Scott Goldfarb Week 6 Art and Social Change

Vision in Motion

László Moholy-Nagy was an artist in the Bauhaus school, who was heavily influenced by the ideals of constructivism. In his work Vision in Motion, in the abstract he writes about the roles of an artist and the definition of social order of mid-20th century life. Some of the takeaways from it are:

1. “...the content of art is basically not different from the content of our other utterances…”

He opens this up by defining Hitler's degenerate art as him reacting to the reality around him. If art is not different from our sayings, then art is simply a reflection of the world around us. This is defined in his next point:

2. “...art is produced mainly by subconscious organisation of the means implicit in the cultural and social setting of the period.”

By reiterating the previous point, art to László is always within a framework or a context, and that can be defined by the period the artists is in and the interactions that the artist will have with the world around them. Even if the artist tries to create a vacuum, there will still be a reflection, even subconsciously, to the period they are in.

3. “...the most sensitive and advanced artist is a tool for the recording of the time-expressive contents. That is, form and structure denote definite trends.”

László is now shifting to the roles of the artist in the 1940’s and how that reflects with the world around them. The artist and their work is intrinsically tied to the period they are in, as repeated constantly throughout the piece. And it is in the artist's mechanical process of creating art that the time period and reality they are in is captured; form and structure. This is also a massive reflection on László and his ideals in art, that being constructivism, as he is defining the art movement in no uncertain terms with this statement. 

4. “Art represents the uncensored statement of its author; this is one of its most positive characteristics. No-one but the painter, the author, the composer is the sole master of his performance. The simpler his medium and the less investment it involves, the easier it is to avoid possible censorship and to preserve the ways of genuinely free expression.”

I added this as a takeaway from the writing because it is self-reflection on this writing that László has made and its relation to itself and the theory that he is proposing. László has been writing about how the artist puts in their work their time period and world surrounding them, and this statement is a reflection of the world around László. This book was published in 1947, with rising tensions around the world and shifting ideals after the first cycles of the industrial revolution. Through stating that art should be less commodifiable, he is taking a stand against the bloodlust driven rise of capitalism, which is something he witnessed first hand living through the Depression era. This is further seen in the next point:

5. “To be a ‘full-time’ worker, a ‘professional’, involves a moral responsibility. This is why the secured existence of the uncompromising and incorruptible artist is so important to society. ...The silly myth that genius has to ‘suffer’ is the sly excuse of a society which does not care for its productive members unless their work promises immediate technological or economic applications with calculable profit.”

The ‘starving artist’ as an idea is the ideal. To work on art that is beholden to no one but the artists is his idea, and to have the artist only beholden to the time period that they are in, is his ideal. In our current society, the artist has to create art to argue for a better world. In a perfect world, there should be no need for art and things would be settled by intelligent discussion. Since that has not been achieved, people must strive towards it while the artist reflects on this drive.

Radical Software, Vol.1 no1, The Alternate Television Movement

Phyllis Gershuny and Beryl Korot

Radical Software was an organization that made a journal that began in the 1970s with the advent of new and mass produced technologies. Their aim was to bring to light the changes in how information was being disseminated with these new technologies, mainly focusing on television with their first article. Some of the takeaways from the excerpt are:

1. “Power is no longer measured in land, labour, or capital, but by access to information and the means to disseminate it.”

With the rise of daytime television and entertainment in the 70s, the means of power were decidedly shifted towards information and noise, rather than tangible strengths like property. When a few wealthy people control the flow of information, there can be no alternate cultural vision proposed. Radical Software believes that alternate information structures are the keys to how power can be redistributed back to an even playing field. 

2. “Our species will survive neither by totally rejecting nor unconditionally embracing technology – but by humanising it: by allowing people access to the informational tools they need to shape and reassert control over their lives.”

While technologies can define the society we live in, they are still inanimate. They take no action unless acted upon, and thus if everyone had the tools to use these technologies rather than taking them away from everyone, the streams of information would be free and revolutionary. Humanising technologies will lead to good people using it for good, rather than the few misusing it for their benefit. In contrast 50 years later, I am personally unsure of if this still stands considering how information has been weaponized in the past 10 years, or I don’t know if I am unsure of this because of how information has been weaponized.

3. “Coming of age in America means electronic imprinting which has already conditioned many millions of us to a process, global awareness.”
4. “Fortunately, however, the trend of all technology is towards greater access through decreased size and cost. Low-cost, easy-to-use, portable videotape systems, may seem like ‘Polaroid home movies’ to the technical perfectionists who broadcast ‘situation’ comedies and ‘talk’ shows, but to those of us with as few preconceptions as possible they are the seeds of a responsive, useful communications system.”

I included this as a takeaway from the excerpt because I found it interesting how even 50 years ago, this was a theme for people even back then. It seems that today this a common framework which people are constantly lamenting against, as if it has only just appeared. Granted, the scale that technologies affect the younger generations from the 1970s to now has drastically changed, given that everyone now has access to far greater information and it is commonplace to be fixed to technology. However, the fact that this was also a noticeable trend back then makes our current situation seem far less severe.

This also brings up the question of how the Radical Software organization would operate and react in our current day? Would they be categorically outclassed by similar organizations, or would they be able to adapt and overcome certain challenges and provide new outlooks on the relationship between information and technology with rising generations?

5. “If information is our environment, why isn’t our environment considered information?”

This was also a takeaway for me because I believe this outlook has changed from when this was written to now. Today, the environment we are in is considered information, it is aggregated as data points and sold off so that advertisers can better reach new customers. The objects that I own, location I am in, and people I interact with are all information for sale, so my environment has become commodified. While I disagree with the practice of this, it is definitely a shift from the 70s to now, as everything I interact with in my environment is collectible data which is useful information for someone out there.