on something that was not my own property it was not anything special I guess. I am not to sure what you are asking Andrew, " Does your physical participation scare you" Like are we scared to participate in Graffiti if so then no I guess I really never tried to get a message across or to share it with the whole world.