WIGA 2010
Is art just a pretty picture or can it change the world? Should it make you think? Should it make you act?
Team Kenan invited Duke students to submit original artwork that demands change, makes viewers laugh, squirm, grimace, cry, or wonder – and ultimately want to live better.
The winners of the inaugural What is Good Art? Competition were unveiled at the exhibit opening on April 5.
Top prizes went to:
Michael McCreary, “Tension in Yellow” (1st place)
Stephanie Vara, “The Dinner” (2nd place)
Colin Heasley, “Stop Signage” (3rd place)
Kirstie Jeffrey, “Love, Love, Love” (Honorable Mention)
Marissa Bergmann, “Veins and Brains” (Honorable Mention)
Zach Blas, “Queer Technologies” (Gallery Choice)
A prestigious panel of experts judged competition submissions on their ability to fuse ethical and aesthetic dimensions into one statement. The scope of work solicited for the competition was intentionally broad: students were free to interpret the ethics-art link in many different ways.
Panel of Judges:
William Fick, Visiting Assistant Professor of the Practice of Visual Arts
Margaret Mertz, Executive Director, Thomas S Kenan Institute for the Arts
Louise Meintjes, Associate Professor of Music
Noah Pickus, Director, Kenan Institute for Ethics
Thomas S. Rankin, Director, Duke Center for Documentary Studies
Kimerly Rorschach, Mary D.B.T. and James H. Semans Director of the Nasher Museum
Suzanne Shanahan, Associate Director, Kenan Institute for Ethics
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Chauncey Stillman Professor in Practical Ethics
Read the full 2010 statement for What Is Good Art? below:
See the rest of the 2010 What Is Good Art? Exhibition below.
Stanislas Colodiet, John Fitzgerald Kennedy
I am a political science major and I have always been impressed by the way some politicians become icons. After their death, one single image remains; just think of George Washington on the dollar bill, or the famous photography of Winston Churchill by Yousuf Karsh. These images of politicians have always been reused by Pop Culture—Andy Warhol has immortalized Chairman Mao and Lichtenstein copied the dollar bill. I regret that our vision of these world leaders is being reduced to a single image—it distorts their legacy; we forget who they really were and we only retain the image.
The purpose of my work is educational. I want to challenge the spectator by going against mainstream representations of historical figures. In return I expect the spectator to wonder and investigate in order to remember who the man really was.
My work claims that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was not only a bright smile. My painting is inspired by one of the most famous images of the man, so that he is recognizable. But the way I depicted him is unconventional—it is not official, nor “pop” nor glamorous. As a consequence the viewer may not recognize him at first glance. The character is out of the glamorous context in which his representation is traditionally embedded. The aim is that it disturbs the spectator who feels the inconvenience. The feeling should be like the ones triggered by dreams—it depicts something familiar but some of its characteristics have been modified.
I added a newspaper background to remind the viewer that there is a story behind this face. I also did it to further the questioning process. The choice of the pages is purely aesthetic.
So, the questioning process that this image triggers aims to enlighten the viewer about the way our perception is being conditioned.