Niccinichi’s Weblog

Intro:
For the past ten years, the work of Vik Muniz has placed a basic question before his viewers: Can we believe what we see? The artist was born in Sao Paulo, Brazil and currently lives and works in New York City. He has been praised as a “master illusionist,” yet also criticized for making his connections too easy. While he does admit that he delights in subverting the expected and that growing up in Brazil turned him into a trickster, both of these views fail to take into account the artist’s true purpose: “…to show people a measure of their own belief.”

Body #1:
• TS: Vik Muniz is often called a “master illusionist” or a “picture tease” because his work capitalizes on our susceptibility to be misguided by our preconceptions
o Exploits our tendency to draw conclusions too quickly
• Chocolate syrup portraits, thread landscapes, Principia, etc
o Exploration into power of representation and unexpected materials
o Transcends gimmickry

Body #2:
• TS: On the other hand, many critics feel that his connections are too obvious and simplistic.
o Skills and wit aren’t enough
• “Only does such marvelous tricks because he can”
o Criticized for aiming to please
• Makes art look like a fun adventure (not serious)

Body #3:
• TS: When considering this wide range of opinions about Vik Muniz’s work it is important to note that the purpose of his art is “…not about fooling someone, but giving someone a measure of their own belief, how much they want to be fooled.”
o The point is that it is simplistic and that we aren’t confused
o Asks viewer to rethink images and their meanings (“photographic delusions”)
o Conceptual approach may seem simplistic but ultimately goes to core of photographic representation
o We want to make sense of things we see (Duck example)
o Viewer: “my mind is too sophisticated to fall for something as silly as this.”
o Make people aware of the fallacies of visual info and the pleasure to be derived from them

Body #4:
• TS: Even though Muniz’s connections are simple, his work still provokes intrigue.
o Doesn’t necessarily cause deep introspection and isn’t necessarily vouching for some social cause, but does make you think about observation
o Just enjoys simple human capabilities of sight
o “His images simply but powerfully remind viewers of what it means to see and how out preconceptions can color every experience.

Conclusion

The driving idea behind my installation project is to create street signs that cause the viewer to think not only about widely-held views toward the homeless, but also to think about their own views. Eight signs need to be made. Two of them will be custom designed and ordered through buildasign.com. The other six signs will be designed with Adobe Illustrator, printed on decal paper, and then attached to either cardboard or Styrofoam poster board. Next pictures will be taken of these signs posted around downtown Denver. Pictures will also be taken of members of the homeless community. For the exhibit itself, these pictures will be displayed on two sides of a hallway, with each side of the hallway representing a different/opposing view of the homeless. The two aluminum street signs and some cardboard homeless signs will also be included in the display. A pillow and sleeping bag might accompany the “7 hour sleeping” sign.

Vik Muniz was born in Sao Paulo, Brazil and currently lives and works in New York City. For the past ten years, his work has placed a basic question before his viewers: Can we believe what we see? Vik Muniz is often called a “master illusionist” or a “picture tease” because his work capitalizes on our susceptibility to be misguided by our preconceptions. Those who see his work in this light believe that he exploits our tendency to draw conclusions, often too quickly, from what we think we see. They believe that his explorations into the power of representation and his use of unexpected materials result in images that transcend mere gimmickry. On the other hand, many critics feel that his connections are too obvious and simplistic. They suggest that skill and wit are not enough and criticize Muniz for aiming to please. While Vik Muniz does admit that he does delight in subverting the expected and that growing up in Brazil turned him into a trickster, he claims that his work is “…not about fooling someone, but giving someone a measure of their own belief – how much they want to be fooled.”

THESIS: Vik Muniz has been praised as a “master illusionist” and at the same time criticized for making his connections too easy, but both of these views fail to take into account the artist’s true purpose: “…to show people a measure of their own belief.”

The question at hand: “To whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists?”

I have mixed feelings about this question.  On one hand, I’m aware that many people like interpret art without prior knowledge of the context.  This sort of open interpretation can allow viewers to find their own meanings in art, but can also lead to widely varying conclusions.  Regardless, it would be hard for me to rationalize telling someone that their interpretation of a piece of work was wrong if it created a way for them to connect with and appreciate the piece.  I think its safe to say that many artists wouldn’t mind if viewers interpreted their art in various ways, as long as they get something from the piece.  Moreover, artists often intentionally create art that is open ended and left for the viewer to create their own meaning from it.  On the other hand, I also think that there is much value in understanding the context of a piece of art.  The culture and the events within an artist’s life are crucial elements of their creations.  Furthermore, I’ve found that I usually gain a greater appreciation for art when I understand the context.  For example, a piece of art that seems silly or insignificant now might have been revolutionary in its time.  How can we fully understand and appreciate art if we don’t have insight about the intent and social influences on the art?
So, I guess my question is:  If a piece of art means one thing to you, but you later learn that its historical context might have led you to a different conclusion, does that make your original interpretation wrong?   I hope not.  As far as I’m concerned, both interpretations should be valued equally.  The meaning of art can belong simultaneously to those who can apply it to their lives and to relic specialists.