I‘m looking to bring the Rhode Island School of Design MFA ’13 to show in San Antonio this Summer and I think we found a space for them at Highwire Gallery on the 2nd Friday “Art on the Hill” artwalk. The opening would be on July 13th, 2012. Here are the artists’ links.

CAM Studio Tour 2012

by Thomas Cummins

in art, San Antonio, Texas

CAM Neo-Automatic Studio Tour at Ellis BeanI‘m doing the Contemporary Art Month Neo-Automatic Studio Tour once again this Sunday March 25th from 12-4 p.m. It’s kinda like a Parade of Homes but cooler. I did it last year and it’s my favorite way to participate in CAM because I don’t have to move or hang any of my artwork and I can just chill out and work in my studio all day.

Please come visit me.

One thing I don’t like about being in it, though, is that I’m not able to see any of the other artist’s studios while I’m confined to mine. I love visiting the artist in his/her natural environment and I used to always look forward to On/Off Fredicksburg before they started charging $15 for the map. CAM’s map is free but it has yet to draw the same crowd On/Off Fred does. The Neo-Automatic Studio Tour harks back to the original days of CAM and it is only recently, when CAM moved to March, that it has returned and I hope it eventually becomes an event that all of San Antonio’s artists participate in the future.

I was asked to be in this Austin art show by the curator who had apparently seen my work on Blue Star Contemporary Art Center’s website. The most interesting thing is that I’ll be paired up once again with Sabra Booth & David Alcantar who were in the original Colloquium with me in 2009.

Van Gogh painting of boots Heidegger wrote aboutIn his essay ‘The Origin of the Work of Art,’ Heidegger noticed that all artworks have a thingly character to them. But it is also obvious that art is something more than simply just a thing. Heidegger insists that artworks are different from useful equipment-type objects because artworks “in setting up a world, sets forth the earth.” In his attempt to find the essence of being, Heidegger focused on clarifying language and uses terms, such as earth and world, in an idiosyncratic manner that often tend to be much more complex than their typical, everyday usage. The earth and world are intricate terms in Heidegger’s vocabulary but, basically, the world refers roughly to the history of mankind, while the earth represents what we normally refer to as nature. Accordingly, these two realms are forever conflicted in essential strife.

Works of art have a special place in this strife between the earth and world because art belongs to both of these realms simultaneously. Art is not like the rock or plants of the earth but it is also not exactly like the “equpiment-type” things associated with the world. Art is a crossroads where the earth and world share a symbiotic relationship and “When art works disclose entities, they bring the meeting of earth and world to our attention.” To demonstrate this point, Heidegger uses a Greek temple and Van Gogh’s painting of shoes as his main examples. The world is obviously manifested in the temple as the focal point of Greek culture but the order established in the temple also works to accentuate the rockiness of the earth underneath and “the temple’s firm towering makes visible the invisible space of air.” A tension arises in this stife between the earth and world which works in the sense that, over a certain period of time, a new perspective can be eventually achieved. It is precisely through time how this “work” transforms our meanings accordingly. In the case of Vincent Van Gogh’s painting, it is as if the non-usefulness associated with art forces one to contemplate – Why would someone focus so much time and effort on a pair of dirty-old peasants shoes and raise them to the platform of art? We come to realize, in our contemplation, the actual being of shoes and how “the equipment belongs to the earth, and it is protected in the world of the peasant woman.” Art is a continual creation for the artist and also the viewer. Gauguin, Van Gogh’s roommate, described this process similarly when he wrote “Art is an abstraction; extract it from nature while dreaming in front of it.” Art enacts essential strife or, in other words, the happening of truth at work. In Hediegger’s words – “In the artwork, the truth of beings has set itself to work. Art is truth setting itself to work.” Consequently, Heidegger has completely redefined art and he tells us “The setting-into-work of truth thrusts up the awesome and at the same time thrusts down the ordinary.” This actually sounds a lot like Van Gogh’s own words when he stated his objective for art to “exagerrate the essential and leave the obvious vague.”

Heidegger, however, did have problems with the history of aesthetics which he refers to as a specialized form of thinking on art and the artist. Heidegger writes “The way in which aesthetics views the artwork from the outset is dominated by the traditional interpretation of beings.” By this, Heidegger intends that artworks have traditionally been viewed only as mere things for consumption and as trophies which demonstrate man’s mastery over nature. Focused solely on the thingly aspect of art, aesthetics has managed to completely disregard the work-character of art which brings about truth. Heidegger tells us “The essence of art would be this: the truth of beings setting itself to work. But until now art presumably has had to do with the beautiful and beauty, and not with truth.” Accordingly, aesthetics has been primarily concerned with beauty while truth has been mistakenly relegated to logic. Heidegger claims that it is the artist, and not the scientist, that actually shows us the truth. Following Nietzche’s lead, Heidegger inverts the hierarchy established by Plato and he, therefore, effectively places art at the pinnacle as the beacon from which the rest of his philosophy would follow.

Photographers’ Rights

by Thomas Cummins

in books, photography

Below is an excerpt by lawyer Bert Krage. Buy his book ‘Legal Handbook for Photographers’

 

The General Rule

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

Permissible Subjects

Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

• Accident and fire scenes
• Bridges and other infrastructure
• Celebrities
• Children
• Criminal activities

• Industrial facilities and public utilities
• Law enforcement officers
• Residential and commercial buildings
• Superfund sites
• Transportation facilities (e.g., airports)

Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights

Most confrontations are started by security guards and employees of organizations who fear photography. The most common reason given is security but often such persons have no articulated reason. Security is rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets. On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations. They have limited rights to bother, question, or detain you although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it upon request by a law enforcement officer. If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will and may be subject to criminal and civil charges should they attempt to do so. Although the laws in most states authorize citizen’s arrests, such authority is very narrow. In general, citizen’s arrests can be made only for felonies or crimes committed in the person’s presence. Failure to abide by these requirements usually means that the person is liable for a tort such as false imprisonment.

( Click to continue reading… )

Rome (Civitavecchia), Italy - Santorini, Greece - Istanbul, Turkey - Ephesus (Kusadasi), Turkey - Athens (Piraeus), Greece - Mykonos, Greece - Naples/capri, Italy

QR Code

by Thomas Cummins

in technology, web design

Thomas Cummins QR Code

Don’t really know if I need this but I got a QR code for this website. This article was pretty good on explaining what it is and how you get your own.

As both Dostoevsky and Freud knew, all to well, it is a bewildering paradox that one can obtain both pleasure and pain, simultaneously, from the same cause. The oxymoron questions causality itself and endows the observer with a brief glimpse into the abysmal complexity of the human mind.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821 – 1881) Existentialist writings are universally renown for their convincing ability to portray characters of a complex psychological nature. It is, therefore, no wonder, then, that in Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939) 1929 article ‘Dostoevsky and Parricide,’ the founder of psychoanalysis proclaims “‘The Brothers Karamazov’ is the most magnificent novel ever written.” Indeed, it is in this final masterpiece by Dostoevsky that the author successfully culminates the entire breadth of his talent by firmly establishing his mature style. Despite Freud’s admiration, however, he often criticizes Dostoevsky and the fact that he threw away “the chance of becoming a great teacher and liberator of humanity and made himself one with their jailors.” Overall though, Freud connects with ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ primarily because of the novel’s unsurpassed psychological insight, its reinforcement of the Oedipus Complex and, in spite of Freud’s skepticism of free will that was essential for Dostoevsky’s Christianity, both thinkers reluctantly liberate the individual from predestination through their introspective conclusions on man’s conflicted nature.

There can be no doubt, however, that the primary reason for Freud’s undying praise of ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ lies within the novel’s ability to convincingly illustrate Freud’s principal theory of the Oedipus Complex. Freud notes “It can scarcely be owing to chance that three of the masterpieces of the literature of all time the ‘Oedipus Rex’ of Sophocles, Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ and Dostoevsky’s ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ should all deal with the same subject, parricide. In all three, moreover, the motive for deed, sexual rivalry for a women, is laid bare.” Indeed, father figures are ubiquitous throughout the entire novel and Fyodor Pavlovich, inappropriately enough, even goes as far to lay out explicit details to his sons of the bedroom escapades he had with their mother, Sophia. Rebellion against paternal authority is also aptly evident throughout the novel. Ivan, alone, is guilty of physically assaulting his biological father, his adopted father, and even Ilyusha’s father. The most obvious allusion to the Oedipus Complex, however, lies within Dmitri’s rivalry with his father, Fyodor, for the beautiful Grushenka, as well as in the following accusations that Dmitri even murdered his own father.

While Fyodor Pavlovich’s bastard son, Smerdyakov, is the one physically responsible for the death of the patriarch, all sons are universally implicated, in some way or another, of the heinous crime. For one, Dmitri had already made explicit plans to kill the unpopular father. It was, also, only through Ivan’s cold logic that Smerdyakov was even able to convince himself to commit the crime in the first place. In fact, Ivan suffers a complete psychological breakdown when he realizes his direct involvement in the final demise of their father. Freud was sure to point out “It is a matter of indifference who actually committed the crime; psychology is only concerned to know who desired it emotionally and who welcomed it when it was done.” As an entity both sidelined and unacknowledged, Smerdyakov represents the unconscious force that only fulfilled the primal desire to murder the father. In front of an entire judicial courtroom, the intellectual Ivan elucidates the basic fact “everyone wants his father dead. Viper devours viper… If there were no parricide, they’d all get angry and go home in a foul temper.” Even the righteous Alyosha is guilty through negligence of his family’s precarious position but also, as a devout Christian, he has to carry the burden of the other’s sins as well.

In ‘Dostoevsky and Parricide,’ Freud went far beyond a mere analysis of his favorite book to analyze Dostoevsky, the man himself, so as to attain a more comprehensive understanding of the creative source behind the beloved masterpiece. Dostoevsky’s fervent conviction that suffering is the necessary pathway to salvation is highly indicative of the writer’s own deep-seated masochism. In ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality,’ Freud defines masochism as a perverse state in which “satisfaction is conditional upon suffering physical or mental pain.” As both Dostoevsky and Freud knew, all to well, it is a bewildering paradox that one can obtain both pleasure and pain, simultaneously, from the same cause. The oxymoron questions causality itself and endows the observer with a brief glimpse into the abysmal complexity of the human mind. It is the overall suffering of innocent children, however, which is at the root of Ivan’s inability to reconcile a benevolent God within an apparently indifferent world of pain. Alyosha simply responds to Ivan’s questions of faith by murmuring “I want to suffer, too.” The desire to suffer remains in accordance with Existentialist doctrine that asserts happiness is not, necessarily, a goal worthy of aspiration because, in reality, happiness is only a form of stagnant contentment. The Christian Kierkegaard, one of the forefathers of Existentialism, swore if God gave him the choice between, on the one hand, a life of ease and, on the other hand, a life of continuous struggle, he would promptly choose the enriching difficulties of the latter. Indeed, it is a curious fact that the central object of Kierkegaard’s, Dostoevsky’s, and Alyosha’s fanatical Christianity is the cross, which is, by all means, a torture device to enhance suffering.

( Click to continue reading… )

O.K. -this site is a lot closer to being redone. Right now I’m looking for another way to show large-format photography on the web without using the antiquated Zoomify. Zoomify was awesome when it first came out and it continues to be shipped with Photoshop but they haven’t really improved on it at all in the past couple of years. Looks like Microsoft actually has the best products as far as this type of thing goes and now I’m looking to use Seadragon Ajax.

Even though the individual might presume s/he is somehow special, s/he needs verification in the real world – either by another person or by an object that somehow reflects his/her specialness (like a trophy or a car for example.) So when one person meets another person for the first time, there is a fight for recognition from the other.”

How does one concisely articulate Kant’s destruction of our feeble notions about space and time? In Jaspers’ series on the great philosophers, he explains that Kant began by not bothering to question if we can know anything but, instead, he opted to take the more practical approach of asking the obvious question of how it is that we do, in fact, know some things. For example, how is it possible that I can have some mastery over space and time and know, ahead of time, that if I leave Chicago now I will probably arrive in Minneapolis in about seven hours? Kant was extremely interested in how the interior thoughts of the individual (the subject) were able to correlate with his/her environment (an object) and Kant’s subsequent inquiry into this subject-object relationship led him to some fundamental questions that philosophy had previously ignored. Jaspers explains that the subject-object relationship was such an inherent part of the human condition that it had been overlooked for thousands of years but it still, nonetheless, remained a simple, yet perplexing, question – “The thing that I know is not myself; what is it then? I am not unless I have objects, sensory data, before me; what indeed am I without them?” Therefore, Jaspers notes that there is no thinking without an object and, therefore, consciousness operates in the dichotomy between the thinking subject and the thought object.

Kant realized immediately that he was doing something revolutionary and he delved further to decisively question whether the existence in space and time that we perceive derives essentially from our interior, as previous Rationalists like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz had insisted, or rather from our worldly experiences, as the Empiricists like Locke, Berkeley, and Hume had argued. Kant, by questioning whether time and space really exist, proposed that these dimensions are simply products of the human imagination. Jaspers elucidates some of Kant’s basic arguments on the dimensions of space as mere figments of the mind by explaining space cannot be withdrawn from experience because it is from the very start, at the base of every experience and the fact that it is impossible to form a representation without space; but one can conceive of a space without objects. Jaspers says that Kant’s main argument for the illusion of space, though, was “The insights of geometry are not gained from experience but are verified in experience. How is this to be accounted for? The subject, by its form of intuition, recognizes a reality that has previously been formed by it.”

( Click to continue reading… )

“I see only from one point but, in my existence, I am looked at from all sides. We imagine that we are forever being watched in the way Santa Clause and God always seem to be looking over our shoulder. Indeed, as Sartre has told us before, God is merely the concept of the Other just taken to its ultimate limit.”

In ‘The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis,’ Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981) effectively redefines Sartre’s concept of the gaze. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) had previously considered what it was exactly that makes other people (the Other) stand out as people as opposed to something more mundane like a mannequin, robot, or a puppet. A puppet, for example, does not change the repose I seem to enjoy with my environment as dramatically as another person seems to. In my solitude, I rule the space around me but when my environment is intruded upon by another person I have to share it with this Other in an indeterminate manner. The freedom of the Other destabilizes my own freedom and disintegrates the preconceptions I had previously existed in. As a human being, I naturally tend to objectify the world around me but I must also presume that the Other also objectifies the world as well, including me in it. I have now become an object in the Other’s vision and, because I realize this innately, I have become an object even in my own opinion. I am imprisoned in the Other’s vision and, therefore, pass judgment on myself as a mere object. This causes a shameful feeling similar to if you were to spy through a keyhole and became surprised to see another eyeball staring back at you. If you privately do something so natural as to pick at your nose, for example, and come to realize that someone was watching you the whole time – you are inevitably reduced to shame.

Sartre’s gaze has broader applications, however, and it does not necessarily have to be an actual eye that puts one to shame but it could also be, as Sartre tells us, the rustling of leaves, the sound of footsteps, or anything that a subject suddenly believes to be an unexpected presence of another. Lacan was particularly interested in this aspect of Sartre’s gaze that is “not a seen gaze, but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other” as well as the fact that “the Other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze.” Lacan takes Sartre’s concept of the gaze one step further by asserting that the presence of another person is irrelevant altogether because it is really our own act of looking that causes this feeling. Lacan even goes as far to say that the “gaze is everything in the field of vision except the actual look of the person looking.”

( Click to continue reading… )

About a month ago, I posted this video to my FaceBook account and it got the most positive responses and Likes my wall has ever seen. While the Chicago Cultural Center is an AWESOME institution, I find it funny that her work has to pass through the hierarchy first as a cultural artifact before it can be classified as Fine Art. Every layperson on FaceBook realized immediately how amazing her work is, yet, even in death, she has to build a resume of exhibitions before MOMA and Tate will even begin to consider her work. Personally, I think she might be the best Street Photographer I’ve ever seen. More at VivianMaier.com

 

Descartes’ search for a universal language as well as a certainty grounded within the self has now found a home within the artistic nature of Existentialism. Kierkegaard’s dual authorships, as original models for Existentialism, have been rejuvenated today in contemporary expressions of dialogism as well as autopathography. In particular, the recent proliferation of autopathography, in both memoir and self-portraiture, has now become a primary method of communicating meaning in the wake of Post-Modern relativism. As exemplified in the work of Francesca Woodman, photographic self-portraiture can be seen as a final refuge for the opposing values of subjectivity as well as objectivity.

 

The twentieth-century will always be remembered as a significant period in art history, particularly because it was able to destroy numerous barriers of convention while effectively expanding the overall terrain of the lone artist. During this unprecedented time, notable art personalities like Josef Beuys (1921-1986) and Andy Warhol (1928-1987) respectively proclaimed that “everybody is an artist” and “everything is art.” While dramatic statements like these may seem liberating at first, they also drain art of any possible meaning at the same time. If everything is art, then nothing is art. In the end, it is not useful to say that “everything is art” because it dematerializes any shared communal conceptions of what art actually is. Generalizations always end up as generic assumptions, even this one. So before we begin to put forth any of our theories of art, we first have to acknowledge that the most defining aspect of art is its inherent nature to elude definition. For centuries, scholars have attempted to identify, categorically, the most fundamental components of art, only to have new artists come along and create masterpieces that do not conform to these generalized aesthetic formulas. Problems always arise when academic circles try to articulate what constitutes superior art because a recipe for excellence is so simplistic that it is ultimately never illuminating and, in the end, a significant artwork can readily disprove any of the given standards of excellence. Art, therefore, can never be formulized. Equipped with only history to deduce our present status, however, it becomes necessary to examine our past in order to envision our future.

 

“We are only what we repeatedly do.”

-Aristotle (384 B.C.E. – 322 B.C.E.)

 

While art has always inherently been some form of self-representation, it is generally regarded that the first artwork devoted solely to the genre of self-portraiture was never fully actualized until the relatively recent date of 1450. The late appearance of the self-portrait, in effect, headed the birth of the Renaissance. Today, however, self-portraiture is now common practice throughout the art world, yet it still remains a perplexing fact to how exactly it could take approximately 30,000 years, since the earliest known works of art, for self-portraiture to be recognized as a subject matter worthy of our attention. While there are many reasons for the emergence of the self-portrait onto the Renaissance landscape, most notable were the new socio-economic liberties of the artisan, the technological advances in the production of mirrors, as well as the artisan’s own self-promotion as an intellectual who could rival the nobility commissioning his work. There must be other factors at work here, however, which can account for the transformation of artisans from mere tradesmen into the ‘Renaissance man’ capable of mastering other fields outside his own artistic profession. Through newfound powers of self-creation, geniuses like Michelangelo (1440-1550) and Leonardo (1450-1520) became the first ‘art stars’ to successfully advance from humble artisans into artists and eventually into the legendary figures who are now forever immortalized throughout the pages of Giorgio Vasari’s 1550 biography ‘The Lives of the Artists.’

The appearance of the self-portrait, in effect, remains a striking landmark and visual reminder of the rising independence of the artist and intellectual. The rigid hierarchy of the feudal pyramid had slowly become dismantled and was eroded all together once the Copernican revolution ousted mankind from his center of the universe. An immutable order had been negated and the subsequent void could only be filled by the independent visionary.

Today, we can precisely place the advent of Modern philosophy in 1641 with Rene Descartes’ (1490-1560) proclamation “Cogito Ergo Sum” (“I think, therefore, I am”) because here was the first attempt to build a system of knowledge free from the outside influences of others and the orthodox canon dictated from previous generations. Following thinkers were left on their own to rise from the ashes with only Descartes’ cogito model to react to and it would not be until Soren Kierkegaard’s (1813-1855) nineteenth-century writings that a new philosophy would develop which truly centered itself around the individual – above and beyond any transcendental order.

In the twentieth-century, this liberation of the individual mind has now been largely responsible for, among other things, the development of Existentialism in philosophy, the explosion of memoir in literature, as well as for the continued exponential increase of self-portraiture in the visual arts. Led by the newest ‘art star’ Cindy Sherman (1954-present), the ascension of female self-portraiture would now empower women to take control over their own image and eventually proved crucial for the overall success of Feminism in the later half of the century. Indeed, as self-portraiture had once anticipated the coming of Modern philosophy, female self-portraiture would now usher in a Post-Modern era. Throughout all of this, however, images of the self continued to flourish and the invention of photography and film only allowed for a new means of self-awareness much in the same way the mirror and the first works of art had done once before. The individual must, necessarily, identify with something outside itself and these innovative mediums enabled one to emulate his/her own self, rather than merely following the others in the surrounding environment. All art is some form of self-portraiture and it is only recently that this basic fact has been able to become more and more apparent.

Today, however, our advances have paradoxically led to a new crisis in self because the self has only acquired an unbounded and, therefore, uncertain identity. In simpler times, there was always at least something reassuring in knowing your exact place in the social order, no matter how lowly it might actually be. Only after the decisive split with the surrounding community, world, and known universe had the mind been able to begin to truly grasp itself but these divisions also exposed inherent fractures even within the self which art is now trying to mend through its persistent attempts to define personal identity.

( Click to continue reading… )

Theo Jansen

by Thomas Cummins

in art, design, sculpture, technology

My previous post of Ned Kahn’s kinetic art just reminded me of this South African BMW commercial I saw last year. Dutch artist Theo Jansen created these amazing Strandbeests and was also a lecturer for TED. Kind of unrelated but there is an interesting sidenote posted in the comments of this youtube video -

“Why did BMW hire a Dutch artist to be in their SOUTH AFRICAN commercial? Very simple… They were seeking to attract the attention of affluent South African “Boers” (white people of Dutch descent) by associating BMW’s image with that of a Dutch artist or, in reality, any other Dutch symbol that’s able to suggest a great deal of class and credibility. The subliminal message is “hey South Africans, real Dutch people trust BMW”…”

While completely valid and insightful it’s a shame that this apolitical work has been drawn into the political arena but I’m guessing Jansen got payed handsomely and attained tons of publicity out of this. I’m personally hoping to see a lot more of his work in the future. I am just brought back to the age-old question “What exactly is art?” Are Rube Goldberg, Pee-Wee, or Peter Fischli & David Weiss all artists in this respect?

While working on my current public art project for the University Health System, I was introduced to the artwork of California artist and MacArthur Fellow Ned Kahn. Apparently, it looks like he might be doing a piece similar to these Pittsburgh and Switzerland pieces for the hospital being built in downtown San Antonio.

What makes this piece particularly exciting is that this piece will be on display where I-35 & I-10 meet -a road most San Antonians take as well as pretty much every traveler passing though the city from any cardinal point. You can see a computer animation of the proposed building with the highway intersection here.