During Dr. Rocio Aranda-Alvarado’s lecture, I was most engaged by her discussion of Rafael Montanez Ortiz, an artist both interested in the physically body and the destruction of art. Being the curator for the El Museo del Barrio in New York City, Aranda-Alvarado brought a much needed insight (for me) into the Latin (American) art scene. In her lecture, Ortiz became the trigger in discussing the notion that all artists engage in similar ideas, regardless of race. Body and physical destruction are some of those ideas.
Ortiz used his Avant Guard style to portray simple ideas. He was interested in public participation and interaction in his art. I was drawn to the work Ortiz did when he used a chair for a destruction performance. He bought a chair (to sit in) at a big event. Typically, these chairs were coveted. If you bought a chair, it was YOUR chair. After someone had been mistakenly sitting in it and Ortiz was verified by a waiter that he was the “owner” of the chair, he leaped into it, rolled around with it on the floor and just tore it apart. Aranda-Alvarado described people running away in confusion and worry after Ortiz’s unexpected performance. In destroying something as simple as a purchased chair, Ortiz comments of the ridiculousness of “owning” a chair and almost seems to claim that, in the end, it means nothing. It is probably even more entertaining to watch the chairs destruction versus just occupying it. Although, there is something interesting behind the fact that Ortiz actually had to involve himself in the possibly arbitrary act of purchasing a chair before he could destroy it.
Overall, Aranda-Alvarado, shed some light on ideas that many artists of different races share but focused on how Latin (American) artists did it well. I, personally, would like to experiment with producing art and having its destruction become a performance. The production of something can be extremely interesting and has the ability to similarly create thoughts in people. However, watching someone destroy something has the opposite effect. It makes us question why it was there in the first place, does it have a purpose. In Ortiz’s case, we ask if the chair’s purpose is being served? Its representation becomes the performance’s focus. The chair may represent high society, conformity and how money is spent. The destruction of the chair acts as a greater thought provoking art piece that it’s counter part – the creation of a chair.
Questions:
1) If you were personally at the performance where Ortiz destroyed the chair, how would you have reacted? Do you think it’s even possible to predict a reaction?
2) Who is your personal favorite Latin (American) artists and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment