The Adventures of Sally Tomato, Cosmonaut

[in claiming that] the projects fall short of both social and aesthetic significance, you've left out the difficult part - explaining why - What criteria are you using to judge these objects and happenings on an aesthetic level? on a social level?

For me, the best art...

• Operates on multiple levels, merging concept and form seamlessly into something both challenging and arresting.
• Demonstrates an appropriate and intentional use of materials. I value significant technical prowess and fine craftsmanship.
• Is internally consistent, particularly with regards to concept.

To the above aesthetic non-negotiables, I suppose I would add specific criteria based on the type of project. For a project that intends to create a collective experience (as opposed to inspiring a transcendent moment for a solitary viewer), I suppose we'd need to add some indicator of how well a piece facilitates that experience for participants. (Should we also judge a piece on the quality of the experience it inspires? Or is it simply enough that it happened?)

I think the steam project may have been more aesthetically significant for me (in terms of promoting shared experience) if I had experienced it outside the gallery. As it was, I experienced it by myself indoors. Though, short of finding a gallery with a steam grate in it or exhibiting the whole show outside, I suppose there's really no way to keep that magic going indefinitely.

The pinball machine was extremely successful in creating a shared experience. It actually went beyond sharing into dependency on other people. (Hmm... maybe this could relate to the whole quality of experience question above...) It's also really frigging fun (I went back and played it after my other post). I did, however, find its formal strength was superior to its conceptual critique of funding structures, mainly because pinball machines are unlikely to really upset the current system of arts funding.

This gets to what bothers me about Other Options: the other options aren't necessarily viable. I feel that this limits the impact of their critique and, thereby, their conceptual merit. To me the projects feel somewhat unfinished. They are like studies for a project yet to be completed. They critique these huge systemic concepts, but don't actually inspire any actual action or sustain change beyond the collaboration among exhibition attendees. Seems a bit of a pity. On the other hand, maybe that's why the show is called Other Options, not the Best of All Possible Options.

I appreciate Benner's comment about struggling with different vocabularies. I didn't realize how difficult that must be as a curator, scholar, and/or artist working on these kinds of projects until trying to articulate my response to the exhibition. The verbal language, and even the - for lack of a better term - curatorial language (i.e., venue, space, layout) of the show not only influence our perception of the project's worth, but for these kind of projects, their very classification as art or social projects. We might need some new words. And possibly some new ways of thinking about aesthetics.

I am so tired of thinking about this. Apart from (Re) which I find internally inconsistent, I am not sure now if these projects really fall short aesthetically, or if they just don't really do it for me. Or if they really excel when judged against some other criteria I haven't thought of/learned about yet.

so i'm outside talking on the phone to my friend, and some guys come up. they have to be like 16. they're all like "hey baby, blah blah" and i'm like, "i'm on the phone". loud guy is all like, "i don't give a fuck...", then:

"... what's wrong, baby? i ain't your type?"
"no"
"why's that? cuz i'm black?"
"no, because you're rude"
(immediately proving my point) "fuck that shit, nigga!"
"look i'm talking to my friend. i'm on the phone."

they leave and i hear a lot of "bitch" "fuck" etc.

later, i'm outside later smoking a cigarette. unfortunately, at that very moment, they're walking back from wherever it is they went on the oposite side of the road. i try to make myself invisible. somewhat predictably, this doesn't work, and they see me.

"hey sexy! you still outside? what's with your phone? what kind of phone do you have?" then, loud guy: "can i hit that?"

now, g-rad readers, i ask you: what the hell is the correct response to the question, "can i hit that?" i mean, does that even work for people? has anyone EVER gotten laid from screaming, "can i hit that?" to someone from across the damn street? it seems like basic common sense would prevent that question from ever being asked: if a woman responds "yes", it's likely that she's already had sex with countless other people before you, and so is probably not safe to fuck anyway.

second question: where is all my attitude in situations like this? am i honestly afraid that a group of 16-year-old thugs are going to attack me? do i think they're going to forcibly grab me and force me behind the building and have their way with me?

maybe, but mostly i'm just afraid of confrontation. i can't stand people being up in my space and being obnoxious. every time this happens, and it happens often enough that i feel like i should have a better plan, my main strategies are avoiding eye contact and not answering questions. i have no attitude, no nothing. i'm reduced to powerlessness by aggressive words.

shelley is apparently very competitive. when amongst friends, she shows a totally different side. this was the highlight of the evening:

shell: want a wheat for a wood?
me: no thanks
shell: what about a brick for an ore?
me: no, i think i'm set, actually
shell: blow me?

not a ringing affirmative "blow me", a sarcastic questioning "(well if you're not going to trade with me you stupid bitch, why don't you just go ahead and) blow me?"

Forays and Material Exchange presented the strongest projects in the exhibition. They scored points for being fun and unpretentious. They demonstrated the greatest potential for replication beyond the gallery setting. They posed interesting questions and represented a point of departure for continuing dialogue. For example, Forays with Steam could eventually develop into a collaboration that includes engineers, city planners, and, I would hope, a biologist. The discussion and the prototype could be expanded into something that actual has some societal benefit. The same is true with the pinball machine.

The project I reacted most strongly to is (Re). I feel that (Re) challenges a structure ((PRODUCT)Red) that I don't perceive as flawed enough to even warrant a critique. While I certainly appreciate the outcomes, I take issue with the assumptions that inform the project, the characterization of marketing, and the obvious anti-corporate bias.

Orr and Thompson assume that cause marketing "claims to erase any guilt from shopping". I seriously doubt that the target audience for flashy marketing campaigns is the same group that experiences consumer guilt for reasons other than maxing out their credit cards. (I wonder if these artists experienced pangs of guilt when they bought their iPods...)

The (PRODUCT)Red campaign (like pink for breast cancer or shopping for the economy) is intended to transform a portion of the dollars people would spend anyway into financial support for a cause. Like most marketing campaigns, socially conscious or otherwise, it has to appeal to the lowest common denominator within its audience in order to maximize results. This isn't "manipulative and damaging" so much as it is opportunistic.

Let's say that (PRODUCT)Red does perpetuate a cycle of mindless consumerism. Individuals that are concerned about that could just give directly to the Global Fund through (PRODUCT)Red's website. (Wait... are grantmaking intersectoral partnerships part of the "Nonprofit Industrial Complex"?)

Ultimately, I found that the project undermines itself by first suggesting that consumption is not a healthy part of involvement in a cause, and then tapping into the consumption patterns of a better educated and issue-impassioned (read, anti-corporate) group of gallery-goers. The project suggests that (PRODUCT)Red doesn't inspire people to actively initiate change, then offers opportunities for action that are only slightly less passive.
Again, I think it's awesome that so much of the proceeds are donated. I think, however, that (Re) would work better as a companion to (PRODUCT)Red instead of setting itself up as something that is morally superior and diametrically opposed to it.

At the end of the day, I wonder if the Other Options projects would be more effective if artists weren't doing them. By locating these projects within the arts community, I think the creators may have limited their access to specialists in other fields, whose input could improve the projects and ensure their application outside of the gallery. As art projects, they deflect constructive criticism of their social benefits. Yet, because of their social nature, they can also avoid any real aesthetic critique as well. They exist in a position of safety, which I feel limits their overall effectiveness as art products and catalysts for social change.

this time it was more fun. for me, at least. i don't think anyone i went with really enjoyed themselves. maybe geos and matt did. i am not entirely sure what the source of my friends' discomfort was. i suspect it had something to do with the numerous dudes in matching shirts, the snogging couple on the dance floor, and perhaps a general distaste for "deep house" and journey remixes. i think one of our party got groped, which was unfortunate.

i was somewhat surprised by everyone's apparent distaste for and discomfort in the club mainly because it really was no more obnoxious than any other club or bar. though others may disagree, i find that in terms of scandalousness, drug availability, and general danger, 80s nights at drink and billys or, well, any night at mulligans (all places frequented by members of the crowd i was with) are all way worse than moxie's. don't even get me started on monte's (sex in the booth anyone?).

i think geos felt that moxie's was more over-the-top than these other places. i guess this just depends on personal experience. at the bars mentioned above i've had people grab my breast and reach under my skirt... one time some punk rock kid slipped my finger in his empty tongue ring hole. (i thought it was a friend grabbing my hand, but, when i turned around my finger was in this guy's mouth. it was... odd.) i watched a bouncer body-slam a patron and put a gun to his head. and then there are the sexually motivated/degrading comments and racial slurs...

i guess what i'm feeling is that the most legitimate complaint about moxie's would be that it's just kind of lame. the music is neither especially good nor frankly bad; the patrons are a bit clone-y, not particularly animated, and, for the most part, not great dancers (i don't judge, i can't dance either); and then there's that whole coat check issue. i detected very little difference between moxie's and 80s nights, or moxies and the (admittedly limited) sampling of indie/punk/rock shows i've been to: the music is mostly mediocre and grand rapids' hipster mafia is every bit as clone-y and poorly coordinated as the dudes in matching white striped shirts.

my final word: as far as dance clubs go, moxie's only rival in grand rapids that i can see is crush. it's nicer than monte's because of it's size, and i think the music is better (barring that one night in bangkok remix i heard at monte's once. damn that shit was tight.). the space is a lot nicer than drink. also moxie's is attached to churchill's, which really is very nice, and serves food until 2. i do, however, remain mostly unimpressed. i probably won't go often; i really only went last night because it was free and i had people to go with.