LaRock 1

Emilie LaRock

Trevor Jockims

Abundance

27 December 2016

Coming to Terms

Over the course of a couple of weeks, our class explored the world of conceptual ​ ​ poetry, using Kenneth Goldsmith and Craig Dworkin’s Against Expression:An Anthology of ​ ​ ​

Conceptual Writing as our guide. According to Goldsmith, conceptual writing emerged ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ because “writing has encountered a situation similar to that of painting upon the invention of ​ ​ photography, a technology so much better at doing what the art form had been trying to do ​ ​ that, to survive, the field had to alter its course radically” (xvii). Impressionism transformed ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ the world of painting when photography surfaced, but both are still regarded as mediums that ​ ​ require creativity to be successful. Conceptual writing isn’t creative, in fact Dworkin ​ ​ ​ ​ explained when choosing works for Against Expression that “frequently, we had to admit that ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ works we admired were not quite right for this collection because they were simply too creative” (xliv). Conceptual writing falls in the center of this strange spectrum where ​ ​ depending the subject, can be viewed as both creative and uncreative, while technology allows ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ conceptual writers to search the internet for ideas surrounding works they have not yet created. ​

When our class was given the task of creating a final project, it seemed as though most of my classmates did indeed look to technology and the internet as their primary source. I was ​ ​

LaRock 2 dumbfounded; an opportunity that involves creating has always encouraged me to draw or paint something. I began to consider what it really means for a work of art to be considered ​ ​

“creative”, and what the appearance of “uncreative” works might signify. Has technology’s ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ impact on the worlds of art and writing been beneficial or harmful? Will creativity ultimately ​ ​ disappear as technology and information consume us, and if so, how do we stop this from ​ ​ happening? ​

Merriam-Webster defines creative as being “marked by the ability or power to create”. ​ ​ ​ ​

Technically any object can be created, but within the realm of art and writing, create ​ ​ specifically means “to produce through imaginative skill”. While Steve Jobs may have ​ ​ ​ ​ designed MacBooks and iPhones using his imagination, believing in Santa and unicorns is ​ ​ considered to be more “imaginative” in our world today. Why is it that children can possess ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ an imagination, but adults cannot? Sir Ken Robinson explores creativity and imagination ​ ​ within children, explaining that “kids will take a chance, If they don’t know, they’ll have a ​ ​ ​ ​ go”. Children are not afraid to be wrong, nor do they know what “right” is until someone ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ reveals the truth to them. As we get older our imaginations lose power, as the fear of failure ​ ​ becomes a constant weight upon our shoulders. According to Robinson, “If you’re not ​ ​ ​ ​ prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original”. If this is true, it is no ​ ​ surprise that “uncreative” works are growing in abundance. Mistakes are not often ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ encouraged, both in school and the workplace. Imagination thrives in the right environments, ​ ​ ​ ​ but it seems as though the presence of technology is changing the way our institutions work.

LaRock 3

The curriculums for English and math can now be taught completely online, and so classes ​ ​ like ceramics and painting slowly fade until they no longer exist. Possessing an imagination ​ ​ once you’ve reached adulthood deems you as “extraordinary”, but in reality it just means that ​ ​ ​ ​ fear never stopped your creativity and imagination from blossoming. ​

The presence of technology not only diminishes creativity and imagination, but ​ ​ establishes a sense of laziness within us all. We no longer have to physically do more than ​ ​ type a couple of words to access information; even when we leave our homes, our mobile ​ ​ ​ ​ devices provide constant access to the internet. Art requires us to step out of virtual reality and ​ ​ physically be present in order to create, which might be why Jean-Michel Basquiat and Andy ​ ​

Warhol were just a few of the last artists to receive worldwide recognition. The arrival of ​ ​ technology has delegated painting and pottery to be seen as nothing more than hobbies, while ​ ​ graphic design is on the rise. With one click a new color can be made, instead of having to ​ ​ ​ ​ spend hours mixing acrylic paints, trying to match a color you used earlier in the day. ​ ​ ​

Frustration, exhaustion, and determination are all a part of the process of creating art, and ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ when the work is finally complete all that is left is a pure sense of relief and joy. The mixture ​ ​ of emotions that go into creating art establish a connection between the work and the artist, ​ and this connection can be felt by the audiences that make the trek across continents to view these works. There is an absence of emotion in technology, as art is no longer a reflection of ​ ​ ​ ​ hard work and spirit; all you need is the right software and then you too can be an artist in ​ ​

LaRock 4 today’s world. The value that creativity and imagination used to hold has dropped as the prices ​ ​ for smartphones and televisions increase, but one thing has stayed true as centuries have ​ ​ passed. Just as artists were commissioned by the rich to paint portraits and construct ​ ​ sculptures for their homes during the Renaissance, businesses like Apple and Google pay their ​ ​ designers to create sleek products that the public will not be able to resist. Technology has ​ ​ become a way to illustrate wealth in today’s society, much like works of art have done in the past. ​

With the evolution in technology, it is no surprise that the world of writing has also ​ ​ changed the way it works to be more successful among the public. The popularity of ebooks ​ ​ and e-readers has grown in the past few years, and every major newspaper can now be ​ ​ accessed online. It was only a matter of time before poetry fell victim to the internet; Kenneth

Goldsmith explains that “if cutting and pasting were integral to the writing process, we would ​ ​ be mad to imagine that writers wouldn’t explore and exploit those functions in ways that their creators didn’t intend” (xviii). Conceptual poetry is based off of appropriation, which is why ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ many well-known conceptual poets have established it as a form of “uncreative writing”. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Goldsmith is one of the writers who continues to use the term “uncreative” in regards to his ​ ​ ​ ​ works, although contradicts himself in his piece titled “Uncreative Writing: Managing ​ ​

Language in the Digital Age”. He writes about the decisions that pieced together his retyping ​ ​ of the Sunday Edition of the New York Times, saying “if I truly ‘appropriate’ this work, then I ​ ​ ​ ​ must faithfully copy/write every word of the newspaper” (7). Goldsmith reveals after ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

LaRock 5

completing “Day” that he “still trumpet[s] the work’s ‘valuelessness,’ its ‘nutritionlessness,’ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

its lack of creativity and originality when clearly the opposite is true” (8). While the effort and ​ ​ ​ ​ emotions that go into appropriation are vastly different than the ones that go into creating

works of art, Goldsmith has acknowledged that technology has not yet been successful in ​ ​

eliminating creativity from writing. ​

While appropriation has allowed for successful transformation within the writing

community, it is still struggling to take hold within the realm of art. While painters like ​ ​ ​ ​

Picasso and Warhol have had success with repetition, it seems as though copying subject ​ ​

matter is not a way to distinguish yourself in present day. Kenneth Goldsmith proclaims, “I ​ ​ ​ ​

don't trust painting. At least not in New York. Most painting here relies on formula and ​ ​ ​ ​

repetition, whoring itself to the market. There seems to be no risk and once a painter gets a ​ ​

strategy, very little exploration. As a result, I stopped thinking about painting”. Could it be ​ ​ that conceptual writing has been so successful because of the abundance of subject matter

writers have at their fingertips? It is easy to take a risk in writing when the internet provides a ​ ​

multitude of information; Against Expression is filled with works whose ideas may be a little ​ ​ ​ ​

controversial and strange in comparison to everyday life. Even Goldsmith has breached the ​ ​

limits of acceptable subjects when performing his piece titled, “The Body of Michael Brown”. ​ ​ ​ ​

It is more difficult for artists to be risky; nothing seems to shock the public anymore. On the ​ ​

corner of 10th Street and Broadway, below NYU’s Brittany Hall, there is a display of art. The ​ ​

collection constantly changes, ranging from pleas from victims of violence in Mexico, to ​ ​

LaRock 6 photos of what appear to be corpses lying in dim lighting. Thousands walk by, but very few ​ ​ stop to observe as the art becomes just another blurred image in our daily lives. No matter how ​ ​ original an artist may try to be, it seems as though the internet can provide a similar idea that ​ ​ has already been done. Even Advanced Placement Studio Art requires high school students to completely transform an image that is not their own if they are using it in one of their submissions. Originality is hard to come by for artists, and the technological revolution has ​ ​ ​ ​ only made the search more difficult. Why is it then, that when writers copy and paste from the ​ ​ ​ ​ internet, they are pioneers of a new “uncreative” movement? Will artists ever be able to ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ achieve “creativity” and success simultaneously? ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

In an interview with Sheila Heti, Goldsmith stated that “art used to make me see the ​ ​ world differently, think about things in a new way—it rarely does that for me anymore, but ​ ​ technology does that for me on a daily basis”. There seems to be a widening gap between art ​ ​ ​ and technology, and individuals will find themselves on one edge or another as exemplified by ​ ​

Goldsmith. This poses a problem; one side will be victorious as the other drifts away. ​ ​ ​

Technology should not be in competition with creativity, but should fuel it and generate an ​ ​ environment where it can thrive. As the two drift further apart, there is no public concern over ​ ​ ​ ​ whether or not we should bridge the gap. Luckily, some artists are now taking notice and ​ ​ forcing themselves and their works to adapt. Pipilotti Rist’s “Pixel Forest” illustrates what ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ technology and art can accomplish when they join together. Those that view the exhibit find ​ ​

LaRock 7 themselves fully immersed, and can interact with the pieces by lying on strategically placed ​ ​ mattresses or by placing their heads in a pyramid shaped theater. Rist is not the first artist to ​ ​ incorporate technology; Pace Gallery in Menlo Park, California, has a similar exhibit titled ​ ​

“Living Digital Space and Future Parks”. Visitors can walk through the Crystal Universe or ​ ​ ​ take a dive into the Sketch Aquarium, which are just two of the twenty digital works in the ​ ​ exhibit. While the technology may outshine the art in these displays, both exhibits provide ​ ​ ​ ​ audiences with environments that successfully stimulate creativity and imagination. ​

It is almost effortless for digital art to collaborate with technology, but mediums like ​ ​ paint and clay are still left in the dust. These old world techniques have evolved throughout ​ ​ the centuries, with movements like Cubism and Expressionism helping to sustain them. There ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ is obviously still a disconnect between technology and forms of art that require us to physically be involved in the creation process. Technology cannot produce a physical color of ​ ​ paint, nor can it glaze over pottery after it has been in the kiln. Unlike conceptual authors, ​ ​ painters and sculptors do not search the internet for subjects, but explore the physical world ​ ​ around them in order to find what they are looking for. The phenomenon know as ​ ​ photography captured society’s attention because it could capture moments in real time. The ​ ​ internet just provides a record of these moments, but it wasn’t there. The internet did not stand ​ ​ behind the camera, directing people into different poses just to get the right angle, and it did ​ ​ not sit in a field for hours in order to paint one flower in the perfect lighting. The imaginative ​ ​ skill that makes up creativity is more than just the ability to “art” well; it is being able to

LaRock 8

physically put yourself into a new environment and then coming out of the experience with

just one, brand new idea. If you are not afraid to take a chance, just as Robinson pointed out, ​ ​

the possibilities for creation are endless. ​

Only time will be able to tell the effects technology has on our future children and

world. Modern technology has been around for less than fifty years; paintings and sculptures ​ ​ ​ ​

have been around for thousands. There’s a reason that art has survived, and captured the ​ ​ ​

attention of so many with paintings like Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and Michelangelo’s ​ ​ statue of David. Technology will never be able to replace the feeling I get when I sit down and ​ ​ ​

paint; if you’ve ever created art of your own you may understand this feeling. It’s almost like ​ ​

an out of body experience, as I feel myself transcend to a different level of experiencing my ​ ​

surroundings. I’m not worried about what the future holds, and I’m able to truly live in the ​ ​

moment with every brush stroke. I know I don’t want to spend the rest of my life sitting in ​ ​

front of a computer screen, copying and pasting words in an effort to be creative. Involving ​ ​

yourself in your creations is what makes them successful. Art has taught me that mistakes can ​ ​

turn into masterpieces, and that being wrong is not always a bad thing. Sir Ken Robinson was ​ ​

right when he proclaimed “we don’t grow into creativity; we grow out of it”. If we maintain ​ ​ ​ ​ our creativity as we reach adulthood, it allows us to grow in confidence and as human beings,

while helping to define who we are and the person we will eventually be. ​

If I have learned anything from this class, it is that the amount of information today is ​ ​

steadily growing in size. It is up to me to remind myself to be present, whether that means not ​ ​ ​ ​

LaRock 9 checking social media every ten minutes or just taking the time to breathe. We are surrounded ​ ​ by so many creative individuals who are caught up in this technological whirlwind that they don’t realize they possess the gifts of imagination and creativity. My way of escaping is ​ ​ painting; taking art in high school allowed me to see that I love working with watercolors and charcoal, and that I absolutely hate oil pastels. These discoveries are a part of me, and a part of ​ ​ ​ ​ my journey to where I am now. I went from telling everyone that I was going to major in ​ ​ business, to applying to a school that gives me the opportunity to design my major. For once, I ​ ​ don’t feel as though my creativity is going to be stifled for the next four years of my life. After ​ ​ taking AP Studio Art my senior year of high school, and creating a portfolio of twenty-four ​ ​ different works, I thought that a break from art might be good. All I can say is, I have never ​ ​ ​ ​ been more excited to paint a portrait of a conceptual poet. ​

The idea came to me when my peers mentioned they were thinking about creating a collection of conceptual poems as their final project. Now, I’m sure that if I attempted to write ​ ​ ​ conceptual poetry, I’d be successful just to prove to myself that I could do so. But where’s the ​ ​ artistic value in that? If I’m given the opportunity to do something creative, it is highly ​ ​ doubtful that it would be anything other than art. That’s when it dawned on me: Why not turn ​ ​ conceptual writing into a work of art? The first step was coming up with a subject, something ​ ​

I’ve never been great at. I started my search with the founding father of conceptual poetry: ​ ​

Kenneth Goldsmith. I could have scrolled for hours, sifting through all of the articles that have ​ ​ been written about him, but his feelings toward art and painting caught my attention. In his ​ ​ ​ ​

LaRock 10 mind, technology was sort of superior to both, something that I disagree with. I’m not really a ​ ​ ​ ​ fan of Kenneth Goldsmith’s works, so I thought that I would try and frame both him and ​ ​ conceptual writing in a new light. I chose pop art as my theme because it relies on a repetition ​ ​ of brushstrokes and color to create an entire image. In all honesty, my original plan had the ​ ​ work being one big picture, but lack of resources transformed the picture into four parts. Color ​ ​ choice was simple: Yellow and purple compliment one another, while black and white provide ​ ​ contrast and balance. The words in the background are my attempt at incorporating conceptual ​ ​ poetry. The word “conceptual” is translated into 104 different languages using Google ​ ​ ​ ​

Translate. If the word could not be translated, it would stay in its original English form. I think ​ ​ ​ ​ in total, it took about 6 hours over the course of 3 days to complete. As I finished my last ​ ​

“conceptual”, I put the pieces together as if they were a puzzle. The result? I can honestly say ​ ​ that if conceptual poetry was incorporated into art, I would have more interest, appreciation ​ ​ ​ ​ and respect for the work that conceptual writers do. I’ve come to terms with the fact that I will ​ ​ probably never be the next Kenneth Goldsmith; I’m an artist, not a writer. I always have been, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ and I always will be. Whatever you create, whether it be art, poetry, music, robots, or even ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ vegan recipes, let these creations be a reminder of what it means to live in the present, away ​ ​ ​ ​ from the waves of information and technology overload.

LaRock 11

Works Cited

Dworkin, Craig Douglas, and Kenneth Goldsmith. Against Expression: An Anthology of ​ Conceptual Writing. Evanston Illinois: Northwestern UP, 2011. Print. ​ Robinson, Ken. "Do Schools Kill Creativity?" TED2006. 20 Dec. 2016. Lecture.

Goldsmith, Kenneth. "What Would Twitter Do?" Interview by Sheila Heti. The Believer ​ Logger. Believer Magazine, 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. ​ Rist, Pipilotti. Pixel Forest. 2016. Digital Art. New Museum, New York. ​ ​ Goldsmith, Kenneth. Uncreative Writing: Managing Language in the Digital Age. New York: ​ ​ Columbia UP, 2011. Print

LaRock 12

Emilie LaRock Conceptual Overload, 2016 ​ Watercolor and ink 18 in x 24 in