Page 1

CAN ART TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES? Dolores Galindo


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

Art, through the centuries, has been the aesthetic representation of human feeling and reflection. In different forms, the artist expresses the material or invisible as a response to the complex external world that surrounds them. Therefore, the freedom with which they confront the grand themes that preoccupy the society to which they belong contrasts with the politics of the state, which has traditionally tried to use cultural and artistic expression to reenforce the dominant ideology. Until the 19 th Century, art collections and objects of worth belonged to the hegemonic classes and were confined in places of restricted access and private realms. The birth of museums is related to the beginning of the nation state, which has used the institutions as much to change conduct as to instil models of behaviour. Bennett (1995:59) emphasises a parallel between the concept of the museum and that of discipline and power, contained within the thinking of Foucault (1975) in relation to the prison system. Prisons and museums developed at the same time, the former as hidden and repressive spaces and the latter as softer, visible technologies, which claimed to educate and civilise the citizen, allowing them to participate in different social events. It was an epoch of splendour for the European hegemony, in which universal exhibitions proliferated and the power of the state was represented in spectacular events and the exhibition of the great technological advances. The universal exhibition is the antecedent of the museums, which developed different techniques that contribute to the social communication of the imperialists’ achievements. The permanent collections incorporate ethnographic elements of those cultures controlled and dominated by them, as curiosities. It is widely accepted that the role of the state and its intervention in culture is

2


Dolores Galindo

intimately linked to the systems of exhibiting used in the museums, from which the concept of national identity is promoted. Coombes (1988: 57) refers to the strategy of the modern museums in the following way: Imperialism was one of the dominant ideologies mobilised to this end. The Empire was to provide the panacea for all ills, the answer to unemployment with better living conditions for the working class and a expanded overseas market for surplus goods. Today, however, the function of museums is determined by the global society in which we live. It is trans-national interests which determine their role. Therefore, the grand contemporary art museums begin to be complex structures designed with productive criteria, as much for the economic promotion of cities as for the exportation of a particular culture, another form of colonialism belonging to our era (Appadurai 2001). As an example, representative of the global museum, we will explore the Guggenheim in Bilbao. If there have been initiatives to produce political change on the part of institutions, what has been the reaction of society to these official politics? Artists as much as intellectuals have demanded political changes of governments. Therefore the artistic proposals and ideologies of the avant garde have served to widen the thought of the spectator and allow the questioning of the status quo. Numerous thinkers and creators, conscious of social necessities, have been recruited into the ranks of the revolutionary movements, eager to convert aesthetic theories into avant garde politics of the masses. As Nicolas Bourriaud (1998:10) pointed out: The 20th century was thus the arena for a struggle between two visions of the world: a modest, rationalist conception, hailing from the 18th Century, and a philosophy of spontaneity and liberation through the

3


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

irrational (Dada, Surrealism, the Situationists), both of which were opposed to authoritarian and utilitarian forces eager to gauge human relations and subjugate people. After a brief review of the contribution of the most revolutionary historical avantgarde movements, we will analyse the work of two contemporary artists, engaged with the social environment of their age: Robert Smithson y Francis Alÿs, whose contribution – to the consciousness of the natural environment in the case of Smithson, and of conflict in the case of Alÿs – is considered very influential. Therefore, we will be able to analyse two juxtaposed currents that both try to impose changes through culture and art. On the one hand, the state, which makes use of its power, using culture to reach diverse ends. On the other hand, the same society, through its independent creators, receives stimuli at odds with institutional impositions. This essay attempts to explore some of the ideological as aesthetic aspects that have served to bring about diverse political changes and through which contemporary society has been shaped, and endeavours to look at how the influence of art continues to procure its transformation.

On the back of the encyclopaedic museum of the modern world, the contemporary museum appeared, more specialised in nature and tending to develop other values in harmony with the epoch. Museums today serve a significant role in the construction of society and culture, acting as an institution that has its own reality and can be seen, assimilated and discussed. Over the course of their existence, museums have not only discovered the world, but have structured a modern way of seeing it, understanding and learning about it

2


Dolores Galindo

(Macdonald 2003). In relation to this they can be credited with being the creators of cultural contexts. Thanks to the didactic labour of the original museums they have achieved a first stage and have created the infrastructure necessary for subsequent development. Therefore, we can say that the contemporary museum employs culture and art as variables of development, in order to achieve objectives that transcend the merely cultural. In the ongoing debate of Western societies about the social function that culture performs, a new argument has emerged that continues to acquire a growing importance. From this perspective, the art museum not only receives public support as a stimulant to creativity, but it is conceived to achieve objectives linked to the politics of development or urban revitalisation (Moxey 2005). Such is the case of cities like London or Frankfurt, which have seen their economic potential grow through contemporary art. This is the same idea that underlies the origin of the Guggenheim project in Bilbao. These regeneration strategies seek old industrial enclaves in the centre of the city. Their objective is to convert these deprived areas into promoters of a new post-industrial urban model, that is, in a new centre as much metropolitan as regional. It tries to transform those spaces into a tertiary space, creating a multi use area in which services mix with residential use. The objective consists of uniting commercial centres, and through that, diversifying the productive structure and growing the competition of the city (Harvard 1999). Therefore, through a plan based on economic criteria and productivity, Bilbao has become a paradigmatic model of regeneration for a city profoundly depressed by industrial decline. A city that has been re-launched socially and culturally since the Guggenheim complex was constructed. Is there a consciousness of the tendency towards the global exploitation of the

5


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

museums and of the social responsibility this implies? The brand image created by the grand functions of art has become a powerful metaphor for the cultural businesses in the global economy. As Appadurai (2001: 328) highlights: The central problem of today’s global interactions is the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization. Most often, the homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument

about

Americanization,

or

an

argument

about

commoditization, and very often the two arguments are closely linked. It seems inevitable to accept the idea of the globalised museum in our society favoured by the international conglomerates of communications, the migratory movements and tourism, that little by little have been changing the binary “centre-periphery”. But Appadurai (2001) warns that there is a risk that the new form of cultural colonialism instigated by the museums is a reflection of the hegemonic

North

American

culture.

For

him,

resistance

to

cultural

homogenisation, where identities are levelled by the power of marketing or the economy, promotes the creation of new nationalisms. The communities with cultures which are not so dominant find themselves in opposition to this single dominant idea, cosmopolitan and global. In this case, the paradox emerges of economic development against the colonised resistance to the dominant culture. Bilbao has been marked by some as the “evident symbol of the triumph of American over European culture” (Guasch and Zulaika 2005), while for others it is considered the paradigm of economic transformation (Moxey 2005). On the global economic stage, Bilbao presents a new prototype of the museum, a fascinating space that tries to capture the attention of the visitor before they enter. The true impact of the Guggenheim is rooted in the spectacular nature of

2


Dolores Galindo

the work of the architect Frank Gehry. While art museums have been identified for their collections, the new museum is identified by its architecture – the dominant image is the container more than its contents. Here, the original model of utilizing architectural structures at the service of their use continues to repeat. In this sense (Moxey 2005: 180) claims: What has happened to the institution of the art museum? What did it do to deserve this? How can we understand a cultural era that constructs buildings that are not mere containers of art, but authentic pyrotechnic displays of architectural virtuosity, a circus tent undulated in place of a sober mark for the serene contemplation of art? Perhaps we can utilise the building itself as a metaphor for cultural function in power. The populist charm of its design diminishes the distinction between instruction and distraction, at the same time converting art into a spectacle. The purpose of the museum has become the entertainment of the masses. The Guggenheim of Bilbao demonstrates that, beyond creating an art collection, it is possible to promote a city. It is imperative to point out that this is one of the features

that characterises the

contemporary museum, conceived

as

architecture and as activity, before collection. If the traditional museum has created the basis necessary to develop the cultural conscience of the population, the contemporary museum goes beyond merely formative functions. The urban, economic and social profitability of the global museum is put against the current conception of the work of art as spectacle, in the context of industry. Is the contemporary museum’s conversion of art into a spectacle of the masses justified? Leaving to one side negative visions of globalisation, it can be admitted that the reciprocal influence between cultures is the motor of social

7


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

and cultural change, as well as constructing the essence of the development of the majority of cultural products.

Since the 19th Century in Western countries, museums arose according to a similar pattern, related to the consolidation of the nation state, which praised new technologies. The progress of the modern state consisted of the complete renovation of the old structures. The ruling rationalism created the idea of the ‘citizen’, which recognises the state as its legal field. In order to affirm itself, the state initiated a series of strategies aimed a defining its identifying ideologies, where the nation is the only referent. The birth of the institutions, as much prisons as museums, coincides with this moment of exaltation of its own values. Added to the function of public museums as “vehicles for a nationalist ideology” (Coombes 1988:63), an enthusiasm for collecting dominated the collections of the national museum, such as the British Museum or the Louvre. London and Paris were becoming industrial powers, as well as the centres of interpretation of the old World, with pieces being collected from Greek, Latin, oriental and exotic cultures. The justification for the collection and storage of objects was the necessity of avoiding their loss. The objects were classified and ordered for their later public presentation. With the museum the objects are given a new signification: the interpretation of the past through the framework of the later, current ideologies, as Baudrillard (1968:18) affirms: The objects proposed here, though they are high in status value, do impinge on sociological reality: they are not dream creations without commercial significance but, rather models in the proper sense of the

2


Dolores Galindo

word. We are not longer in a world of pure art, but in a world which (potentially at least) is of interest to the whole of society. Therefore, the modern state discovered the power that the museum allowed it, to impose its claims of national supremacy. With the opening to the public of the large national museums, the past notion of the museum as a place reserved for intellectuals is challenged, and a new stage emerges. The powers put knowledge at the disposition of the less favoured classes. But when did this significant change happen? How did the state articulate its beginnings through museums and exhibitions? Macdonald (2003) situates this moment in the French Revolution with its new egalitarian ideals, since it facilitated the transition of the private to the public. This spirit of egalitarianism, fraternity and liberty extended throughout Europe, favouring the creation of new states emerging out of popular revolution. The nation state, in turn, fed this sentiment through public museums by transmitting to the individual, considered as an active part of its membership, a notion of belonging to the collective. In this way, art centres became places where the idea of having an one’s own culture was reinforced. Another strategy to impose its beginnings of national identity was through new buildings. The public power developed systems of vigilance through architectural structures. In this way, the population was prompted to behave in line with the rules imposed by the dominant hegemony (Bennett 1995). The original museum resembled a container of patrimony consisting of a simple structure, closed within four walls, being comparable to the prison model put forward by Foucault (1975). Bennett (1995: 61) states:

9


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

Two different sets of institutions and their accompanying knowledge power relations, then, whose histories, in these respects, run in opposing directions. Yet they are also parallel histories. The exhibitionary complex and the carceral archipelago develop over roughly the same period and achieve developed articulations of the new principles they embodied within a decade or so of one another. In their beginnings, then, the museums were considered to be transmitters of social values and were used to inspire readings of “civilisation”. In his comparison with prisons, Bennett (1995) maintains that both have the same purpose and that the difference is a simple question of form. As an example, the author mentions the model of the Crystal Palace, a demonstration of power that uses techniques of vision for the self-regulation of the masses. Its structure is designed “to see and be seen” and is the same society as spectacle and vigilance at the same time. The same space motivates a non sophisticated audience towards a behaviour that falls within the dominant morals. The glass permits the institutions to see from outside in, inverting the concept of the panopticon, where the observer keeps watch from the interior of the tower, without being observed from the exterior (Bennett 1995). In this way the museums were utilised as vehicles of the imperialist model of the age. In some countries, like Great Britain, the enactment of different educative laws obligated the students to visit the museums as part of their academic practices. This legislation coincides with the will of parliamentary parties to promote the concept of national identity. Coombes (1988) indicates that this identity is based on a colonial ideal. In an epoch dominated by imperialism, the

2


Dolores Galindo

West considers itself as the cradle of civilisation, modernity and progress. Coombes (1998: 57) affirms: It was in this context that museums and in particular the ethnographic sections, attempted to negotiate a position of relative autonomy, guided by a code of professional and supposedly disinterested ethics, while at the same time proposing themselves as useful tools in the service of the colonial administration. The author identifies the exhibition of “primitive” cultures and peoples as “colonial techniques” on the part of European powers, as artefacts similar to treasure. In this manner the role of the ethnographic collections is driven towards the affirmation of identity, spreading a national patrimony linked to collective memory and demonstrated to be superior to the colonized cultures. Therefore it is possible to highlight three aspects of change brought about by the state. Firstly, as much museums as exhibitions, administered by public institutions, contain a character clearly oriented towards the conquest of ideological changes. Their principal objective was to affirm nationalism and consolidate the concept of nation as dictated by the state (Macdonald, 2003). On the other hand, the nationalism of the state bases its ideology on imperialism, showing the colonised cultures as less evolved than the colonial powers. In this way they drove the affirmation of national identity (Coombes 1988). Lastly, the state used built structures in order to impose new behaviours. They used visual and observation techniques similar to those used in the prison system, that “invite” (Bennett, 1995) the new public, brought about through popular revolutions, to integrate themselves with the behaviour considered appropriate to the dominant classes.

11


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

As we have seen, the state has instrumentalised culture and art in order to achieve certain processes of change. Likewise, society has made the most of aesthetic currents in order to bring about social advances. The avant-garde as a social, political and cultural phenomenon assumed a different way of understanding art. Since its appearance, it has intervened as an energetic witness to the crisis and critique of its times. In the first decades of the 20th Century, it was believed that advances in production and successes in science could resolve all problems in a utopian manner (MarchĂĄn Fiz 1986). In those years the idea of social revolution emerged strongly, with the acceptance of the majority of the working class and the Marxist political parties. The First World War ended the idea of the bourgeois world that legitimated the civilising process in the name of reason and human progress. Therefore the avant-garde was born as critique, as much against the institutional forms of art as against bourgeois values, represented in sublimated and “beautifulâ€? forms (Baudrillard 1968). The provocative language of the avant-garde, would look to scandalise and break bourgeois schemes, considered to be their principle adversary. It also acted in corrosive and satirical terms in the description of its epoch and against all established power. According to Bourriaud (1998:12) : The 20th century was thus the arena for a struggle between two visions of the world: a modest, rationalist conception, hailing from the 18th century, and a philosophy of spontaneity and liberation through the irrational (Dada, Surrealism, the Situationists), both of which were

2


Dolores Galindo

opposed to authoritarian and utilitarian forces eager to gauge human relations and subjugate people. From the artistic sectors, the model of life that privileged money, production and the values of change in terms of the individual was denounced. They believed this model to result in intellectual naivety, poverty and artistic pigeon-holing. We can find the first reactions in the futurists whose representative, dazzled by the advances of scientific modernity and technology, launched their first manifesto looking to the future and hailing the rejection of everything that went before. We declare that the splendour of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath, a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gunfire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace. (Marinetti 1909). The reaction to the absurd sacrifice of the First World War materialised later in Dadaism, characterised equally by gestures and provocative demonstrations in which the artists expected to destroy all artistic conventions. Therefore, the historical avant-garde tried to decode the future of society, through the interpretation of their present, promoting a rupture in culture and the mentalities and conditions of individual and social life (Bourriaud 1998), with the aim of constructing a new order. With these precedents and the scarce social impact obtained, contemporary artistic practices no longer attempt to break the stereotypes imposed with more or less radical discourses. Does this mean that the artist has desisted from their strategic purpose to change the world? Not

13


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

exactly. The creator has changed their point of focus, in order that they can be more useful than in the past. Bourriaud (1998:14) states: The role of the art works is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realties, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist. Therefore the contemporary artist develops cultural and political projects associated with the circumstances that are offered to them by the context in which they live. Their discursive theory is based on the environment of human relations and their social framework. Although the artists that have opened the way through taking a committed position have been numerous, by way of demonstration, we will look at the work of two recent artists: Robert Smithson, as precursor of ecological art, and Francis Al每s, as spokesperson of spaces in conflict. It is commonly accepted that Robert Smithson has been an important, formative influence on the subsequent environmental ideologies of the present. The transgressive work that he created around the mid and early 70s redefined the relationship between society and the environment. As one of the founders of land art, his most renown work, Spiral Jetty (1970, Great Salt Lake. Utah. USA) was a precursor of the relationship between art and nature (March谩n Fiz 1986). The earthworks were a radical point of departure to locate formal objects outside the remit of the exhibition space. Spiral Jetty is one of the first to give expression to the work of art on real terrain. The earthworks of Smithson define a concept of the landscape unknown until that moment. In his work, the spaces of the natural landscape became artistic objects, often with some intervention in

2


Dolores Galindo

their natural state, they deal with the landscape as uncontaminated by technical civilization. It is possible to talk of a return to nature, within a transformative action carried out upon it, generating new relations with it. Smithson departs from the premise that only the real environment can be truly real. He also uses nature in a metaphoric way: change/evolution/growth/virgin space. Nature is not considered in itself, but as form-medium-contents-place (Hobbs 1981).

Spiral Jetty, 1970. Great Salt Lake. Utah. USA

Spiral Jetty permits Smithson to explore how natural forces have effects with the passing of time. At the same time, its distant location transferred human presence to an empty and silent space, hardly contaminated by the civilised world. This return to natural space and to its aesthetic and formal qualities, has numerous points of contact with ecologists, who made democratic states fix their gazes on environmental causes.

15


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

On the other hand, the essence of the work of Francis Alÿs can be defined as “flâneur”, a term coined by Baudelaire, that signifies a direction less wandering through the city. An “aesthetic” wandering in which the urban environment appears as a spectacle, adventure, anecdote or stage of devastating stories. This poetic state transforms itself towards a political implication in the performances of Francis Alÿs, in particular, a walk through the imaginary Green Line that separates the city of Jerusalem into two halves. As he goes, he traces this invisible limit with green paint, which, despite never having actually existed, is constantly mentioned by the different factions of the conflict (Russell 2007).

The Green Line (Sometimes doing something poetic can become political and sometimes doing something political can become poetic). 2005 Collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

2


Dolores Galindo

The route followed by Alÿs is that traced originally during the Arab-Israel War in 1948, to indicate the territory of the new state of Israel. The original Green Line has been modified considerably since then, with catastrophic consequences for people on either side. This installation, titled by Alÿs as: Sometimes Doing Something Poetic Can Become Political and Sometimes Doing Something Political Can Become Poetic (2005), consists of the film of the walk, which includes recorded interviews with Israeli, Palestinian and European experts. It also includes archive material of the original Green Line. The only conventional form of art is a series of small sculptures of guns made with material found on the road. We may question what the artwork is and what it is intending to say. The signified will generally have many different connotations that, on first glance, modify the original meaning. As Barthes (1985:150) claims: The artwork is neither a real object nor an imaginary object. Of course the identity of what is “represented” is ceaselessly deferred, the signified always displaced, the analysis is endless; but this leakage, this infinity of language is precisely the art's system: the image is not the expression of a code, it is a variation of a work of codification: it is not the repository of a system but the generation of systems. To complete the montage, various questions appear grouped on one of the walls of the gallery: Can an artistic intervention truly bring about an unfore seen way of thinking? Can an absurd act provoke a transgression that makes you abandon the standard assumptions on the sources of conflict? Can those kinds of artistic acts bring about the possibility of change? The title of the exhibition drives towards a brief response: “sometimes, maybe yes”. (Cotter 2007).

17


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

Art, then, is a vehicle of expression that has been operated by distinct social spheres - on the one hand, transgressive groups whose objective was to forget the past in order to construct new worlds - and on the other, the creators who have faught most for change, that have preferred to position themselves as part of reality. This latter group aim to call attention to subjects where it is necessary to act. The social promise of the artist is translated into a raising of awareness concerning the subjects that affect the contemporary world, putting into motion their progressive resolution to the most advanced democratic states.

The change experienced in the modern world prompted the state to participate directly in the changing of the social mentality. For that purpose, public museums promoted notions of identity, creating a sense of citizenship, and the notion of belonging to a distinct culture, clearly defined from others. The universal exhibitions became the stages of the civilized world and of the great technological advances, and the public attended, proud to belong to an evolved society. In a second phase, the museums became showcases of power that utilised collections with a didactic character. More precisely, the ethnographic collections were of great importance, as the objects brought from other cultures are interpreted through the connotations of superiority that lend them to the consciousness of being a nation. From the museums, the state would feed feelings of identity and nationalism based on dominant imperialist politics. The conquered cultures are exhibited as inferior in order to emphasise even more the hegemonic power of the West. Also, architectural systems are oriented towards the education and behavioural reform of the citizen. Although with opposing ends, the prison and the museum are considered to modify behaviour,

2


Dolores Galindo

the prison in a repressive manner, with a hidden, although always present vigilance, and the museum, that invites the citizen to form part of a society that controls itself. Contemporary museums, in contrast, show new characteristics, whereby ideological motives give way to purely strategic ones, related to the economy, urbanism and tourism. Art becomes an object of consumption for the masses and the museums a cultural product. As an example of the global museum, the Guggenheim of Bilbao shows it has become a paradigm for the transformation of a territory, even in spite of reflections around the problem of the homogenisation of culture. The political and social advances put in motion by the new aesthetics, come as much from the radical demands of the historical avant-garde, as from contemporary artists, whose work is based in relation to the world around them. We can therefore say that through art there have been notable political and cultural changes, as much promoted by states as by society itself. If, on the one hand, the fact that globalisation homogenises cultures can be considered negative, paradoxically, it is by living in the global world that we have the ability to access other cultures and widen our horizons. The brief scope of this essay has only permitted us to focus on the arguments surrounding the aesthetic and educational function of the state as well as works of art and their social significance. The motive of continuing research would be the analysis of the numerous educational experiences carried out by academic bodies, and from numerous social spheres, rigorously engaged with the large differences that our world presents. A world where art, with a critical and anticonformist spirit, aspires to be the beginning of change, as has already been the case in other moments in history.

19


CAN ART HOPE TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?

Reference List: •

Appadurai, A. 2001. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. In: Patrick Williams & Laura Chrisman, ed. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader. New York: Columbia UP, 324-339

Barthes, R. 1985. Myth Today. In: Sonsang, S. ed. A Roland Barthes Reader. London: Vintage 2000, 93-150

Bennett, T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge.

Baudrillard, J. 1968. The System of Objects. London: Verso.

Bourriaud, N. 1998. Relational Aesthetics. Translated by Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods. Dijon: Leses Du Réel. 2002.

Coombes, A. E. 1988. Museums and the Formation of National and Cultural Identities. Oxford Art Journal, 11 (2), 57- 68.

Cotter, H. 2007. Thoughtful Wanderings of a Man With a Can The New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/arts/design/13chan.html [Accesed 14/01/11].

Harvard Design School, 1999. The Vision of a Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Available from: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/people/faculty/pollalis/cases/BilbaoGCaseA.pdf [Accesed 15/01/11].

Foucault, M. 1975. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison London: Allen Lane.

Guasch, A. and Zulaika, J. 2005. Museum as Cultural Tool. In Learning from the Guggenheim. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 2005, 9-27.

Hobbs, R. 1981. Robert Smithson: Sculpture. Nueva York: Cornell University Press.

Macdonald, S.J. 2003. Museums, National, Postnational and Transcultural Identities. In: Museum and Society. 1(1): 1-16 University of Sheffield.

Marchán Fiz, S. 1986. In From Objetual Art to Art of Concept, translated from Spanish in Del Arte Objetual al Arte de Concepto. 9th ed. Madrid: Akal, 2009.

2


Dolores Galindo

Marinetti, F.T, 1909 The Futurist Manifesto. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html [Accesed 12/01/11].

Moxey, K. 2005. Gehry’s Bilbao: Visits and Visions. In Learning from the Guggenheim. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 173184.

Russell, F. 2007 Francis Alÿs: politics of rehearsal. Los Angeles: Hammer Museum.

21

CAN ART TO PRODUCE POLITICAL CHANGES?  

Art, through the centuries, has been the aesthetic representation of human feeling and reflection. In different forms, the artist expresses...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you