The last time I saw Rogers’ work, in fact the only time I had seen his work prior to this summer, was in 2005 at the artist’s last solo exhibition in Los Angeles with Dave Kordansky. Rogers was then just out of school and the show included five or six large paintings. Subsequent exhibitions, also of paintings, were in Europe. (In fact there were group exhibitions in LA over the years which included paintings by Rogers, but seeing one or two paintings every year or so does not offer much chance for understanding.) Recognizing that I had little experience with his practice, I paid close attention at one of the painting panel discussions this summer, where Rogers spoke with passion (and in a questioning tone) of photography and its ability to interrupt a linearity that he felt existed in his own painting practice. After a long and heated back-and-forth among several of the panelists, Rogers stated with a nervous emphasis: “Adding photography (to his painting practice) breaks the linear rhythm and introduces pockets of non-hierarchical creativity from which new things might be done.” I responded to the artist’s nervousness – the shaky-voiced passionate delivery he used often signals one who is speaking the, or a, truth.
I followed up with Rogers immediately after the talk, we exchanged emails and I set up a studio visit.
Speaking with him in the studio and looking at completed paintings, paintings in progress, photographs, mobiles and small sculptures I began to understand Rogers proposition that photography has nurtured a disjuncture in his usual practice. Many early paintings drew quite directly on architectural details and gestures that he encountered in the city around him, and from the refined yet commonplace schemes of Modernist and Case Study styles of buildings, which are so prevalent in Los Angeles. Reviewing work online I find that something seems to shift in 2007 and 2008 – while some of the paintings continue with a domestic feel, a few have become pared down and exist more as symbols for rather than reminders of his outside interests. In 2009 and 2010 Rogers begins to make use of an X shape to organize the information on his canvases. Also, throughout 2010 he made paintings on jute, or burlap, with cut-out shapes – circles and stretched diamonds and weird pointy polygons. The left-over pieces from these paintings were used to craft the mobiles that inform much of the present exhibition.
I provide the above to remind myself of what I’ve missed over the years, and to offer you -who may also be unfamiliar – a way to think about the work that he is making now. If you’d like you may access the artist’s website, which has a pretty complete inventory of early and later work www.brettcodyrogers.com.
And having just laid out, for you and for myself, an understandable timeline of this artist’s practice, I must now dispute my thesis entirely. Confounding the desires of writers, academicians and collectors, most artists do not work in anything like a linear fashion. I would imagine, thinking back to the charged conversation on the panel when Rogers declared he had found a way out of “the hierarchy of linearity” that his real struggle was against the tendency of our world to impose a consumable narrative upon an artist’s practice.
I placed the film stills just above because, well, the film, and the mobile pictured in it, so obviously had an influence on the cruciform paintings of 2010 and also the paintings in the current show. In a few of the photographs that Rogers showed me the suspended brass rods, from which depend his painted jute cut-outs, cross in space; and this suggested, or enforced, the artist’s cruciform tool. And yet, and yet, as I mentioned above, I cannot keep straight in my head exactly how any of this work developed. (I exaggerate for emphasis.)
Brett Cody Rogers offered me several stories of his path over the last few years, in my mind they all concluded with his arrival at the new work and the new exhibition. The small sculptures that I saw, or perhaps I saw photographs of them, are the work of the artist’s grandfather, who was himself an artist and produced significant large public sculptures in Ohio and around the Midwest. These 10″ to 14″ copper works were maquettes for larger sculptures; they functioned as a sculptor’s sketch book – small ideas that may not be made but inform the practice. Rogers’ grandfather died and Rogers has inherited them.
The grandson photographed these sculptures, using strategies that produce confusion to mediate these photographic representations of his grandfather’s sculptures. Remember the jute paintings? The paintings that were cut up to produce his painter’s forms, mobiles, etc.? In the example above one such painting hangs between the studio wall and a glass-covered table on which one of the sculptures is situated. The plate glass, which is backed by black velvet, produces a distinct double reflection, the vertical stripes and the angled and horizontal borders and fields on the jute painting, and the reflective surface of the polished metal frames all cast and re-distribute reflections. Some of the darker fields on the paintings could be shadows cast by the sculptures, and then perhaps the shadows of the sculptures fade into the paintings.
That Rogers used these photographs to generate portions of his paintings, and also made photographs of the mobiles – themselves made from the background paintings – which then also became the source for additional moves in the paintings, complicates the issue of who is reflecting what, and when the reflection happened or was caught by Rogers’ eye or the camera’s eye.
The surfaces of the paintings and the surfaces imaged in the photographs are vital to an understanding of the artist’s practice. For the paintings on canvas, Rogers often uses transparent and translucent washes, when laid atop one another these will produce a third color – not by mixing the paint but rather the transparent nature of the paint allows light to penetrate and to refract, so it is the mix of light that makes this third color. The jute or burlap paintings, which appear only in bits and pieces in photographic representation, have wonderful heavy textures and simple colors that remind me of – you’ll forgive a fanciful comparison – the rough and earnest fabrics of Danish Modern design. (It’s probably silk or fine wool when used for upholstery, but still, the affect of common materials is in place.) We find in Rogers’ new work a reference to Modernist architecture after all.
And the film. A 16mm, looped film, six minutes long, three in color and three black and white, with no recorded sound but certainly featuring the sound of film running through sprockets and a motor whirring. Everything comes together when I watch this film. Those meditative six minutes seem like the answer the many questions posed by the flat work, and also the film seems to precede and predict the later paintings and photographs. Rogers and Jed Lind set up a fan and lights and filmed the mobiles moving through space. The focus shifts and so do the angles and distances. In any real sense the film represents nothing we can comprehend wholly – the images are so close up that a reading of the objects is unlikely. But the flashes and caresses of Rogers’ painted shapes, black knotted yarn and shiny metal rods work like afterthoughts of the paintings and photographs and serve as brief distillations of one’s experience of the exhibition.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
America Winning New Cultural War For Global Audiences - Europe Lags In Producing Widely Accessible “Products”
America has opened a lead that will perhaps not be overtaken in the global market for “cultural exports” in the form of digital materials – the movies and music, books and broadcasting and all the other media that shapes global consumers’ taste in entertainment and their view of the world they live in.
That conclusion emerges from an imposing study written by a leading French specialist who interviewed key players in this field in 30 countries. The research and findings, presented by Frederic Martel in his new book, entitled “Mainstream” in French (not yet translated into English), have special value because they come from France, a country that has a specific national government-run “culture policy” dedicated to the promotion of French language and culture and promoting resistance to American “cultural imperialism.”
On this issue, Martel’s book is a fire alarm for Paris and similarly-minded European capitals. He concludes that the United States, while widely resented politically and economically in many parts of Europe, continues to expand its share of the global cultural marketplace. In his 460-page book, he describes the outcome of the “war” that is being waged in the world’s production studios, online search engines, recording studios, and TV networks as new developments in “global culture” emerge. Martel, a former French diplomat who served in the U.S., wrote an earlier book, “De la Culture en Amerique” (On Culture in America), that proved he has been influential on successive French governments. President Nicholas Sarkozy has established a special presidential agency, led by French movie mogul Marin Karmitz, to promote French creativity. That book (which has never been published in English) was reviewed by European Affairs.
His new book is described here in this excerpt from a recent interview Martel did with Bruna Basini in the Paris newspaper, Journal du Dimanche, and is translated here from French.
Your book concludes that American cultural goods and services continue to dominate the global cultural marketplace -- with the corollary that English seems to continue its movement toward becoming a quasi-universal language that reduces the role of other languages? What are the reasons for this? And is this accurate?
Absolutely. The birthplace of Disney is also now home to Google, the most powerful online search engine in the world. The U.S. retains this position of global leadership on the world stage because it promotes and sells cultural products that have undeniable worldwide appeal: they are universal, mainstream and exportable to all corners of the world.
The U.S. boasts a number of advantages over its competitors.
It is an English-speaking nation;
It is rich in cultural diversity, as a result of immigration;
It operates within a very particular system within which there is no overarching regulatory plan;
The main U.S. players are both independent and interconnected, meaning that their operations often involve both the public and the private sectors at the same time, in what are often called public-private partnerships.
Furthermore, the so-called “social media” and big sub-cultures that have emerged from the powerful internet tools such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have all come from the U.S. and basically operate as parts of a single over-arching system [in a digitalizing universe].
How do you describe the impact of this U.S. strength?
It gives the U.S. a capacity to influence other cultures and societies -- often referred to as “soft power.” This is also part of what some strategists call “smart power.” The combination of superior military power with cultural influence puts the U.S. in a uniquely advantageous position. It involves far more than just imposing American-made movies, music and television formats on other countries. It is a wider drive in which the U.S. is constantly seeking to multiply and widen its markets and is always working to manufacture a global desire for American products – and then satisfy it.
While this does not destroy national cultures, it does leave little space for other countries trying to compete with their own cultural goods and services.
Is this American cultural “hyper-power” unbeatable?
Other cultures are trying to compete, obviously France is one of them. But in addition many emerging economies have their own cultural products that they wish to promote beyond their borders. From Brazil to Indonesia, the cultural landscape is mutating, and all these countries have begun to export their public media content and all share ambitions to become “mainstream” like the U.S. Arabic channels have advantages not only because of a critical mass of viewers (1.5 billion Muslims) but also because of access to wealthy and influential multimedia groups. These two realities converge in Qatar, Mumbai and Brazil. These economies are profiting from globalization and the growing dominance of the digital media. But not one of them has yet produced a global movie blockbuster. Tellingly, “Slumdog Millionaire,” which won eight Academy Awards last year, was set in India and adapted from a novel written by an Indian, but it was not an Indian movie; it was a British-French-American production. Interestingly, the ambitious cultural newcomers emphasize the same themes that dominate the output of Disney and other Hollywood studios -- an emphasis on family values and a deliberate attempt to stay away from sex and violence. In other words, they are trying to embrace the the logic of being mainstream.”
How pronounced is Europe’s decline (and France’s) in this new cultural landscape?
World sales of products with “American content” grew by 10 per cent over the last 10 years while “European” exports fell by eight per cent. So we are on the losing side amid increasingly stiff competition. If we want to remain in the game, change is necessary. If you want further evidence of American dominance, look at the fact that successful “European” products tend to be those with an American or global theme, not a theme that is specific to Europe. For example, take the output of Bertelsmann, the German transnational publisher; it has repositioned itself by buying a leading American publisher, Random House. Or look at France’s Vivendi whose leading product line is Universal Music, headquartered in New York; it is the legacy of Decca records, a major player in the American music industry.
Is there a way for Europe to challenge American dominance as it becomes the global norm?
We need to know how to play the game of “soft power” and play it well. The cultural agency proposed by [French Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner was a good idea. Its objective was to be an independent agency that would support French creative industries. But the Elysee was not supportive of his approach. Subsequently, an agency along these lines – to stimulate French creativity -- has been created that reports directly to French President Nicolas Sarkozy and is headed by French movie-mogul, Marin Karmitz.
The point is not to focus on questions about whether a particular foreign market is “good” or “bad” for a national culture but rather to know how to be a part of it. For instance, I like both Chereau and ”Toy Story.” (Patrice Chereau is the highbrow French director; “Toy Story” is the computer-animated movie made by Disney-Pixar.)
Which of these cultural products is more “creative” and “artistic”? We can argue about that -- and incidentally the answer is not as simple and obvious as many people might assume. What is inarguable is that one of them is much easier to export successfully.
America has opened a lead that will perhaps not be overtaken in the global market for “cultural exports” in the form of digital materials – the movies and music, books and broadcasting and all the other media that shapes global consumers’ taste in entertainment and their view of the world they live in.
That conclusion emerges from an imposing study written by a leading French specialist who interviewed key players in this field in 30 countries. The research and findings, presented by Frederic Martel in his new book, entitled “Mainstream” in French (not yet translated into English), have special value because they come from France, a country that has a specific national government-run “culture policy” dedicated to the promotion of French language and culture and promoting resistance to American “cultural imperialism.”
On this issue, Martel’s book is a fire alarm for Paris and similarly-minded European capitals. He concludes that the United States, while widely resented politically and economically in many parts of Europe, continues to expand its share of the global cultural marketplace. In his 460-page book, he describes the outcome of the “war” that is being waged in the world’s production studios, online search engines, recording studios, and TV networks as new developments in “global culture” emerge. Martel, a former French diplomat who served in the U.S., wrote an earlier book, “De la Culture en Amerique” (On Culture in America), that proved he has been influential on successive French governments. President Nicholas Sarkozy has established a special presidential agency, led by French movie mogul Marin Karmitz, to promote French creativity. That book (which has never been published in English) was reviewed by European Affairs.
His new book is described here in this excerpt from a recent interview Martel did with Bruna Basini in the Paris newspaper, Journal du Dimanche, and is translated here from French.
Your book concludes that American cultural goods and services continue to dominate the global cultural marketplace -- with the corollary that English seems to continue its movement toward becoming a quasi-universal language that reduces the role of other languages? What are the reasons for this? And is this accurate?
Absolutely. The birthplace of Disney is also now home to Google, the most powerful online search engine in the world. The U.S. retains this position of global leadership on the world stage because it promotes and sells cultural products that have undeniable worldwide appeal: they are universal, mainstream and exportable to all corners of the world.
The U.S. boasts a number of advantages over its competitors.
It is an English-speaking nation;
It is rich in cultural diversity, as a result of immigration;
It operates within a very particular system within which there is no overarching regulatory plan;
The main U.S. players are both independent and interconnected, meaning that their operations often involve both the public and the private sectors at the same time, in what are often called public-private partnerships.
Furthermore, the so-called “social media” and big sub-cultures that have emerged from the powerful internet tools such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have all come from the U.S. and basically operate as parts of a single over-arching system [in a digitalizing universe].
How do you describe the impact of this U.S. strength?
It gives the U.S. a capacity to influence other cultures and societies -- often referred to as “soft power.” This is also part of what some strategists call “smart power.” The combination of superior military power with cultural influence puts the U.S. in a uniquely advantageous position. It involves far more than just imposing American-made movies, music and television formats on other countries. It is a wider drive in which the U.S. is constantly seeking to multiply and widen its markets and is always working to manufacture a global desire for American products – and then satisfy it.
While this does not destroy national cultures, it does leave little space for other countries trying to compete with their own cultural goods and services.
Is this American cultural “hyper-power” unbeatable?
Other cultures are trying to compete, obviously France is one of them. But in addition many emerging economies have their own cultural products that they wish to promote beyond their borders. From Brazil to Indonesia, the cultural landscape is mutating, and all these countries have begun to export their public media content and all share ambitions to become “mainstream” like the U.S. Arabic channels have advantages not only because of a critical mass of viewers (1.5 billion Muslims) but also because of access to wealthy and influential multimedia groups. These two realities converge in Qatar, Mumbai and Brazil. These economies are profiting from globalization and the growing dominance of the digital media. But not one of them has yet produced a global movie blockbuster. Tellingly, “Slumdog Millionaire,” which won eight Academy Awards last year, was set in India and adapted from a novel written by an Indian, but it was not an Indian movie; it was a British-French-American production. Interestingly, the ambitious cultural newcomers emphasize the same themes that dominate the output of Disney and other Hollywood studios -- an emphasis on family values and a deliberate attempt to stay away from sex and violence. In other words, they are trying to embrace the the logic of being mainstream.”
How pronounced is Europe’s decline (and France’s) in this new cultural landscape?
World sales of products with “American content” grew by 10 per cent over the last 10 years while “European” exports fell by eight per cent. So we are on the losing side amid increasingly stiff competition. If we want to remain in the game, change is necessary. If you want further evidence of American dominance, look at the fact that successful “European” products tend to be those with an American or global theme, not a theme that is specific to Europe. For example, take the output of Bertelsmann, the German transnational publisher; it has repositioned itself by buying a leading American publisher, Random House. Or look at France’s Vivendi whose leading product line is Universal Music, headquartered in New York; it is the legacy of Decca records, a major player in the American music industry.
Is there a way for Europe to challenge American dominance as it becomes the global norm?
We need to know how to play the game of “soft power” and play it well. The cultural agency proposed by [French Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner was a good idea. Its objective was to be an independent agency that would support French creative industries. But the Elysee was not supportive of his approach. Subsequently, an agency along these lines – to stimulate French creativity -- has been created that reports directly to French President Nicolas Sarkozy and is headed by French movie-mogul, Marin Karmitz.
The point is not to focus on questions about whether a particular foreign market is “good” or “bad” for a national culture but rather to know how to be a part of it. For instance, I like both Chereau and ”Toy Story.” (Patrice Chereau is the highbrow French director; “Toy Story” is the computer-animated movie made by Disney-Pixar.)
Which of these cultural products is more “creative” and “artistic”? We can argue about that -- and incidentally the answer is not as simple and obvious as many people might assume. What is inarguable is that one of them is much easier to export successfully.
Monday, October 20, 2008
voting is more than just picking a candidate
Our vote on November 4th 2008 will be more than a choice between two candidates, it will be our last chance to undo the blunders of our past two elections. With each vote we will dictate a future that could be either out of control and lethal, or in harmony with nature and humanity. That future belongs to our kids more than us, so let's think forwardly and act presently.
>spread thoughts
(submitted by M-A-D)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
bail out + CEO = bail up
Bail up: Witness the fruits of deregulation. Are we practicing selective socialism for the few? Keeping the wealth in a limited group? Something is amiss here.
Some accountability would be good.
(submitted by Lance Jackson)
Saturday, October 27, 2001
/fuelicide
Mutual Assured Destruction? It is up to ALL of us to reflect on our self-destructive and unnecessary oil gluttony. It is time to demand technological solutions to end the addiction, to save oil, save money & create a more sustainable tomorrow.
short on cash but still want to raise your views? download the free fuelicide sign
wear your opinion out and make it stick! >fuel-4-thoughts
Monday, January 1, 2001
about this site
This blog is a collaboration between thought leaders, entrepreneurs and designers. It is about addressing issues that we think will determine our future for better or worse, it is about being part of today's conversations, which we hope will become the story of our times, the ventures of tomorrow and future solutions for everyone.
Axiomentors:
become an Axiomentor contribute thoughts (pics and/or words)
Axiomentors:
- Erik Adigard (communication designer)
- Marc Dangeard (web2.0 strategist)
- Patricia McShane, M-A-D (designer)
become an Axiomentor contribute thoughts (pics and/or words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)