Rethinking Regionalism and the Significance of Place

Last Thursday in Buckman auditorium Rhodes was visited by renown a humerous and witty Chicago educator, critic, essayist and media commentator on visual arts, James Yood. He is currently faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, in the School of Art History, Criticism and Theory and is active as a contemporary art critic and essayist for Artforum and temaceleste, and a regular contributor to GLASS magazine, American Craft, Aperture, and Art and Auction.
His visit was especially pertinent to the Memphis art and culture pulse because he addressed what in means to be an artist in the "void" of middle-America in a New York-centric country. As a critic and a member of the midwestern art community himself, Yood often examines the significance of place in art making and interpretation. "Art-making is social not personal" he said, artists "respond to their surroundings and the people in them". This is why art made in Chicago is different from and misunderstood by the estranged but dominating art communities of Los Angeles and New York. Midwestern art is equally if not more important to the American experience than art from New York or L.A. no matter how marginalized they currently are. I really appreciated Yoods hopeful and unashamed commentary on embracing one's own place. An artist from the midwest can never make great art if he aims to make art for New York, he must embrace his "place". "Place sculpts artistic vision!"
As you can probably, tell the talk was heated and controversial, but well received by the memphis art community's ears. I think we just need more people like Yood out there letting people know that midwestern art isn't bad, its just different and the eastern and western poles of america just can't get it.

LA VIE EN ROSE

The award winning french film La Vie En Rose (La Mome)-a biopic about the extraordinary life of singer Edith Piaf (1915-1963)- was anything but extraordinary. Maybe, just maybe I felt this way because I went into the movie theater with such high hopes-after all it had won two Oscars and a handful of other foreign awards- however this is only the slightest possibility.

The story opens with young Edith brought from the gutter by her father- a short-tempered circus master- to be looked after in a local brothel by her paternal grandmother. From this moment on the movie flashes to various moments of time in her life in a very un-chronological, disorienting fashion. It jumps from scenes where she works for her father in the circus performing and doing small chores, to scenes where the artist is nearing the end of her life and career- all of which tend to be cold and heavily depressing. At 20, she is discovered singing on a street corner by a local club owner, who then introduces the young singer to a performance coach through whom's rigorous training she blooms into the legendary "Edith Piaf". Apart from that the viewer is opened into the artist's life full of peripheral fleeting companions, alcoholism, heartache, quiet drug abuse. Despite these intimate insights however, like those who surround her in the film, the viewer struggles to develop any sense of intimacy with Edith. Perhaps we empathize with the many hardships she faces, but director Olivier Dahan, through his cinematic style, leaves the viewer only in Edith's periphery. The short flashbacks/forwards in time as well as the countless scenes showcasing Edith drunkenly shouting at her "loved ones" or appearing completely withdrawn and disoriented serve to separate the artist from her fans and movie-goers.
Although many of these cinematic tools are most likely being employed to help the viewer get at the core or Mme Piaf and put the viewer almost directly in her shoes, it is a cinematic failure, for Danah fails to consider his audience from the moment he begins. Like I said, maybe this just is the essence of Mme. Piaf, but then if so, I appreciate her less.

Peter Saul and Political Art

Possibly one of the most symbiotic cultural relationships of all time is the one between art and politics. Both feed into each other and thrive on the other. Many moments in history art has risen to the occasion in times of turmoil or social unrest. No time was this more apparent in American history than the art produced during and in reaction to the Vietnam War. This was "art at its most tendenscious" argued Rhodes Art History Professor David McCarthy at an MCA lecture last week.
McCarthy spoke specifically of the artist Peter Saul who began his controversial politically charged body of work at the great war's early beginnings. The california artist's work voiced a strong opposition to the war that reached broad audiences across the country. Saul's paintings sided with the Vietnamese and their resistance to western imperialism and highlighted the barbaric acts of American troops on their island.
A visual representation of these perspectives on the war played and integral role in motivating anti-opposition quickly. Although Saul was one of the earlier artists to strongly voice his opposition to war, other visual artists, playwrights, and musicians began to rally protestors as well. These artistic venues provided by Saul and others mobilized a population around a political cause
eventually influnecing the US government to end their efforts in Vietnam.
Artists fill a very important void/gap between the public sector and their government, and it is this idea the Dr. McCarthy made very clear throughout his lecture. They often bring to light controversial or unknown truths long before the public realizes it. It is in this way that they help to influence and motivate people and politics. It has always been an important part of a nation's culture to use political art- whether it is used by the government to influence its people or by people to influence their government, its an essential part of the human experience and an extremely power part as well.

CAT POWER in LA

As we packed ourselves in between hundreds of fans last Friday night for the show- after spending and hour with countless others scalping scarce tickets outsides- my fellow concert goers and I found ourselves waiting what seemed like ages for the Southern Soul Queen to emerge from the dark. Before coming to the stage we were stuck listening to the droning overpowering sounds of Chan Marshall's (aka Cat Power) backing band, the Dirty Delta Three. Long after their dull intro set, Marshall emerged and began to strut the stage in her bright white sneakers. I was struck by her preppy attire (button down shirt, jeans, complete with a high ponytail)- the musician with a reputation for her rough habits and lifestyle appeared more like a girl from a GAP add than the elusive, sexy goddess that she later proved to be.
Lights often stayed dim upon Marshall's request as the young woman wailed her blues songs with bravado and intimately confessed her past of painful secrets to us all- often chocking up a bit and even admitting before hand that the song she was going to sing was most likely going to make her cry. Apart from bouncing, crouching, and even moonwalking across the stage, she never failed to acknowledge everyone in the room that night, whispering to band members, politely ordering the light-crew to take spot light from her, even reverse it into the audience instead-as she did at the shows end (a time at which she also proceeded to throw t-shirts and roses into the entire crowd). She won us all in the beginning with her sweet playful attitude, and brought us to her feet when she returned for the second half of the set in a sexy cropped t-shirt exposing a naked shoulder as she held a cigarette in hand. Throughout the sets' entirety she succeeded in commanding the whole room, forcing us all to want to know her deeply and love this masterful emotional girl. Her simultaneous girlish vulnerability and feminine strength present in both her voice and volition that night made the show a truly personal experience and a totally breathtaking night in LA's Wiltern Theater.