WIGA 2011
For the second annual What Is Good Art Competition, artists were asked to meditate on the “sublime” and the “beautiful,” two ideas rooted in aesthetic philosophy. Must art harness the sublime—that sense of discomfort when faced with ideas beyond our comprehension—to convey an ethical message? Can we find beauty in the gruesome?
A distinguished panel of judges, made up of experts from both art and ethics-related disciplines at Duke and beyond, awarded $500, $300, and $100 to the first, second, and third place winners, respectively. During the opening gala on April 11, attendees voted for a fourth Gallery Choice prize as well.
The What is Good Art? Exhibition was open Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, April 11 through May 15, 2011.
Panel of Judges:
Christopher Bass, Vice President at Oak Hill Capital Partners, L.P.
William Fick, Visiting Assistant Professor of the Practice of Visual Arts
Margaret Mertz, Director, The Kenan Institute for the Arts
Noah Pickus, Director, The Kenan Institute for Ethics
Kimerly Rorschach, Director, Nasher Museum of Art
Suzanne Shanahan, Associate Director, The Kenan Institute for Ethics
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Chauncey Stillman Professor in Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics
Charles Thompson, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Center for Documentary Studies
The winners of the second annual What is Good Art? Competition were:
Sarah Goetz, “Intermittence” (1st place)
Marissa Bergmann, “Inverse Uni*verse” (2nd place)
Abigail Bucher, “Seal, It’s What’s for Dinner” (3rd place)
Chelsea Pieroni, “Manifest SMOKE” (Gallery Choice)
Below, read the full 2011 exhibition statement:
See the rest of the 2011 What Is Good Art? Exhibition below.
Violeta Foreman, Thank You
As the industrial revolution converted western societies from agrarian to industrial in the 18th and 19th centuries, photography, and lithography contributed to the boom of an advertising industry that integrated typography and imagery together on the page. The resulting increasingly simplified ideograms and emblems began to proliferate the market. It is no coincidence that the rise of logotypes coincided with the development of the middle class, as it became progressively more important to command mass recognition rather than deliver exclusivity. Mass appeal, of course, is the staple of consumerism and a result of the broadening opportunities of the middle class. By the twentieth century, logotypes became ubiquitous icons that navigate consumer spending. Within this historic context, my art is a reflection on consumer imagery. By utilizing the materials such as plastic bags and wrappers, it brings attention to the triviality of these staples of consumerism. Pervasive, and yet hardly ever noticed, their messages are icons in and of themselves. Phrases like “Thank You,” “Have a Nice Day,” “Come Again Soon” etc. are ubiquitary addresses that are automated in the daily lexicon. They offer at once egalitarianism and anonymity – everyone is a valued customer, everyone is thanked, to the point where the meaning of the phrase becomes elusive. These phrases are in essence logotypes of consumerism itself. Moreover, the interplay of the icon – a sacred image – and the logo is central to the work. The instant recognition afforded by the icons in previous centuries is rivaled by modern logotypes, and as such, these images have powerful social implications. They imply a reverence of consumer goods that belonged to religious imagery or ecclesiastic purpose, while at the same time they refer to the consumer waste that is congesting the environment. By creating art out of pieces typically disposed of, the work questions modern life both in terms of obsessive consumption and its consequences for society and environment alike.
For more information, contact Christian Ferney.