The two articles by Carolina A. Miranda and Randy Kennedy spoke about social practice art, describing what it is as well as giving examples of how it is being incorporated into art education and museums today. I had already read Miranda's article for my curiosity page, but the information was still interesting to read, and I was able to look more in depth with more context after what we had gone over in class. In for Kennedy's article, he provided a better introduction to the concept of social practice art, and also provided examples that were worldwide, focusing specifically on certain foundations and schools that are working to make social practice art more prevalent in today's society. 
          Miranda's article, "How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World, One Row House at a Time," considered some important points as to how social practice came about and its impact on its communities. For instance, she wrote, "Nato Thompson, chief curator of Creative Time, thinks that the form is a byproduct of our technology-reliant times. “I mean, doesn’t any kind of human interaction that isn’t on the Internet just feel very special?” he asks." (p 4) Similarly, in Kennedy's article, "Outside the Citadel, Social Practice Art is intended to Nurture," he also quotes Nato Thompson, saying how social practice art has changed from the straight forward art that existed years ago. Thompson also said that, "many of the most dedicated social- practice artists see a huge divide between themselves and the commercial art world,'" (p 8, Kennedy). I agree that just like with Romanticism and Neoclassicism, art movements have developed from others in extremes: one is too strict so the next is more emotional and so on. In this way, I believe that social practice art, which deals with human interaction and message, has become more popular today  due to our commercial, technology-focused society. These artists are trying and take care of our communities in search of something "real". However, I also understand that social practice art is not really something that can be considered a movement. Judging by the range of media incorporated into the category, I say it is just that: a category. A manifesto cannot be written specifically to make social practice a movement, and as both articles have stated, it has been around for years, through other movements and without a solid time block that it can be contained in. But this issue of identification also fits into the concept of whether social practice art should be considered art at all and what its true effects on the community are.

In past seminars we have discussed the role of government in advocating art, specifically the CIA and modern art in the US, even when the general public doesn't want or like the movement. In "the 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War", the author states after the president of the AAPS, "it was time the American people had an opportunity to see and judge for themselves concerning the work of the Europeans who are creating a new art." Also, "The Ism that Isn't" article brought up questions about the critiquing process in the art world as well as the absurdity of labels.
One idea I found interesting about "The 1913 Armory Show" article was the concept of the mob as a critic. When the author described critiques of Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, he/she writes,  "Some of the letters are astounding, if only in terms of the amount of energy people were willing to put into them." This is interesting because it shows how many people are involved in art appreciation, even if they might not be as involved otherwise. What drove them to be involved? Was it the idea of having European art exhibited in the US? Why were they not immediately open to new style? Are they really that happy with American art at that time? These critics made their opinions scientific-- exactly like artists made their art movements scientific, and just like Saatchi initiated his movement-- furthering their deep involvement.
In "The 'ism' that Isn't" article, the author writes on how Saatchi completed all the steps to create a new ism, yet it was of no value and was created to show how isms weren't really worth that much. However, this is does not mean that artwork should be grouped any which way, like is stated in "The 1913 Armory Show. This gives rise to the question, how hard is it to write a manifesto and how seriously is it taken? Saatchi was able to publish a manifesto and compose an exhibit on his "Neurotic Realism", causing a buzz in the art world. However, why are other isms like "Vorticism" unsuccessful? The Armory article also reveals the absurdity of the art critique world, especially when the general public, or the mob, are given an opportunity to give their opinions. Even outside the mob, certain art critics-- Gertrude Stein appeared to be "drunk" when critiquing Nude. The entire article was basically making fun of the labels used in the art world as well as the people who think they are qualified to critique works of art.
Finally, there was evidence in the CIA article from past seminars that the US forced it's art upon European galleries, yet in the Armory article, curators brought European art over to share with the public. How did Europe react to having their art showcased in the US? Was it a mutual feeling as the curators had sharing new art? It seemed that American art was not up to par to the European's so at what point in time was it? This seems to be the same situation as middle eastern art in our first seminar of the year, where their art was considered inferior and almost copying American art. The Middle East was in the same situation as in the US, who was simply behind of Europe in movement. 
After reading these two articles, I felt that anything can be explained in a way that makes it sound like there is no purpose and is ridiculous. The Ism article wrote about how labels are irrelevant; they are simply an easy way to group a wide variety of artists. The Armory article wrote about how anybody can be an art critic, and even art critics can sound unintelligent. 

         As Tom Braden, the first chief of CIA International Organizations Division stated, "It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognize art and to support it.” Regarding the CIA’s involvement in the art world during the Cold War, both the “MoMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists” and the “Modern Art was a CIA ‘weapon’” articles surprised me. It was actually due to the CIA that the Abstract Expressionist movement had grown so much. They had pushed American art onto other countries and turned it from being hated by Americans openly to avant-garde. All this done with some money and connections. The “MoMA” article described one of the subdivisions of the CIA: “the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organizations.” The article also reports that in an interview, a former CIA agent states that in order to do all of this successfully, they had to keep it out of the public eye. So, when it was the public that was to either condemn or applaud this new art form, why had it in fact become so popular? Is it really the idea of Abstract Expressionism that the government sponsored, or the art itself that is great?
      While the US proclaimed that Abstract Expressionism was the epitome of individualism and thus liberty, they also condemned the authoritarian regimes in Russia. This “cultural war” was fought at the expense of the artists, the public, and also France. Although the message was pro-individual, where the government was not forcing anything, the CIA was in fact selectively advocating pieces that were banned in Russia, the “MoMA” article claims. The artists pieces were twisted to fit propaganda while their personalities were sold to the public, exactly as the American officials claimed that the Russians did. And so, while some artists became rich and famous, others suffered psychologically due to the idea that their works were no longer really theirs.  The “MoMA” article states, “Images out of historical context can so readily be construed to mean their opposite, and most certainly this will happen if the interpreters wield tremendous power and have an urgent agenda to attend to.” This is especially true for any type of media, not necessarily an image. But this brings out a question about Abstract Expressionism itself. Without context from the artist, viewers can claim to see whatever their imaginations grant them, which could be positive or negative. The artist could have the purpose of using certain colors or lines to evoke emotion, but the viewer may interpret them completely differently.
      Before the CIA was involved, many of the artists in cities were poor, Marxist, political, nihilist and met often in groups. However, as is now known, their works were used to showcase individual liberty and cultural wealth against the Communist regime. They began to target the elite to try and sell their art rather than the masses, which actually benefited the CIA as they used millionaires to distribute American art around the world. While trying to sell their art, the American artists “became wary of losing their individuality by joining groups”, so they turned inward. They wrote a manifesto, describing what should constitute modern art: “It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. ...There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is crucial….” This is my new art motto. It has become my inspiration for the project we are starting in class. It can apply to any piece, and if asked what a painting is about, the artist will most likely come up with something that it is about. If they initially say that the painting is about nothing, they can dig a little deeper and figure out something that can directly or indirectly tie to it. However, this statement brings up the question once again, about what makes a painting good. Is it good composition, mark/ surface, and color? Is it the emotion evoked?
      There is a nice little sentence in the "MoMA" article, “The Abstract Expressionist artists felt keenly that they had to present a pessimism, a somber refusal to paint either reality or viscera, as that would be frivolous, superfluous, and hollow.” This sums up emotions during the Cold War, but can apply to other conflicts as well. The CIA's use of Abstract Expressionism to show that the US and its ideals were supreme and justified to the world, tie with the idea of “universality” of the pieces. When going outside of realism, it is up to the viewer to decipher the emotions and thoughts of the artist on issues, especially during times of conflict. Art can sum up society during particular time periods well usually, however, the only things grouping the pieces of the Abstract Expressionist time period is their “individualism”. There is no specific motif that tie them to events or people. Now it is up to us to interpret the emotions of that time period into our own marks during this project, where we will have to keep in mind, how-- when out out of context-- they can be seen differently and become a common interpretation without our control.​

"Arab Spring: Modern Middle Eastern Art Finds a New Audience in the West" by ARTnews and "Artists v Critics, round one" Connections

      As the Arab Spring article states, Middle Eastern modernism is emerging. Since it was nonexistent to the West before, globalization has allowed for greater appreciation for artists from the area. This is especially due to the fact that digital media is a prominent part in our lives and “‘allows us a kind of superficial familiarity with range of information that wasn’t available previously’”-- which Richard Armstrong-- the director of the Guggenheim foundation-- stated. Media is the best way for exposing Middle Eastern art to the masses now and bringing it up to light to be compared with Western art. It works by echoing information among groups and has the potential of becoming viral. The Arab Spring article describes how there are little known documents and information regarding Middle Eastern art, so this echo effect will bring attention to the modern art there. Although it is unlikely that Middle Eastern modern art will reach the fame or popularity of Western art in our eyes, the growing level of exposure is better than nothing. There are still people in the Middle East that are making art, and they should not be neglected.
       Jessica Morgan-- the director of the Dia Art Foundation of NY-- said, “‘Many of these artists were from countries like Lebanon or Iraq that have experienced a great deal of upheaval, and often the work had not been shown simply because there weren’t conditions for showing it’”. This statement also applies to art in other places of the world that are not necessarily “present” or “art” in the eyes of the Western public. Like Morgan said, these people are in the midst of wars and protests, where their art could be destroyed or condemned; which is a common occurrence. As was said in the Art v. Critics article, “What Whistler understood about modernism was its political value, its capacity to shock and mock.” The art created in the Middle East will usually have shock value by having the “modern” label. In places of political instability or oppression, this shock value is not welcome and removed/ destroyed. Of the works that survive this, museums are now supposedly trying to collect them. Layla Diba, and independent curator states, “‘Exhibitions that are either regionally or thematically focused, or that are retrospectives of a single artist's’ work, is the direction we’re going now.’” Typically, modern artists are inspired by their lives and what is going around them, and this applies to the areas of unrest. However, as Venetia Porter, a keeper of Contemporary Islamic art at the British Museum, states: “‘People would look at the work of the Arab modernists and say, “This is really pastiche. They’re just copying Picasso or Braque.’” These two statements amount to the same conclusion: The definition of art and art-making needs to be assessed.
    While European artists were able to go through their modern period early on, like most movements begin in Europe, they were also able to write the rules of the game. They were the baseline. Other nations were to look to them for inspiration as an example, and develop their work from there. So, if the Arab modernists were using Cubist techniques, they twisted them to suit their culture and experiences, so it should be considered modern art. Had they not used European Cubism as a start off point, the Arab modern art would be very different-- and perhaps not be considered as modern art by the West. However, as said in the Artists v. Critics article about Ruskin’s denunciation of Whistler “‘It is the definitive rejection of modern art as fraud’”. The article describes how even Western modern art is called a fraud, yet even while Arab art is also denounced as fraud, it has a different meaning. As Shabout said, ‘“Academia and the canon of art history have not yet been decolonized. We have remnants of the colonial way of looking, particularly when it comes to modernism.’” So even if modern art around the world is declared fraud, art from parts of the world other than the West are prejudiced as less than Western art.
    Even I have this feeling when looking at art, yet I know and am learning from the idea that art other than that of the West still has the capacity of being “good”. Studying European art throughout my academic career and not really realizing that other art was out there, I have the colonized point of view. However, as I have begun to study Eastern art for example, I am starting to have a greater appreciation and am seeking out new art from those areas. This greater appreciation will most likely develop in the future for people around the world for Middle Eastern Art especially, as its modern art is currently emerging and the Middle East is a focus in the news for political unrest. All this events in history will looked back on, hopefully with the art (and literature) that has survived to illustrate it. 

​