1. What is the project about?
We are planning on creating a festival at Onondaga Lake which would unite recreation and history into one event. Right now, there are hardly any recreational opportunities because of the pollution in and around the lake. At the same time, those who use the lake are normally unaware of the historical significance that the lake has so by marrying the two together, we want to produce a fun and educational experience.
2. Describe what FORM the project will take.
The project will be a festival, sometime in September. If the festival is successful, it could become an annual event.
3. Why do you want to work in the location you have chosen?
Onondaga Lake is an empty space with more potential to create something extravagant. The idea of a festival would only work with adequate space, so it would not be possible to do in Armory Square.
4. What is the history of the site?
Onondaga Lake was the spot where the Iroquois Confederacy came together and established the individual tribes. It is a huge part of the history of this area. Recreationally, the history is rather negative as a list of dates when recreational opportunities were banned from the area (specifically fishing and swimming in the lake)
5. Why is this site particularly appropriate for the project?
The project is focused around the history of the area. There would be no other possible place that would have enough space and have the direct connection to the premise of the project. This project was created around the site and so no other place would be appropriate.
6. Is this project an integration or an intervention, and why?
The project is an integration of the history into a recreational event. By putting the two together, it brings awareness to the public while providing a fun, educational party.
7. Will you get permission to work in the site?
Yes, and we would also get the permission from the individual tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy to participate in the festival.
8. How does the piece disrupt OR fit in with the surroundings?
This piece would probably disrupt the area because there aren’t many festivals near Onondaga Lake but it would only be for a day so the lake can restore to its natural order of things afterwards.
9. Name at least one artist project that we have looked at this semester that inspired your project and explain why your project is related.
We looked at Fusco’s and Guillermo’s the Couple in the Cage as inspiration for putting on display culture, however obviously the Native Americans would not be in cages and the festival would consist of their culture assimilating into our culture.
10. What are the goals & objectives of the project?
We want to bring awareness about the history to the populace while providing a fun and educational festival and bringing back recreation to Onondaga Lake.
11. How will you measure success for your project?
We would measure success based on the participation of the tribes and the attendance at the festival.
12. Profile the target audience. Who are they? What do they care about? What are their expected reactions?
We are going after local residents who are interested in their community and probably a younger demographic because little kids would love the activities. They should have fun at the festival and walk away with a better grasp on the history of the area and the culture of the Native Americans.
13. How do you want your audience to interact with your project?
It’s a festival. I would expect the audience to participate with the exhibits through games, eating native food, listening to native music and watching traditional dances and interactions.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Extra credit - Stephanie, Zach and Jason
In 2006, the city of Syracuse was named as the seventeenth greenest – or most environmentally friendly – city by National Geographic. National Geographic produces an annual list which assesses cities across the country on environmental proficiency. The magazine chose cities that “are providing energy-efficient, least polluting and healthy living spaces - those cities whose green achievements set the standard for others” (The Green Guide). National Geographic rates each city on eleven environmental criteria ranging from air quality to energy proficiency. Syracuse made the list because of “Good air, smoking bans and commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.” The ultimate irony of this accolade is that about five miles away is Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country.
When the Industrial Revolution hit Syracuse, the lake’s western shore became a center for industrialization and factories (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Sewage disposal and industrial discharges augmented pollution and left the waters of Onondaga Lake hopelessly contaminated. Soon enough, the lake was so impure that people stopped using the lake for swimming and fishing and the lake was converted into a dumping ground of industrial waste.
In 1994, Onondaga Lake was added to the Superfund list, a program by the Environmental Protection Agency which was created to clean up extremely polluted areas. Superfund sites are all over although not much has been done to clean them.
Superfund was government legislation that has been attempting to cleanup hazardous waste sites throughout the US including Onondaga Lake. The cleanup of Onondaga Lake has been ongoing for awhile, and has slowly cleaned the lake. Being on the Superfund national priority list in the 1990’s helped shut down the factories that were polluting the lake, “The active pollution of the lake stopped when the factories shut down, but work continues on those sites to prevent any more leakage” (Stevenson), meaning that these sites may not be running but they could still be polluting the lake. Onondaga Lake still faces many hurdles before becoming clean enough to fish or swim in.
EPA's ultimate goal is to make Superfund faster, fairer and more efficient, but many variables influence the success of Superfund, so one solution may not satisfy all situations or all people. In the case of Onondaga Lake, businesses, inhabitants, tourists and the government all had stakes in the historical area (Williamson). One study analyzes the factors involved in remediation at Superfund sites, under three models - Administrative Convenience/Transaction Costs, Problem Severity and Political Pressure. Surprisingly, too much community involvement causes decreased remedial progress because local groups tend to burden the federal Superfund program by prolonging the process with lobbies for certain permanent actions. Not surprisingly, an increase in political oversight improves results.
Also, it is found that the EPA is more likely to focus on lower-risk sites, basically sites with cheaper costs. (Daley 375) Only when the government enacted the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 did the situation of Onondaga Lake become addressed, after over twenty years of overwhelming pollution (Williamson 10). Still, even after this initial act, more action was needed to clean the lake. Today, the Onondaga Lake Partnership continues to work with the government, organizations and the public to limit phosphorous contamination and develop a shared vision for the lake (Williamson 12). The Onondaga Lake Partnership is a large committee consisting of government, public and private interest groups, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA (Williamson 11). Although local community involvement can sometimes be a burden for the federal Superfund program, it can also help if these organizations work with government leaders, like the Onondaga Lake Partnership does. Studies show that if an elected official from a site's congressional district sits on a Superfund oversight committee, this site is twenty percent more likely to be completed (Daley 387).
In 2004, Aerospace giant Honeywell Inc. agreed to spend $451 million to clean up contaminated sediments in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell became the party responsible for the contamination after buying Allied-Signal in 1999. Onondaga County is also currently spending $500 million on a 15-year project to curb discharges of untreated sewage into the lake. The state has spent some $125 million since 1995 to improve water quality at the lake - the federal government has spent more than $100 million on the effort (CorpWatch).
State regulators required Honeywell Inc. to pay for the cleanup after the company tried to implement a more limited cleanup that would cost the company only $237 million, about half of the initial cost. Companies like Honeywell are trying to cut corners on cleanup by choosing a less expensive and as a result, less thorough cleaning of the polluted site (Urbina). In other words, Honeywell is more concerned with its own self-interest that they will not take the initiative to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up properly unless they are required to do so. But if this was the case, what would be the incentive for corporations to clean up their mess? There needs to be some sort of regulation on Superfund sites stating explicitly who is responsible for clean up so corporations cannot play the blame-game.
The amount of money the agency recovered from those companies has fallen by half in the past six fiscal years, compared with the previous six years” (Sapien). Onondaga Lake is a sad example of this problem. Honeywell is only proposing half what Superfund wants from them, and even then according to Onondaga nation, it will not be enough to truly clean the lake “Capping is not allowed on the Hudson and should be avoided on the Onondaga Lake because it is a Band-Aid approach that will surely fail” (Urbina). According to Onondaga Nation and some experts, the EPA and Superfund is taking the easy way out when it comes to Onondaga Lake
Honeywell’s proposal of $237 million instead of $448 million demonstrates corporations’ unwillingness to devote the necessary time and money to clean up messes because that would cost them money. Because the money is coming out of the pockets of the corporations, they are trying to reduce the cost. According to the Honeywell website, “We are building a world that’s safer and more secure … more comfortable and energy efficient … more innovative and productive.” Honeywell claims that they are trying to build a world that is ‘safer’ however their words do not match their actions. If Honeywell was truly trying to make the world safer, the first thing they should do everything in their power to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up to the same standard that it once was. If Honeywell really wanted to make the world safer, they could start by disinfecting the lake and purifying the water for swimming and for fishing.
Efforts are being done to clean up Onondaga Lake however only after corporate companies or tax payers are roped into paying for it. If Superfund wants to continue being effective, the EPA needs to come up with a strict list of criteria about who is responsible for the cleanup. Onondaga Lake is one place where there has been some progress but there are other sites are that need assistance but are not receiving any. Onondaga Lake is notoriously known for being overly polluted with industrial waste while other areas might not have the same ostentatious circumstances. This makes me speculate about whether a contaminated body needs to hold the title of ‘the most polluted lake in America for there to be a response.
When the Industrial Revolution hit Syracuse, the lake’s western shore became a center for industrialization and factories (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Sewage disposal and industrial discharges augmented pollution and left the waters of Onondaga Lake hopelessly contaminated. Soon enough, the lake was so impure that people stopped using the lake for swimming and fishing and the lake was converted into a dumping ground of industrial waste.
In 1994, Onondaga Lake was added to the Superfund list, a program by the Environmental Protection Agency which was created to clean up extremely polluted areas. Superfund sites are all over although not much has been done to clean them.
Superfund was government legislation that has been attempting to cleanup hazardous waste sites throughout the US including Onondaga Lake. The cleanup of Onondaga Lake has been ongoing for awhile, and has slowly cleaned the lake. Being on the Superfund national priority list in the 1990’s helped shut down the factories that were polluting the lake, “The active pollution of the lake stopped when the factories shut down, but work continues on those sites to prevent any more leakage” (Stevenson), meaning that these sites may not be running but they could still be polluting the lake. Onondaga Lake still faces many hurdles before becoming clean enough to fish or swim in.
EPA's ultimate goal is to make Superfund faster, fairer and more efficient, but many variables influence the success of Superfund, so one solution may not satisfy all situations or all people. In the case of Onondaga Lake, businesses, inhabitants, tourists and the government all had stakes in the historical area (Williamson). One study analyzes the factors involved in remediation at Superfund sites, under three models - Administrative Convenience/Transaction Costs, Problem Severity and Political Pressure. Surprisingly, too much community involvement causes decreased remedial progress because local groups tend to burden the federal Superfund program by prolonging the process with lobbies for certain permanent actions. Not surprisingly, an increase in political oversight improves results.
Also, it is found that the EPA is more likely to focus on lower-risk sites, basically sites with cheaper costs. (Daley 375) Only when the government enacted the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 did the situation of Onondaga Lake become addressed, after over twenty years of overwhelming pollution (Williamson 10). Still, even after this initial act, more action was needed to clean the lake. Today, the Onondaga Lake Partnership continues to work with the government, organizations and the public to limit phosphorous contamination and develop a shared vision for the lake (Williamson 12). The Onondaga Lake Partnership is a large committee consisting of government, public and private interest groups, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA (Williamson 11). Although local community involvement can sometimes be a burden for the federal Superfund program, it can also help if these organizations work with government leaders, like the Onondaga Lake Partnership does. Studies show that if an elected official from a site's congressional district sits on a Superfund oversight committee, this site is twenty percent more likely to be completed (Daley 387).
In 2004, Aerospace giant Honeywell Inc. agreed to spend $451 million to clean up contaminated sediments in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell became the party responsible for the contamination after buying Allied-Signal in 1999. Onondaga County is also currently spending $500 million on a 15-year project to curb discharges of untreated sewage into the lake. The state has spent some $125 million since 1995 to improve water quality at the lake - the federal government has spent more than $100 million on the effort (CorpWatch).
State regulators required Honeywell Inc. to pay for the cleanup after the company tried to implement a more limited cleanup that would cost the company only $237 million, about half of the initial cost. Companies like Honeywell are trying to cut corners on cleanup by choosing a less expensive and as a result, less thorough cleaning of the polluted site (Urbina). In other words, Honeywell is more concerned with its own self-interest that they will not take the initiative to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up properly unless they are required to do so. But if this was the case, what would be the incentive for corporations to clean up their mess? There needs to be some sort of regulation on Superfund sites stating explicitly who is responsible for clean up so corporations cannot play the blame-game.
The amount of money the agency recovered from those companies has fallen by half in the past six fiscal years, compared with the previous six years” (Sapien). Onondaga Lake is a sad example of this problem. Honeywell is only proposing half what Superfund wants from them, and even then according to Onondaga nation, it will not be enough to truly clean the lake “Capping is not allowed on the Hudson and should be avoided on the Onondaga Lake because it is a Band-Aid approach that will surely fail” (Urbina). According to Onondaga Nation and some experts, the EPA and Superfund is taking the easy way out when it comes to Onondaga Lake
Honeywell’s proposal of $237 million instead of $448 million demonstrates corporations’ unwillingness to devote the necessary time and money to clean up messes because that would cost them money. Because the money is coming out of the pockets of the corporations, they are trying to reduce the cost. According to the Honeywell website, “We are building a world that’s safer and more secure … more comfortable and energy efficient … more innovative and productive.” Honeywell claims that they are trying to build a world that is ‘safer’ however their words do not match their actions. If Honeywell was truly trying to make the world safer, the first thing they should do everything in their power to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up to the same standard that it once was. If Honeywell really wanted to make the world safer, they could start by disinfecting the lake and purifying the water for swimming and for fishing.
Efforts are being done to clean up Onondaga Lake however only after corporate companies or tax payers are roped into paying for it. If Superfund wants to continue being effective, the EPA needs to come up with a strict list of criteria about who is responsible for the cleanup. Onondaga Lake is one place where there has been some progress but there are other sites are that need assistance but are not receiving any. Onondaga Lake is notoriously known for being overly polluted with industrial waste while other areas might not have the same ostentatious circumstances. This makes me speculate about whether a contaminated body needs to hold the title of ‘the most polluted lake in America for there to be a response.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Couple in the Cage
Stephanie Musat
CAS 100
Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gomez-Pena’s the Couple in the Cage is a social experiment that sought to discover audiences’ reactions to an exhibit where indigenous people were put on display in museums. Although the setting is perfect for an art display, Fusco and Gomez-Pena’s exhibit could be debated on whether it should be considered art. I consider art as something that an artist creates which would trigger a response from another party. This experiment certainly resulted with emotion from the looker-on’s however the premise of the experiment is based on farce. The experiment tricked people and because of this, I believe that the Couple in the Cage lost credibility in the art world.
The Couple in the Cage documents the traveling performance of Guillermo Gomez -Pena and Coco Fusco, in which they exhibited themselves as caged Amerindians from an imaginary island in the Gulf of Mexico. While the artists’ intent was to create a satirical commentary on the notion of discovery, it became obvious that many of their viewers actually believed the fiction and thought the artists were real savages. “Rather than offering a critique of contemporary (or even modern) ethnographic theory and practice, The Couple in the Cage uses the ethnographic burlesque in the service of a shameful ethnology, practices associated with the early history of ethnographic writing and display and with popular entertainment” (Altick 1978).
Despite obvious indications that the experiment was not true – like Fusco wearing Converse sneakers – the general public took the experiment at face-value without challenging what they saw. The scene consisted of Gomez-Pena and Fusco in a cage with a living room set up, complete with television, chairs and a table. Gomez-Pena and Fusco would meander around the cage, interjected with the occasional dance and meals. The audience was allowed to take pictures with them and if they paid $5, Gomez-Pena would show his genitalia. The point of this set up was to infuse a modern set up with ancient practices, a modern audience with an ancient act, to see how the two would react to each other. While on display the artists' "traditional" daily rituals ranged from sewing voodoo dolls, to lifting weights to watching television to working on laptop computers. During feeding time museum guards passed bananas to the artists and when the couple needed to use the bathroom they were escorted from their cage on leashes. For a small donation, Fusco could be persuaded to dance (to rap music) or both performers would pose for Polaroids. By pretending to be native people, Fusco and Gomez exploited people’s gullibility by convincing them that they were unfamiliar with modern society because of complete isolation.
Gomez-Pena was born in Mexico but moved to the United State in1978. He received his degree from California Institute of the Arts. Fusco is an artist from New York City and received her degree from Brown University and her Master of Arts from Stanford University. Both have lived in America for many decades and have assimilated into American culture. This project claims that they are indigenous people from a made-up island, which discredits Pena and Fusco as performers. Although a theatrical performance, this differs drastically from a typical piece of theater. In a play, the audience knows that what they are about to see is fiction – that actors are assuming a role. In The Couple in the Cage, the public does not know that the display is fake. In fact, there were curators there to convince the audience that the display was real. Part of the reason as to why the display was seen as real was because there were curators telling the unknowing public that they display was actually indigenous people. They were the experts in this situation and by telling a group of unknowing people that something is fact, they will take it as such. The collaboration between the curators and the artists is what helped the experiment become so successful. There were people there telling the audience the information that the actors could not convey. It was obvious that the people in the cage were foreign but the curators there provided the background information which completed the picture and made everything more believable (Kwon 46). Although the intent of the actors was not to fool an audience into believing that they were indigenous people, this tended to be the case despite the root meaning of the project. They were making a satire on how stereotyped primitive cultures are, and how they were treated in the past. It is explained that it was supposed to be a form of art, and the actors didn't even expect that people would believe them to be authentic.
This exhibit toured around the world and made stops in virtually every major city. The cage performance has been carried out in Madrid, London, Washington D.C., Irvine, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. That performance has been selected for the 1992 Sydney Biennale and the 1993 Whitney Biennial. Major cities in developed areas tend to be hubs for curiosity because the general public is relatively well educated and those who saw the exhibit are obviously interested in history and art because they were in a museum. The success of this experiment was because they targeted the right group of people – a group that had no knowledge about the subject but was eager to find out. If this were one display in a public place in a less developed area, the reaction would be significantly different. “The record of their interactions with audiences in four countries dramatizes the dilemma of cross-cultural misunderstanding we continue to live with today,” Fusco said on her Web site. “Their experiences are interwoven with archival footage of ethnographic displays from the past, giving an historical dimension to the artists’ social experiment. The Couple in the Cage is a powerful blend of comic fiction and poignant reflection on the morality of treating human beings as exotic curiosities.” The group incorporated the premise of invasion – a hegemonic power entering a non-threatening area to conquer the land and the people there for their own benefit. This historical commentary is in the form of a creative investigation and interpretation of the discovery of America and the 1993 Whitney Biennial.
Also, if this were to be put on today, fewer people would believe it because there are new and available resources where people would be able to check the authenticity of something via the Internet. “The function of the ethnographic displays as popular entertainment was largely superseded by industrialized mass culture. Not unsurprisingly, the popularity of these human exhibitions began to decline with the emergence of another commercialized form of voyeurism--the cinema--and the assumption by ethnographic film of their didactic role.” Within two days, something on the internet would tell the public that the exhibit is not real, debunking the entire experiment.
The experiment resulted in a point that only reached a small portion of the people who saw the display. Because it was believable, the message that it was supposed to be a satirical commentary did not translate well through the audience. When people are at a museum, they tend to think that what they are going to see is fact and therefore turn off all observational skepticism and automatically take whatever they see as fact. It did not result in huge fame for Fusco or Gomez-Pena, nor did it become a staple in modern American art. It was successful in being a satirical commentary and proved that people believe what they are told without utilizing any sort of rational thinking, especially when whatever is being said is confirmed by an expert.
Overall, the act did trigger a response, whether awe, sympathy or outrage, from the audience and by the criteria which I stated above, this would be a successful piece of art. However, the message which the group was trying to convey, specifically the idea that this is a satirical message about conquering a land and claiming it as your own, did not filter through the entire audience, resulting with some people actually believing what they saw.
The Couple in the Cage would certainly satisfy the requirements of being considered an Art-in-the-public-interest piece because it took an issue affecting society and manipulated it into an art form for the general public. However there are two main issues that I have that would stop this exhibit from being considered art. The Number one is that a majority of the public did not understand the message that was trying to get across. Gomez-Pena and Fusco are preaching that conquering another area where there are already people is inhumane, drawing parallels between the discovery of America and being caged for display. There was no obvious connection so the audience took the exhibit at face-value and didn’t understand the actual message. The second issue is that the premise is based on lies. There is no such island and Gomez-Pena and Fusco dressed up to trick the audience. If the message was clearer, then people would not be fooled as easily and therefore it could be considered art. However because the intent, to produce a social commentary, did not trickle down to the audience, leaving many confused, and the art incomprehensible.
Works cited
Fusco, Coco. “Coco Fusco’s virtual laboratory.” 2 November 2007. http://thing.net/~cocofusco/
Kelly, M. K. Performing the other: a consideration of two cages. College Literature. 1999: 113-36H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. “The ethnographic burlesque.” TDR. 1998: 175-180. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007.
Kwon, Miwon. “One Place After Another.” The MIT Press: Cambridge Massachusetts. 2002.
CAS 100
Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gomez-Pena’s the Couple in the Cage is a social experiment that sought to discover audiences’ reactions to an exhibit where indigenous people were put on display in museums. Although the setting is perfect for an art display, Fusco and Gomez-Pena’s exhibit could be debated on whether it should be considered art. I consider art as something that an artist creates which would trigger a response from another party. This experiment certainly resulted with emotion from the looker-on’s however the premise of the experiment is based on farce. The experiment tricked people and because of this, I believe that the Couple in the Cage lost credibility in the art world.
The Couple in the Cage documents the traveling performance of Guillermo Gomez -Pena and Coco Fusco, in which they exhibited themselves as caged Amerindians from an imaginary island in the Gulf of Mexico. While the artists’ intent was to create a satirical commentary on the notion of discovery, it became obvious that many of their viewers actually believed the fiction and thought the artists were real savages. “Rather than offering a critique of contemporary (or even modern) ethnographic theory and practice, The Couple in the Cage uses the ethnographic burlesque in the service of a shameful ethnology, practices associated with the early history of ethnographic writing and display and with popular entertainment” (Altick 1978).
Despite obvious indications that the experiment was not true – like Fusco wearing Converse sneakers – the general public took the experiment at face-value without challenging what they saw. The scene consisted of Gomez-Pena and Fusco in a cage with a living room set up, complete with television, chairs and a table. Gomez-Pena and Fusco would meander around the cage, interjected with the occasional dance and meals. The audience was allowed to take pictures with them and if they paid $5, Gomez-Pena would show his genitalia. The point of this set up was to infuse a modern set up with ancient practices, a modern audience with an ancient act, to see how the two would react to each other. While on display the artists' "traditional" daily rituals ranged from sewing voodoo dolls, to lifting weights to watching television to working on laptop computers. During feeding time museum guards passed bananas to the artists and when the couple needed to use the bathroom they were escorted from their cage on leashes. For a small donation, Fusco could be persuaded to dance (to rap music) or both performers would pose for Polaroids. By pretending to be native people, Fusco and Gomez exploited people’s gullibility by convincing them that they were unfamiliar with modern society because of complete isolation.
Gomez-Pena was born in Mexico but moved to the United State in1978. He received his degree from California Institute of the Arts. Fusco is an artist from New York City and received her degree from Brown University and her Master of Arts from Stanford University. Both have lived in America for many decades and have assimilated into American culture. This project claims that they are indigenous people from a made-up island, which discredits Pena and Fusco as performers. Although a theatrical performance, this differs drastically from a typical piece of theater. In a play, the audience knows that what they are about to see is fiction – that actors are assuming a role. In The Couple in the Cage, the public does not know that the display is fake. In fact, there were curators there to convince the audience that the display was real. Part of the reason as to why the display was seen as real was because there were curators telling the unknowing public that they display was actually indigenous people. They were the experts in this situation and by telling a group of unknowing people that something is fact, they will take it as such. The collaboration between the curators and the artists is what helped the experiment become so successful. There were people there telling the audience the information that the actors could not convey. It was obvious that the people in the cage were foreign but the curators there provided the background information which completed the picture and made everything more believable (Kwon 46). Although the intent of the actors was not to fool an audience into believing that they were indigenous people, this tended to be the case despite the root meaning of the project. They were making a satire on how stereotyped primitive cultures are, and how they were treated in the past. It is explained that it was supposed to be a form of art, and the actors didn't even expect that people would believe them to be authentic.
This exhibit toured around the world and made stops in virtually every major city. The cage performance has been carried out in Madrid, London, Washington D.C., Irvine, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. That performance has been selected for the 1992 Sydney Biennale and the 1993 Whitney Biennial. Major cities in developed areas tend to be hubs for curiosity because the general public is relatively well educated and those who saw the exhibit are obviously interested in history and art because they were in a museum. The success of this experiment was because they targeted the right group of people – a group that had no knowledge about the subject but was eager to find out. If this were one display in a public place in a less developed area, the reaction would be significantly different. “The record of their interactions with audiences in four countries dramatizes the dilemma of cross-cultural misunderstanding we continue to live with today,” Fusco said on her Web site. “Their experiences are interwoven with archival footage of ethnographic displays from the past, giving an historical dimension to the artists’ social experiment. The Couple in the Cage is a powerful blend of comic fiction and poignant reflection on the morality of treating human beings as exotic curiosities.” The group incorporated the premise of invasion – a hegemonic power entering a non-threatening area to conquer the land and the people there for their own benefit. This historical commentary is in the form of a creative investigation and interpretation of the discovery of America and the 1993 Whitney Biennial.
Also, if this were to be put on today, fewer people would believe it because there are new and available resources where people would be able to check the authenticity of something via the Internet. “The function of the ethnographic displays as popular entertainment was largely superseded by industrialized mass culture. Not unsurprisingly, the popularity of these human exhibitions began to decline with the emergence of another commercialized form of voyeurism--the cinema--and the assumption by ethnographic film of their didactic role.” Within two days, something on the internet would tell the public that the exhibit is not real, debunking the entire experiment.
The experiment resulted in a point that only reached a small portion of the people who saw the display. Because it was believable, the message that it was supposed to be a satirical commentary did not translate well through the audience. When people are at a museum, they tend to think that what they are going to see is fact and therefore turn off all observational skepticism and automatically take whatever they see as fact. It did not result in huge fame for Fusco or Gomez-Pena, nor did it become a staple in modern American art. It was successful in being a satirical commentary and proved that people believe what they are told without utilizing any sort of rational thinking, especially when whatever is being said is confirmed by an expert.
Overall, the act did trigger a response, whether awe, sympathy or outrage, from the audience and by the criteria which I stated above, this would be a successful piece of art. However, the message which the group was trying to convey, specifically the idea that this is a satirical message about conquering a land and claiming it as your own, did not filter through the entire audience, resulting with some people actually believing what they saw.
The Couple in the Cage would certainly satisfy the requirements of being considered an Art-in-the-public-interest piece because it took an issue affecting society and manipulated it into an art form for the general public. However there are two main issues that I have that would stop this exhibit from being considered art. The Number one is that a majority of the public did not understand the message that was trying to get across. Gomez-Pena and Fusco are preaching that conquering another area where there are already people is inhumane, drawing parallels between the discovery of America and being caged for display. There was no obvious connection so the audience took the exhibit at face-value and didn’t understand the actual message. The second issue is that the premise is based on lies. There is no such island and Gomez-Pena and Fusco dressed up to trick the audience. If the message was clearer, then people would not be fooled as easily and therefore it could be considered art. However because the intent, to produce a social commentary, did not trickle down to the audience, leaving many confused, and the art incomprehensible.
Works cited
Fusco, Coco. “Coco Fusco’s virtual laboratory.” 2 November 2007. http://thing.net/~cocofusco/
Kelly, M. K. Performing the other: a consideration of two cages. College Literature. 1999: 113-36H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. “The ethnographic burlesque.” TDR. 1998: 175-180. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007.
Kwon, Miwon. “One Place After Another.” The MIT Press: Cambridge Massachusetts. 2002.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Essay 3
Thesis - In Coco Fusco and Fuillermo Gomez-Pena’s The Couple in the Cage, they tried to show the impacts of mass culture on the lives of everyday ctitizens by putting on such a provocative and outrageous show that many believed to be authentic despite obvious fabrication.
Paragraph 1 - By pretending to be native people, Fusco and Gomez exploited people’s gullibility by convincing them that they were unfamiliar with modern society because of complete isolation.
Paragraph 2 - People watching the exhibits seemed to be more fascinated with their culture rather than the inhumane treatment of taking people from their original homes and putting them in cages while traveling across the world.
Paragraph 3 - The root meaning of the project can link back to modern civilization taking over indigenous people which has happened many times throughout history.
Conclusion - Fusco and Gomez’s The Couple in the Cage was successful at conveying their message that the general public is blind to inhumane treatment.
quotes - Rather than offering a critique of contemporary (or even modern) ethnographic theory and practice, The Couple in the Cage uses the ethnographic burlesque in the service of a shameful ethnology, practices associated with the early history of ethnographic writing and display and with popular entertainment,(1) Before the advent of public museums, such displays were largely in the hands of commercial showmen, who combined edification and amusement in various ratios (Altick 1978).
the function of the ethnographic displays as popular entertainment was largely superseded by industrialized mass culture. Not unsurprisingly [sic], the popularity of these human exhibitions began to decline with the emergence of another commercialized form of voyeurism--the cinema--and the assumption by ethnographic film of their didactic role.... The representation of the "reality" of the Other's life, on which ethnographic documentary was based and still is grounded, is this fictional narrative of Western culture "discovering" the negation of itself in something authentically and radically distinct. (1995a, 49, Fusco's italics)(FN4)
Paragraph 1 - By pretending to be native people, Fusco and Gomez exploited people’s gullibility by convincing them that they were unfamiliar with modern society because of complete isolation.
Paragraph 2 - People watching the exhibits seemed to be more fascinated with their culture rather than the inhumane treatment of taking people from their original homes and putting them in cages while traveling across the world.
Paragraph 3 - The root meaning of the project can link back to modern civilization taking over indigenous people which has happened many times throughout history.
Conclusion - Fusco and Gomez’s The Couple in the Cage was successful at conveying their message that the general public is blind to inhumane treatment.
quotes - Rather than offering a critique of contemporary (or even modern) ethnographic theory and practice, The Couple in the Cage uses the ethnographic burlesque in the service of a shameful ethnology, practices associated with the early history of ethnographic writing and display and with popular entertainment,(1) Before the advent of public museums, such displays were largely in the hands of commercial showmen, who combined edification and amusement in various ratios (Altick 1978).
the function of the ethnographic displays as popular entertainment was largely superseded by industrialized mass culture. Not unsurprisingly [sic], the popularity of these human exhibitions began to decline with the emergence of another commercialized form of voyeurism--the cinema--and the assumption by ethnographic film of their didactic role.... The representation of the "reality" of the Other's life, on which ethnographic documentary was based and still is grounded, is this fictional narrative of Western culture "discovering" the negation of itself in something authentically and radically distinct. (1995a, 49, Fusco's italics)(FN4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)