Carrie Wardle: Art and Abstract / Trans Post Humanism

Thoughts questions and insights...

First thought...
In his chapter on Abstract art now, Mr. Varnedoe states "...the less there is to look at, the more you have to look, the more you have to be in the picture."
I completely agree. I think that some of the most intriguing and mind boggling pieces are those which give you very little information. Before abstract art pictures were narratives that told stories, which didn't always leave much room for the viewers imagination. With the invention of abstract art we now have one piece that can have more than one meaning to more than one viewer.

Robert Ryman
Untitled. 1965. Oil on linen, 11 1/4 x 11 1/8" (28.4 x 28.2 cm). Fractional gift of Werner and Elaine Dannheisser

#2
Varnedoe continues on in his text with a lot about Pollock. Almost as if Pollock is the godfather of abstract art. He compares much of what is happening and has happened since Pollock's time. He writes "A better model for abstraction is perhaps the hypertext, where the line between "A" and "B" goes out in a million possible and ever more complex directions."
Is he implying that Pollock is point "A"? Assuming that to be true, then who is to say that the line drawn ends at "B" - couldn't it go onto "C" or possibly to "Z"? When looking back at how many people were influenced by Pollock, whether or not they wanted to be, it could be an impossible and infinite number, to which several letters could be applied to a single point-- assuming we still want to use letters to mark these points!

"Jack the Dripper" at work.

Jackson Pollock, Number 1, 1950 (Lavender Mist),1950, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund, 1976.37.1 (Click image or hotlink below to enlarge - 446 k)

#3
"...abstraction has everything to do with what the viewer brings to it and nothing to do with what is there before us."
Each of us looks as abstract art with different eyes, different opinions. What some would call beautiful, an artist might say was intended to be ugly. What others would call art, others would call garbage. Abstracting art will only have meaning to people who want to find a meaning, sometimes studying a particular artist and knowing their intention behind the art helps the viewer to empathize and understand the art, sometimes even understand the artist. However, just as "there is no controlling what one might see in a Rorschach blot" there is no controlling what one might see in an abstract work. Just as there is no one to say that this or that isn't art.

Terry Winters
Tokyo Notes, 2004
Set of 9 lithographs with title and colophon pages
Edition of 30

#4 Transhumanism and posthumanism...
"Transhumanism has been defined as "the intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by using technology to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual physical, and psychological capacities. A posthuman would no longer be human."

Before...

And After...

I can't help but think about something I saw many years ago. I believe I first saw it on Ripley's believe it or not, he goes by Catman. Which is now his legal name. he pops up in the news here and there, and I am sure he loves every minute of it. He is definitely miking his fifteen minutes of fame. Catman has surgically altered his face to look like that of a tiger, or some kind of cat. He claims that he had a dream in which a Native American man told him to become like the tigers. He has even got special whiskers, which he attached to his facial piercings. He doesn't look like he did some $150,000 and thirty years ago. Nor does he look much like a human. Is this where we are headed? Altering ourselves beyond recognition to be, or rather appear to be, who or what we want.
#5 Just because we can doesn't mean we should!
"Transhumanists dismiss the term unnatural because most of what human beings do with any technology is unnatural, yet these are accepted as benefits not harms." (pg 2519 encyclopedia of bioethics)
It might look cool. It might be cool to some, but implanting jellyfish DNA into a rabbit to make it glow definitely seems unnatural unnecessary. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If the rabbit needed the green glows for some particular reason, maybe I could see the justification in this. I don't disagree with the idea of being able to help the visually impaired, or hearing impaired, or even the implanting of artificial organs. Barney clark lived 112 days, and many others have surpassed him with their artificial hearts. However there has to be a line drawn somewhere!
Glowing Animals