On
December 15th, 2011, University of Nevada Reno, second year MFA
student, Brian Krueger had the unique opportunity to have a studio visit with
the authors of three books which Krueger has been assigned to read for a
Seminar in Visual Arts class taught by Professor Joseph DeLappe. Krueger chose to have a studio visit
with three authors with whom he believed were most relative to his work. The authors he chose included Stephen
Duncombe, author of the book, Dream,
Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy; Nicolas Bourriaud,
author of the book, Relational Aesthetics;
and Suzi Gablik, author of the book, Has
Modernism Failed? Revised Edition.
The
studio visit began at about 10:30 am in room #2 of the Church Fine Art building
on the University’s campus. Krueger has a rather large but very cluttered
studio space. It seemed as if in a few instances the visitors could not
distinguish between the art and debris. Krueger planned to show a few QuickTime
interdisciplinary films, an ongoing community service project which involves
stop motion animation and a book of drawings he made before coming to graduate
school as a sort of conceptual blueprint for his current studio practice. Krueger
was energetic and seemed excited about this important studio visit. He had copies of each of the visiting
author’s books arranged neatly beside his computer. After the authors and
Krueger introduced themselves, Krueger sat down near his computer and began to
explain his background as a segue into his current MFA studio practice: “ I’m
from a large, conservative, Catholic family of five girls and four boys. It was
a very patriarchal upbringing and there was quite a bit of pressure on the boys
to succeed in sports and career. I’ve always wanted to be an artist however,
the pressure to deliver financial results lead me into a career as a commercial
artist. After thirty years of making, for the most part, significantly watered
down artwork for the corporate world, I became very jaded. During the last seven
years in the corporate world I worked for the largest slot machine manufacturer
in the world, International Game Technology, in Reno Nevada as a video graphics
designer. I managed to render myself relatively anonymous within the “cube
farm” (this is a relatively sarcastic characterization of corporate workspaces
which are often comprised of squared cube-like work areas) for the last four or
five years. During those years I spent virtually everyday making pen and ink
drawings about how it felt to work at a large multi-national corporation.”
Krueger then handed Suzi Gablik a copy of a book of his drawings called Make Time For Tom, Ruminations on Corporate
Damnation. The book is comprised of 116 drawings, which are highly
detailed, surreal and a scathing commentary on what it felt like to work at a
large corporation (see illustrations 1 and 2).
All
three visiting authors took turns flipping through the book. Suzi Gablik’s
response was fairly immediate: “It seems as if you are likely familiar with
George Grosz and possibly, Robert Crumb.”
Krueger replied, “Yes, I have been familiar with both artists for many years
now and they’ve had a fairly direct influence on my work.”
Gablik
then said, “It seems this could be identified as a form of social sur-realism [she emphasized the sur in surrealism.] Do you believe this
work was just a reaction to your existence at a large corporation or was there
more of a social-realist agenda at work here? What I mean to say is, did you
make these drawings with the intent of raising awareness of a particular social
ailment with regard to corporate culture?”
Krueger replied, “ Well, at first I wasn’t really even thinking about it much. I was simply drawing what came to mind in a stream of conscious way. After I made about twenty drawings I started to see a pattern emerge. I realized that unconsciously I was visually interpreting what it felt like to work for a large multi-national corporation. Now, after reading your book, Has Modernism Failed?, I can see that my feelings were not simply misplaced rage. After a while I realized that what this company was making, slot machines, could easily have been substituted by any other product. What I’m saying is that what we did on a daily basis had virtually no intrinsic meaning or value outside of providing a steady paycheck and generating profits for the company. This seems to speak in a way to what you wrote in Has Modernism Failed? You wrote paraphrasing Richard Sennett from his book, The Corrosion of Character, ‘life is propelled by drift. In prioritizing economic growth at any cost, capitalism has begun to wreak its own havoc from within’(15). That havoc for me manifested itself as a feeling of having no real purpose or social mooring. I suppose I can appreciate salient art made for its own sake but ultimately I do not see myself as a person who can only make that kind of art. Mr. Bourriaud, I am with you in that I cannot resign myself to inhabit the world ‘like the precursory phenomena of an inevitable historical evolution’, as you’ve written in your book, Relational Aesthetics (13). I would like as you you’ve suggested, to seek better ways to inhabit the world and I believe that is the artist’s ‘job’ as it were. I suppose first an artist can instigate a dialogue through some form of aesthetic disruption. By this I mean works of art that invade or disrupt what might be considered ‘normal’ aesthetic or social discourse. I would call this phase of the process the ‘tip of the spear’. I use the metaphor, ‘tip of the spear’ because to raise awareness in a world comprised largely of spectacle one must employ audacious means to break through a thick wall of mind numbing simulacra. Ms. Gablik, I was deeply struck by what you wrote at the beginning of chapter three of your book: ‘People are trained, in modern bureaucratic societies, to carry out monotonous routines. A person whose whole life is spent performing a few repetitive tasks becomes mechanized in mind, hardly ever breaking through the surface of his routine; he finds little opportunity to exert his understanding, judgment, or imagination. The critical faculties grow dull and perception is blunted, hardened by a crippling sameness. This sort of collective trance, with its automatic and reflex responses, usually remains constant: the conformed mind does not change, or grow with experience, unless something happens to disrupt it’ (46-47). This passage goes a long way in confirming what was formerly only a suspicion of mine. If you look at the cover of my book you’ll see a man being nailed to a cross. Ironically, he has a kind of vapid smile on his face. This is because he is reading a vacuous lifestyle magazine called Tom (Tom is an invented lifestyle magazine based on Tom Cruise’s lifestyle). This, for me is a representation of how a critical mass keep themselves blind to their own unmoored existence through what amounts to empty pacifications. Mr. Duncombe, in your book, Dream, Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy, you wrote in reference to American citizens: ’This is not some mass of illiterates living in a world where information is controlled by priests intoning in Latin. These are citizens of a highly literate nation awash in 24/7 information’ (7). This is true Mr. Duncombe, these citizens might be literate but do they think? I am skeptical as to whether citizens mediate their world by thinking about or processing information. It seems a mechanized mind hardened by industrial capitalism loses what I would like to think is inherent in humans, the ability to respond more directly, creatively and intelligently to their world versus being pacified or entertained. The only way to shake humans out of this collective pacification is through aesthetic, cultural and social disruption. My drawings are about disruption but more importantly they were synthesized through that bland corporate prism that Ms. Gablik described so well in her book. In other words, I felt as if I might have been blessed (or cursed) with a strange sort of X-Ray vision. What I mean by this is that behind the bland veneer of scripted pleasantries, grey cubes and linear logic I saw this obsessive, borderline psychotic, hardened ruthlessness, which looked horrifying to me. Mr. Duncombe, in Chapter two of your book, Dream, you propose adopting the obviously illusionary forms Las Vegas employs to seduce people. It just seems to be manipulative and a bit Machiavellian. I got the impression that instead of creating ways to mediate the world outside of the western capitalist model, you seem to subscribe to the old axiom, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ To me, doesn’t this underscore and endorse the modes’ operandi of industrial capitalism that brought us many problems you seem to be reacting against?”
Krueger replied, “ Well, at first I wasn’t really even thinking about it much. I was simply drawing what came to mind in a stream of conscious way. After I made about twenty drawings I started to see a pattern emerge. I realized that unconsciously I was visually interpreting what it felt like to work for a large multi-national corporation. Now, after reading your book, Has Modernism Failed?, I can see that my feelings were not simply misplaced rage. After a while I realized that what this company was making, slot machines, could easily have been substituted by any other product. What I’m saying is that what we did on a daily basis had virtually no intrinsic meaning or value outside of providing a steady paycheck and generating profits for the company. This seems to speak in a way to what you wrote in Has Modernism Failed? You wrote paraphrasing Richard Sennett from his book, The Corrosion of Character, ‘life is propelled by drift. In prioritizing economic growth at any cost, capitalism has begun to wreak its own havoc from within’(15). That havoc for me manifested itself as a feeling of having no real purpose or social mooring. I suppose I can appreciate salient art made for its own sake but ultimately I do not see myself as a person who can only make that kind of art. Mr. Bourriaud, I am with you in that I cannot resign myself to inhabit the world ‘like the precursory phenomena of an inevitable historical evolution’, as you’ve written in your book, Relational Aesthetics (13). I would like as you you’ve suggested, to seek better ways to inhabit the world and I believe that is the artist’s ‘job’ as it were. I suppose first an artist can instigate a dialogue through some form of aesthetic disruption. By this I mean works of art that invade or disrupt what might be considered ‘normal’ aesthetic or social discourse. I would call this phase of the process the ‘tip of the spear’. I use the metaphor, ‘tip of the spear’ because to raise awareness in a world comprised largely of spectacle one must employ audacious means to break through a thick wall of mind numbing simulacra. Ms. Gablik, I was deeply struck by what you wrote at the beginning of chapter three of your book: ‘People are trained, in modern bureaucratic societies, to carry out monotonous routines. A person whose whole life is spent performing a few repetitive tasks becomes mechanized in mind, hardly ever breaking through the surface of his routine; he finds little opportunity to exert his understanding, judgment, or imagination. The critical faculties grow dull and perception is blunted, hardened by a crippling sameness. This sort of collective trance, with its automatic and reflex responses, usually remains constant: the conformed mind does not change, or grow with experience, unless something happens to disrupt it’ (46-47). This passage goes a long way in confirming what was formerly only a suspicion of mine. If you look at the cover of my book you’ll see a man being nailed to a cross. Ironically, he has a kind of vapid smile on his face. This is because he is reading a vacuous lifestyle magazine called Tom (Tom is an invented lifestyle magazine based on Tom Cruise’s lifestyle). This, for me is a representation of how a critical mass keep themselves blind to their own unmoored existence through what amounts to empty pacifications. Mr. Duncombe, in your book, Dream, Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy, you wrote in reference to American citizens: ’This is not some mass of illiterates living in a world where information is controlled by priests intoning in Latin. These are citizens of a highly literate nation awash in 24/7 information’ (7). This is true Mr. Duncombe, these citizens might be literate but do they think? I am skeptical as to whether citizens mediate their world by thinking about or processing information. It seems a mechanized mind hardened by industrial capitalism loses what I would like to think is inherent in humans, the ability to respond more directly, creatively and intelligently to their world versus being pacified or entertained. The only way to shake humans out of this collective pacification is through aesthetic, cultural and social disruption. My drawings are about disruption but more importantly they were synthesized through that bland corporate prism that Ms. Gablik described so well in her book. In other words, I felt as if I might have been blessed (or cursed) with a strange sort of X-Ray vision. What I mean by this is that behind the bland veneer of scripted pleasantries, grey cubes and linear logic I saw this obsessive, borderline psychotic, hardened ruthlessness, which looked horrifying to me. Mr. Duncombe, in Chapter two of your book, Dream, you propose adopting the obviously illusionary forms Las Vegas employs to seduce people. It just seems to be manipulative and a bit Machiavellian. I got the impression that instead of creating ways to mediate the world outside of the western capitalist model, you seem to subscribe to the old axiom, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ To me, doesn’t this underscore and endorse the modes’ operandi of industrial capitalism that brought us many problems you seem to be reacting against?”
At
this point Krueger began to realize that he needed to begin a descent from his
soap crate. “I probably should apologize. I’m really not letting anyone get a
word in edgewise, am I?”
A
very patient Stephen Duncombe replied, “Yes, but what
I propose is quite different. What I propose is not about cynically leading a
naïve public to my way of thinking. An ethical spectacle requires far more. I
propose the use of ethical spectacles to build critical mass.”
Krueger
then responded, “Do you mean building a critical mass for a specific
ideological objective?”
Duncombe
started to realize he needed to clarify something difficult to express in a
studio visit but decided to try. “No Brian, an ethical spectacle is not about
displaying or endorsing a specific end but more about displaying a “means” or
better yet, a better way of mediating
the social sphere. In these ethical spectacles, one must build a framework in
which players are allowed to operate in different ways. It is only then that
people can see what may be possible and what it may mean with respect to their
own ways of mediating the world. This is how critical mass can lead to actual
change. Consequently, Critical Mass is the name of what is
considered a movement begun in San Francisco in 1992 and serves as a good
example. This is a massive ‘free form’ bike ride where a group of bike riders
more or less take over the city streets as a reaction to their second-class
status on urban streets. Critical Masses have taken place all over the world
and have reached ‘masses’ as large as three thousand. As an outgrowth of
Critical Mass the Xerocracy was born. Xerocracy is a decentralized form of
social exchange in which the participant bike riders of Critical Mass go to
corner copy shops in various neighborhoods and print their own leaflets, flyers
and zines in support of their own
ideas. No one is in charge and ideas are spread organically. This is not Madison
Avenue stuff here, Brian.”
Still
photograph from Critical Mass. Balboa
Park, San Diego.29th August, 2008.
Photographs from Jason Mead’s blog. 1st September, 2008
This
point made by Duncombe seemed to elicit a response by Nicolas Bourriaud,
“Brian, I would not interpret Mr. Duncombe’s intentions as those of
manipulation or even ideological persuasion. It seems his point is one, which
in ways echoes my concept of creating new relational models within which people
can live. As I point out early on in my book, Relational Aesthetics, I do not see Mr. Duncombe suggesting
teleological spectacles be put on display. He seems to be proposing ways of
living and models of action within the existing real. These ethical spectacles
do not strike me as necessarily didactic manipulations. Do I understand your
point Mr. Duncombe?”
Duncombe
replied,” Yes, Mr. Bourriaud but I find that what I propose is not always easy
to make clear. First of all Brian, I am not interested in leading people by the
nose only to confirm the suspicion that many progressives are little more than
self righteous busy bodies. That is as cringe inducing to me as it is to you.
Further, I am optimistic that if individuals initiate more of these types of
ethical spectacles, people will feel far less threatened and far more
personally vested in social discourses. I understand your trepidation but my
interest comes from the belief that if models of social discourse are more
relational and inclusive, people will do the right thing. I trust that if we
create the best models for social discourse, people will respond in kind.”
Krueger
seemed as if he was seeing some light and said, “Yes, I think I’m beginning to
understand. My mind has been a bit cluttered lately. It’s the end of the
semester and I’m in the middle of writing a very difficult paper.”
Strangely,
all three visiting authors looked at each other and said in unison, “DeLappe’s
class, right?”
Krueger
looked a bit confused and then continued, “However, I cannot help but think
that the model of discourse you describe could be vulnerable to allowing a few
foxes to get into your ethical hen house. Do you know what I mean?”
Duncombe
responded, “I know what you mean. I agree to an extent but wouldn’t you also
agree that while the ethical spectacle may be vulnerable and open to a few
snake oil salesmen, that vulnerability will probably always exist in one form
or another. It certainly is no more vulnerable to that kind of corruption than
our current forms of discourse, right?”
Krueger
seemed satisfied with Duncombe’s explanation, “Hmmm, I see your point, and I
suppose in any form of social discourse there needs to be vigilance. In other
words the public needs to be awake!”
Krueger
was enjoying the discussion but knew that time was at a premium and he needed
to make the most of it. “I think this may be an appropriate time to introduce
you all to my current work as a graduate student. My book of drawings seemed to
serve as an adequate blueprint for my current work. The intentions for my
current studio practice are twofold.
There’s a kind of problem/solution dynamic with regards to my work. First I’d like to explain the problem portion of my work. On September 16th, 2011 my multi media installation and
performance, Brazen Bull: Traps and Veils opened at The Sierra
Arts Gallery in Reno Nevada. The term Brazen
Bull refers to a torture and execution device made in ancient Greece
(Athens) by a metal worker named Perillos. He proposed the device to Phalaris,
a Tyrant of Akragas, Sicily. The Brazen Bull was a bronze, life size, hollow
bull with a latch opening. Victims were put inside the bull and fire set
underneath to roast the victims to death.
The victim had no choice but to place his mouth over complex horn-like
tubing as a final source of oxygen. The tubing was designed in way to channel
the final screams of the victim and transmute them into the melodic sounds of a
bull. While proposing the device to Phalaris, Perillos said, “[his screams] will come to you
through the pipes as the tenderest, most pathetic, most melodious of bellowings.”
Krueger then described the work in detail while showing still photographs of the opening performance on his laptop. He explained, “For my show/performance I appropriated a steel air compression tank and placed inside a Rolen Star audio transducer, which transmutes electronic sounds into ambient vibrations. This tank/bull was placed approximately in the center of The Sierra Arts Gallery. Directly in front of the ‘Brazen Bull’ tank there was a small area sealed off from viewers by a semi-transparent plastic, painter’s drop “cloth.” This sheet of plastic was mounted to the ceiling and draped downward flush with the floor. Behind this screen in the upper portion of the gallery wall a projector was mounted. This projector was connected by an “S-cable” to a digital video camera, which was placed outside of the screened area and aimed directly at the plastic screen. On the night of the show’s opening Jason Alt, an amateur boxer and my former sparring partner, and I boxed for approximately 12 minutes. On the ceiling of the plastic screened-in boxing area was mounted a highly sensitive directional microphone. This microphone was connected by wire directly to the Rolen Star transducer inside the Brazen Bull/tank. All of the sounds made during the boxing performance were transmuted through the Brazen Bull tank as vibrations thereby completing the metaphoric connection to the ancient Brazen Bull. The video camera recorded live video of the boxing, which was projected onto the boxers (myself and Jason) in real time as we boxed. This created rather complex overlays of shadows, projection images and the actual fight displaying a hall of mirrors-like confusion of imagery. This in some ways was also reminiscent of an ancient Greek philosopher, Plato’s parable, “Allegory of The Cave.” Plato’s “allegory” was about humans who spent their entire existence chained against the walls of a cave. They faced the wall of the cave and their only idea of truth was in the form of shadows cast onto the wall of the cave by real objects behind them. In my show, through sound, mixed media, photography, performance and film, I explored how the trap-like implications of the Brazen Bull continue to manifest itself in a contemporary capitalist society as well as inside myself.
Illustration
of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. From
blog: How we got here. A Study of
Western Civilization. 13
April 2011
The Brazen
Bull provided for me, to date, the most resolved metaphor regarding identity,
and the struggle for authentic human expression in a dehumanizing,
post-industrial existence.”
Krueger
then began to show documentary film of the fight/performance. Ms. Gablik was
the first to respond, “It seems as if you found a kind of social mediation that
intends to disrupt the ‘trance’ as it were?”
Krueger
answered, “ Yes, my intention was to find a socially non-symbiotic action which has eluded the ‘collective trance’ as
you’ve written. I felt that by removing a ‘fight’ from its conventional context
(an arena, ring or gym) people might be able to see the fight more for what it
really is. A boxing match regards two bodies in crisis. Not only did I believe
there was a strong aesthetic component to the fight, but I also wanted to put
an action on display that is nearly impossible to be anything but what it is. In
my own personal experience fighting is almost impossible to ‘fake’. It is only through an authentic action that
I could explore the tension between the authentic and the simulation. The
simulative aspect was the projection of the live fight being forced onto the
actual fight and the sounds of the fight being transmuted through the
transducing speaker inside of the bull/tank.”
Bourriaud
asked, “So is the semi transparent screen there to serve as some kind of veil?
Are you trying to express the idea that even the most seemingly authentic
social actions are subsumed into simulacra?”
Krueger
excitedly answered, “Yes, you’ve got it!”
Bourriaud
continued, “So, if the screen which makes visible the actual fight, the
projection of the fight and the shadows the fight casts it seems to propose a
confusion of authentic with simulacra.”
Krueger
expanded his explanation, "Yes, I am interested in exploring the idea that all
experience whether authentic or spectacle is subsumed into the capitalist trap".
Gablik
then said, “So, in essence, the veil is also the trap.”
Krueger
answered, “Right. The trap I am referring to is one of capitalist society’s own
creation. It is very much in line with your reference to what Richard Sennett
wrote in The Corrosion of Character,
‘In prioritizing economic growth at any cost, capitalism has begun to wreak its
own havoc from within.’” (15).
Gablik
then remarked, “I have to wonder, though. Acts of provocation using violence is
nothing particularly new. Artists such as Chris Burden were using violent
performance as a way to violate our sense of boundaries as far back as the
seventies. Is your performance much different than say, Chris Burden’s 1974,
Transfixed? For this performance Chris Burden had himself nailed to a Volkswagen.
What’s new with your performance?”
Krueger
thought for a minute and answered, “That is a great question and from one
specific perspective, that of a violent act of provocation, my performance
probably is not terribly new. My intention was not to shock through the use of
spectacle, though. My intention was to mediate the interstice between an
authentic action and simulacra. For me, this, as Mr. Bourriaud suggests in his
book ‘tightens the space of relations’ (15) by bringing a fight into a more
contemplative zone. My performance was more of formal experiment to highlight a
problem that appeared to be part of an inescapable social construction versus
an overt act of provocation, which I believe, was closer to Burden’s intent.
The Brazen Bull symbolizes that inescapable social construction. The fight is
an authentic action transmuted through the screen, projection and bull. I do
not believe that even though my performance was a violent act,that it shocked.
The intention was not to shock ”.
Krueger
continued, “What you’ve seen so far is a glimpse of what I would term the
‘problem’ portion of my studio work. I would now like to describe what I
consider the ‘solution’ component of my twofold studio practice. MFA students
at UNR are required to do a community service project as part of their studies.
I have always believed that if one chooses to be a social critic, one’s position is weakened if they offer no alternatives to
help remedy what they consider a social problem. I am
currently developing a community service oriented project called Drawn Together. This is comprised of one
large continuous, collaborative drawing. The drawing is made with gel pens and
day-glow paint on sheets of black 18”x24” paper. These sheets of paper are bridged to
one another creating one, ongoing continuous drawing made by people of all
ages, locations and backgrounds. I have been making a frame-by-frame stop
motion animation of this continuous drawing as it is being created. My intent is to use this participatory
art project as the centerpiece of a campaign to raise awareness of the
importance of integrating collaborative art, visual spatial skills and creative
thought processes in all areas of pedagogic practice. I aim to exhibit the stop
motion animation, the original continuous drawing and documentary stills of the
drawing in progress.”
by Coral Wu. JPEG files.
Still photographs
from Drawn Together event, Reno. 19th June, 2009. Still
photographs
by Coral Wu. JPEG files.
Krueger then showed QuickTime animations of the stop motion drawing in progress. He also pulled out the continuous drawing which was comprised of several sheets of 18”x24” black paper. He said, “I intend to show, first hand, that there are ways to inspire genuine social bonds in communities even in times when those social bonds are possibly at their weakest.”
Krueger then showed QuickTime animations of the stop motion drawing in progress. He also pulled out the continuous drawing which was comprised of several sheets of 18”x24” black paper. He said, “I intend to show, first hand, that there are ways to inspire genuine social bonds in communities even in times when those social bonds are possibly at their weakest.”
Mr. Bourriaud then added, “I wrote in Relational Aesthetics that philosopher Felix Guattari described art as ‘a form of living matter rather than a category of thought’ (86). Your aim seems to be to allow Drawn Together to be a participatory social life form rather than a product or finite object. Once art is successfully deterritorialized, it is free to act as a social bond outside of the hardened machinations of industrial capitalism.”
Krueger responded, “I believe you state it well on in your book: ‘We must thus learn to seize, enhance and reinvent subjectivity, for otherwise we shall see it transformed into a rigid collective apparatus at the exclusive service of the powers that be’ (89).
At this point, Stephen Duncombe appeared inspired by the exchange, “A line, a drawing, an ideal, begun and then stopped, picked up by another and continued and transformed, repeated again and again. An ever-evolving vision created through community. Isn’t this what democracy should look like?”
Krueger answered, “Yes, problem… solution!"
Brazen Bull boxing documentary film clips. Photographer. Jack Liddon. Perf. Brian Krueger and Jason Alt. 2011.
QuickTime Movie.
Drawn Together stop motion animation.
Animator. Brian Krueger. Gel pens and acrylic on paper. 2011. QuickTime Movie.
Works Cited
Krueger, Brian. Make Time For Tom: Ruminations on Corporate Damnation.
Krueger, Brian. Make Time For Tom: Ruminations on Corporate Damnation.
Reno: CTD Publishing Ltd., 2009.
Krueger,
Brian. Make Time For Tom: Ruminations on
Corporate Damnation. By Brian
Krueger.
Reno: CTD Publishing Ltd., 2009. Pen and ink on paper by Brian
Krueger. JPEG files
Sennett,
Richard. The Corrosion of Character: The
Personal Consequences of Work in
the New Capitalism. New York 1999.
Duncombe,
Stephen. Dream: Re-imagining Progressive
Politics in an Age of Fantasy.
New
York: The New Press, 2007.
Bourriaud,
Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics. Dijon:
Les presses du reel, 2002.
Gablik,
Suzi. Has Modernism Failed? Revised
Edition. New York and London: Thames &
Hudson
Ltd, 2004.
Still
photograph from Critical Mass. Balboa Park, San Diego.29th August
2008.
Photographs from Jason Mead’s blog. 1st September 2008
<
http://jordanmead.blogspot.com/2008/09/critical-mass-august-29th.html>
“Brazen bull.” Wikipedia. 2008 .
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. . 30 Jan 2011
Plato. Allegory of the Cave. The History Guide:
Lectures on Modern European
Intellectual History. 13 May 2004
Illustration
of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave from
blog: How we got here. A Study of
Western Civilization. 13
April 2011
< http://schickwestciv.blogspot.com/2011/04/allegory-of-cave.html>
Still
photographs from Brazen Bull fight/performance, Reno. 16th September
2011. Still
photographs from digital video by
Jack Liddon. JPEG files.
Burden, Chris.
Trans-fixed. 1974. performance art piece featuring him being nailed to a Volkswagen in Venice, CA. The photo copyright is owned by the artist, Chris Burden.
Still
photographs from Drawn Together event, Reno. 19th June, 2009. Still
photographs
by Coral Wu. JPEG files.
Duncombe,
Stephen. “studio visit.” E-mail to Brian Krueger.
6 December 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment