blog-o-rama~

Hey everyone:

I started off posting this in the comments section of Michele's post, but I realized it was way too long and that I just have way too much to say! Okay, starting off with In the Making:

For some reason, I found Kim Jones' "Mudman" to be fascinating. I totally agree with Michele, Catie and Stacy in the fact that Jones is taking art to a newer, deeper level. However, I do have to mention that Jones himself said that the mudman was not "an alter-ego" (page 212, paragraph 2). He says, "I am Kim Jones when I am Mudman and after I take a shower." I only mention that because, to me, that makes his creation even more interesting--because he is acknowledging that his creation is something that is a part of him, and that a part of him goes into his creation. They both are allowed to co-exist.

This concept is also important depth of the message Jones attempts to deliver. He isn't just walking around heaving a giant scrap metal backpack--all his life experiences have culminated up until this point, and become the Mudman. To compare, I find the opposite is true with Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harajuku_Girls ). The Harajuku girls are essentially four Japanese girls that Stefani hired to be her back-up dancers--but also part of her 'posse'. They are always each dolled up in exaggerated Japanese street fashion, and she often brings them with her to events. They are even present with her in some interviews (although they are forbidden to speak). In one sense, we can see how both the Mudman and Stefani's Harajuku Girls might be seen as artistic statements; they are both brilliant examples of living sculpture. However, a chief difference is the coexistance of creation and creator in what is essentially the same body. Unlike the Mudman, who is both the artist and the artwork, the HG are Stefani's brainchild come to life through the four girls who play them. While the Mudman will speak to whomever approached him, the HG are not allowed to speak due to Stefani's creative direction (if an interviewer asks one of them a question, Stefani will state that they cannot answer questions because they are "figments of her imagination" and therefore cannot be seen by anyone but her).

Basically, the HG are not allowed to coexist with their own real and actual lives, and their experiences are not permitted to contribute the creation they portray. I think this offers an important distinction in when art becomes relevant, or simply contrived theatrics. The idea lends itself to a topic we talked about in our last class discussion, in questioning what exactly art is, and what role artists themselves play. Is the fact that the Mudman is "relevant" whereas the HG are "contrived", mean that one is art while the other is not? For me, I find the Harajuku Girls to be a gimmicky crock, but I don't necessarily believe that negates its value as art. In my eyes, as long as at least one person sees something as art (whether it's the creator or not), it IS art. So when we listened to that P!nk song in class, and the consensus revealed that it was more than likely a ploy perpetrated by her record company--it might be, but it's still art.

I think questioning what role artists play in all this is even trickier. Is P!nk, as at least a partial creator of the song we listened to, held to any higher responsibilities? Is she expected to act on the message she delivers? Or is she simply allowed to be a messenger? Right now, this is question on which I am truly stuck...and hopefully I'll be able to find an answer (or at least clarify) as the class continues.

Okay, this was way longer than I had originally intended, so I'll stop now. Thanks for reading! :]