Krzysztof Wodiczko's "Critical Vehicles."

     Krysztof Wodiczko's "Critical Vehicles" is an article which discusses the over-saturation of past cultures bleeding into future cultures which make up the melting pot of today's society. Wodiczko's article states that the aftershock of past history, such as the Cold War is still being felt in contemporary society. The United Nations have referred to the last quarter century as the "Migration Era" because so many immigrants are looking to join this country, that the number of people looking to enter this country has reached statistics which are comparable to the nineteenth century immigration wave. There is however one difference between the immigrants who came here during the nineteenth century and those which are moving here now. The difference between these two groups is the immigrants who come here now are already walking into communities which are already established whether it be a community which is inhabited by other foreigners or a community of American citizens. So what role do these new immigrants play in contemporary American communities? Their role is actually to unbuild this community and help rebuild a new, different one which will take their past traditions and cultures and together with others, transform them into a more diverse community. Now, some might argue that by doing this, you are destroying the memory of the old country and culture that was left behind. In my opinion, losing a portion of past traditions is inevitable when joining or building a new community, however this is also the great thing about starting a community because you are able to take the memories and some traditions from the past and infuse them with the new ones which will be inherited by this new group.
     Wodiczko believes that within every immigrant is a vision of a new city to come which is even greater than that from the past and better than that which is there in front of them (present). One issue that often happens however is immigrants will have to flee their country because of a war or an unfortunate event which causes them to leave their country to protect their own lives or even more important their families lives. When something like this happens immigrants will have a "wounded" outlook on their new way of living, which will cause them to have a biased outlook on others around them who do not share this same experience. Wodiczko talks about how the Victors deprived the Nomads of their  history and once completely taken over, took their history away from them so that Nomads were later only looked at as geographic subjects, who in theory "did nothing". He than makes the comparison that just as Nomads have went down in the history books as people who "did nothing", society has presumed that migrants and immigrants have nothing to contribute to the great public debate. In other words the past is meaningless unless there are people who can keep tell the history of their culture. Therefore, at first encounter many cultures tend to be skeptical of others who are different from them because they can be a potential threat to the history which made them who they are. He states that: "the most questionable question, 'Where are you from?,' should never replace 'In what way can your past and present experiences contribute to everybody's well-being today and tomorrow?". Unfortunately, people often still ask a person where they are from and based on their answer, make assumptions and cast judgments on others.
      Krysztof also believes that history tends to repeat itself but people can use past mistakes in history to prevent them from repeating themselves.In order to do this however, each day history needs to be rewritten in order to correct the injustices of the past. What he means by this is that we as human-beings need to first honor the past by remembering it, than pass the knowledge of it on to others so that it will live on and lastly, use the errors of the past in order to change the present and the future. The worst thing that we can do is be like the Nomads who lost their history by not defending it. It is essential for growth that we our first human-beings before we our citizens of a country or members of a community. While being members of a community or culture help us define our pasts and our own identities as well, we also need to realize that migrants or immigrants also have their own identities that they bring to the table. We all belong to many different groups or cultures which help make us who we are and this is very important, but we also need to take a step back and realize that as humans we all share at least one common group or community together and it is important to carry on past traditions which help each of us establish ourselves as individuals.

Am I an Artist?

     Do I consider myself an artist? I guess in order to answer that question we would have to first ask ourselves what an artist is. In my opinion an artist is anyone who produces art. Which of course leads to the question what is art? Which of course is a highly controversial question because it is so subjective, the definition of art varies from person to person. In my eyes, art is anything that a person can create. This creation does not need to be tangible either it can simply be an idea, however there is one exception: art isn't art without an audience. It is almost similar to the debate on whether a sound is a sound if nobody is there to hear it. Art is not art without eyes to see or ears to hear.
     Keeping this in mind, I think everyone is an artist. In fact many things are created by people, entirely by chance or accidental, which is still art as John Cage taught us. What separates an "artist" from the average Joe? The idea and belief that the person is an artist. When a child makes a finger painting and they take it home for their proud parents to look at doesn't the child have their audience? Since art is so subjective, any piece of art has the potential to be considered a success in somebody's eyes. Now this doesn't mean that everyone is considered a professional artist. The difference is that a professional artist makes a living off of producing art regardless of the mediums used. So to answer the question in layman's terms I am an artist, and anybody else with a creative mind is too.

Site Specifics and Locative Media Artists in the Contested-Aware City

    The Article "Site-Specifics" focuses reader's attention toward the debate on site-specific art. Exactly how much of an impact does the specificity of a site have on artists' work and the connection it has with it's audience? It is arguable to say that it has absolutely no impact on some work but a dramatic impact on others. Fact of the matter is there is no right or wrong answer to this debate. One example that comes to mind when I contemplate the subject is Robert Smithson's "Spiral Jetty". Spiral Jetty was said to be Smithson's most known work of art. This piece of art is actually an earthwork which was constructed in Utah in the 1970's located right near the Great Salt Lake. As you may have guessed the land was constructed into a spiral shape which extends just out into the lake. The reason I used this work of art as an example was because the location of the work is crucial to the piece and had this piece been made in another location it would be an entirely different piece.
   The Modernist art critic, Michael Fried discussed the impression specific-site location has on art pertaining to minimalist art. He states: "In forcing an incursion of the time and space of viewing into the experience of the work, Fried argues, minimalism enters into a realm which 'lies between the arts' where 'art degenerates as it approaches the condition of the theatre". In other words, in Minimalist art, one of the main focuses of the piece isn't the art but the actual space between the art. Minimalist art is a great example of this because its a form of art which isn't concerned with place as much as it is with space. What Fried is trying to say is that location is essential to this particular movement of art because much of what is focused on is the space between and around the object.
    The second article, "Locative Media Artists in the Contested-Aware City" is about how cell phones have reached the largest audience of consumers in the world. In doing so, it has made it so that practically every person in the world (majority) has some type of computer on them at all times, making it possible to pinpoint the whereabouts of most people in the world. This creates a large controversy throughout the art world and many artists have used technology to comment on both the positives and the negatives of being able to be tracked at any given time. Most people already overlook the fact that they are being filmed in public places without their consent or even their knowledge. Obviously there are positives to having video recording enabled in public places, for instance if a crime is committed, a car accident occurs, or if a person has gone missing. For these reasons, video surveillance is needed and very useful, however where is the line drawn?
    In the art world, location in regards to site-specific art can make or break a piece. In fact, location is so crucial to a piece of art that it can change the meaning of the art entirely. Examples such as Spiral Jetty show that sculpture art can be made with earth as the actual medium and the locations of these works are considered carefully so that the work can be made to its fullest potential. This is also evident within modern-day technology. The cell phone movement has targeted such a widespread market that just about anybody can be tracked down with computers. With tracking devices becoming such a widespread commodity, one questions whether the privacy of the common people has been compromised and if it has, should anything be done about it?