Jean Fischer’s article about Minerva Cuevas’ work echoes the ideas behind Proceso Pentagono and their distaste with modernist alienation. However, Cuevas delves further into this through a more corporate sense rather than governmental. Consumerism and media imagery are the tools of these corporations. Together, they are exploitive and create a luring spectacle of social life. In reference to Guy Debord’s “society of the spectacle”, “He contended that in consumer societies structured around the commodity, social relations were no longer constructed through dialogue and exchange but mediated through images, such that reality becomes displaced by the prefabricated illusions of the spectacle: all social life is dissolved, becoming mere appearance in a triumphant negation of life” (58). Obviously we live in a day and age where we consume imagery and media constantly, and this is one of the biggest components of societal alienation. We are infatuated with visual stimulation. The dissemination of visual information is an ongoing complex phenomenon, or problem, that Cuevas acknowledges in her work. With Mejor Vida Corp, Cuevas undermined corporations, and even art, by providing free services and products for those who cannot afford them. While these acts of hospitality are generous and kind, I am not sure if they are as effective as Cuevas wants them to be. It’s interesting that MVC gives away free “products” in order to battle consumerism. What I find more interesting is Cuevas manipulation of corporate logos to expose these companies and their corrupt dealings. Proceso Pentagono had the same idea when they published their own catalogue after their discontentment with their assigned writers whom were affiliated with politics they didn’t agree with. Cuevas “hijacks the system’s channels of communication and diverts them to other pathways” (59). This tactic of using the tools of the institution isn’t entirely new, but Cuevas takes a slightly different route, especially with Pure Murder (2003). Referencing theories of the “spectator”, this work helps lift the veil hiding the secretive dealings of Del Montte. As a viewer, or spectator, we learn to decode images and their meaning, whether we realize it or not. Through semiotics, Cuevas uses new signifiers to create new meanings behind these corporations for us. The goal, is for the viewer to have a new meaning of this familiar sign. I think this work is successful in doing that because of the words she uses break that “forth wall” between the viewer and the corporation. As viewers, we tend to suspend so much belief when consuming imagery, especially in film and photography, that we begin to identify with these corporation’s ideologies.
How would you define "effective" in terms of the work of MVC? Do you think that the artist expects sweeping economic change? Could her aim be smaller/quieter?
I think that her deeds through MVC don't subvert the corporations anymore than her artworks do, such as Pure Murder, in the grand scheme of things. I think the viewer of Pure Murder becomes more educated than someone who was simply given a free Metro ticket because they were in a rush. What does the person learn and take away from that?
I don't think she expects a sweeping economic change, because she doesn't even know how long MVC can support itself and give back to people. I think the video installation ideas are interesting in the aspect of capitalism, corporations and consumerism.
Foucault's ideas about Panopticon and Debord's quote about the spectacle that I used speak about the modern/contemporary society that she is trying to address. "Social relations were no longer constructed through dialogue and exchange but mediated through images". This quote supports my argument for her Pure Murder piece being more successful than a random act of kindness. By altering an image that we constantly consume, Cuevas is displacing the spectacle of this illusory logo and its false idealizations.
Perhaps her aim doesn't necessarily need to be smaller, but more conscious of how she wants to “hijack the system’s channels of communication” and where she wants to divert these other pathways. Also, where will these pathways lead the viewer and how does that validate what she is doing?
“Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention”, written by Jean Fisher, focuses on Minerva Cuevas’s works that depict her view towards capitalism. As I was reading the article, I could not help but to wonder if I was able to call Cuevas a “performance artist”. Although the artist released a video performance in 1995 “Drinker” and created a single-person company called MVC (Mejor Vida Corp; Better Life Corporation) in 1998 while conducting random acts of “good deeds”, she also created works of art on paper like “Del Montte” (2003). I do understand the fact that the works Cuevas has produced are directed towards the government in terms of their “camouflaged transgressions” (De Certeau), but I feel that how she works as an artist does not seem to fit into the category of “performance art”. From what I have learned so far in class, performance artists utilize their bodies in order to execute their works along with receiving a response from their audiences; however, in the case of Cuevas, the artist was not present in most of her works.
Despite the fact that I question Cuevas as a “performance artist”, I do appreciate the methods she uses in order to spread awareness about the corruption of capitalism: “MVC’s aim was to subvert the conventions of corporate trading, and by extension art as commodity form, by providing free services, products and publicity campaigns.” I was also amazed to find out through “Recent Political Forms: Radical Pursuits in Mexico”, by Medina Cuahtémoc, that these works were conducted by herself and the only support that she received was from outside sources that provided certain items and goods.
Another question: What does the author mean by umbrella title?
Jackie, I think you bring up an interesting point, though I would argue that, while the artist's body is traditionally central to performance art, performance artists bodies do not necessarily need to be present (or be using their own bodies for that matter). One might argue that there is a body art subgenre to performance. Or that young artists are re-defining what performance is, questioning the centrality of the body to performance art in general.
Minerva Cuevas’ work as described in the Jean Fisher article on the subject, brings a whole new meaning to Mitt Romney’s 2011 comment that “Corporations are people.” By launching her own corporation to “subvert the conventions of corporation trading, and by extension art as commodity form” I instantly saw her as not only rejecting neo-liberalistic ideology, but also Pop art and it’s somewhat superficial critique of contemporary culture. Although she utilizes corporate logos, much like Andy Warhol, she does so in a way in which she believes will “expose the corrupt underside of company operations,” not just critique the mass consumerism of Americans. Whereas Pop art used the capitalism to it’s advantage, Cuevas’ looks to take the critique beyond her own self fulfillment. Unlike pop art, which artists Warhol used to celebrate himself and mass produce art, she takes her art to the people in an attempt to create better community conditions. She does this through her small acts of sweeping the subway and passing out lottery tickets. None of these acts can be purchased, only experienced by those that receive her small tokens that attempt to shift “illusions shaped by advertising.”
I find all of the topics touched on in the piece fascinating, how “consumerism may not be as passive as is commonly thought” and that “consumption is also a form of production” but I find it difficult to tie all of my thoughts together on this one considering the depth of the article presented. The idea of neo-liberalism and the abuse corporations unleash on people is so incredibly topical to where we find ourselves today in the United States. However, we still are considered a power in that field, we don’t know what it is like to not house the IMF and World Bank HQ’s. Cuevas’ experiences consumerism and abusive corporations in a different way and sees a greater disparity between the elite and the poor.
The world “parasitic” is frequently used in the piece to describe how Cuevas’ infiltrates corporations, “the peddlers of unrealizable dreams and fake utopias.” Is it not more of a symbiotic relationship? One where Cuevas’ and corporations benefit from associations?
In a parasitic relationship, the parasite benefits from the host, who does not. Who is who here? If the answer to your question is "yes," the relationship is symbiotic, then how do each of them benefit?
Throughout the the article by Jean Fisher, "Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" I couldn't shake my immediate juxtaposition of Andy Warhol and Minerva Cuevas. Especially when it came to "Del Montte," and "Campbell's Soup Cans" how both took something so generic, something so common, yet one condones the mass production, and capitalism, where as the other condemns it. This is art. But I have to agree with Jackie, is this enough to be dubbed "performance art?" The article introduces us to a performance piece called the Drunker (1995) in which Cuevas drinks from a bottle of tequila, then proceeds to write down her thoughts, yes a performance piece. But are a few performance pieces enough? Also, is the creation of the Mejor Vida Corp performance art? It seems as though these are "acts" in which she opposes the "prefabricated" (p.58) are attempts to ignite the individual yet they don't strike me as "performance" pieces.
Regardless, I find her acts via the MVC were extremely significant! The fact that she drew attention to the pollutants such as oil, and created "photographs of oil distressed sea birds, and an array of corporate oil products and other objects partially coated in chapopte" reminded me of the BP oil spill. How may Craw fish farmers (and tons of other people) had lost there income due to that disaster, and were coerced into contracts that allowed them to be "compensated" by removing oil from the water without protective gear (because it made BP, and the disaster "look bad.") Little did they know that they were being exposed to chemicals that were the equivalent Napalm and Agent Orange. Not to mention the amount of wildlife that was harmed throughout this oil spill. If only someone took the same action as Cuevas and exposed more of the detrimental effects. However, weaving this together, the works she produced to expose the injured wildlife doesn't seem to be performance art. So is she an artist that dabbles in performance? And does her political activism deem her a performance artist for this reason?
I'm glad both of you brought up Warhol. Let's talk more about that in class tomorrow.
Also, in regards to your comments (and Jackie's) about defining performance. Artists can do performances one day and paintings the next, no? Perhaps some of the works discussed would not be categorized as performances, yet other undoubtedly would fall under the umbrella of art actions. Do you think artists need to be pigeonholed, put into categories?
Also, have you seen the series of photographs (I can't remember the name of the artist) of the contents of dead sea birds' stomachs? They're all full of plastic and trash -very disturbing images.
Ok, I guess Ariel and I were writing ours at the same time, because I hadn't seen it posted before mine and therefore didn't know we were talking about the same things. But I'm glad someone else referenced, Warhol and saw that connection as well.
The article "Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" by Jean Fischer describes and analyzes the works of Cuevas, particularly those works executed as part of her pseudo-corporation Mejor Vida Corp. (MVC). Cuevas, a Mexican artist is aware of the trauma caused by the neoliberal policies of globalization. This trauma is not only seen in Mexico but also relates throughout Latin America. MVC mimicks the privatized model of the corporation that mass produces, advertisers and sells to the public that which increasingly homogenizes them. In contrast to these operations, MVC is philanthropic, giving back to the people and using its presence to "expose the corrupt underside of company operations or the illusions projected by advertising" (58). This seen most directly in the "Pure Murder" project, where the artist appropriates and brings attention to the corrupt practices of Del Monte in the third world. Unlike the corporations, by altering the product's logo, Cuevas is not trying to sell the product but rather the message which causes the viewer to reconsider and question Del Monte. The viewer is confronted with a familiar image juxtaposed with a not so familiar message that is hidden to most who consume it. This is also true with other products that are mass produced and advertised. The artist creates a new relationship between the product and the viewer, exposing the reality of the product beyond a pretty picture. I wonder what has caused the artist to be so anti-globalization and neoliberalism and why the need to portray these messages.
Doesn't the article point to some of the concerns? What is the problem with capitalism, according to Cuevas? What is she trying to do with her art actions?
In Minerva Cuevas and the Ar of Para-sitic Intervention, Jean Fisher wrote about the work of Minerva Cuevas in relation to anti-capitalism, and her efforts to "repair" social relationships disbursed by the 'multinational corporate interest'. Fisher commented that "the problem lies less in technologies themselves than in the uses to which they are put, which have ethical, aesthetic and political dimensions." She was talking about the primitive lands being exploited under the mask of corporate projecting fake dreams and utopian ideas, but in reality, "inequities and iniquities" hover the system. Instead of taking no part in "the opposing political art activism", Cuevas' protest, or a strategy to create dialogue/ awareness, was done in a way that avoids stepping into opposing territory, like handing out free travel tickets during rush hours, or giving away free student identification cards to provide access to museums etc All of these are done through the act of free services to everyday lives activities where the consumers need to pay.
I'm still trying to grasp the meaning of her work, since I felt like she has created several campaigns and I got lost in the article.
"Minerva Cuervas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" written by John Fisher is very fascinating in the way it fleshes out what it is Minerva Cuervas is actually doing. After reading the excerpt from "Recent Political Forms" I really was not quite sure how she went about producing and circulating her social/political ideas. Another thing I brought into question was: How is Minerva Cuervas a performance artist? I see Minerva's work an almost anarchistic action against authority and big corporate entities involved with the government in shady business. Which brings me to make the connection between Minervas "Pure Murder" piece which was a reference to the Del Monte brand which was involved in Guatemalan foul play backed by the CIA and former dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt which I believe was also apposed by Galindo in her work of bloody footprints in the heart of Guatemala City! My favorite line from Fisher's article I believe summarizes Minervas intentions not just for the mentioned piece but for her body of work "Thus, the operation of Pure Murder intercepts the message between the corporate producer and the consumer to expose the concealed reality of the exploited first level of production-land and human labour." (59)
Jean Fischer traces the labor of Minerva Cuevas counting the genesis and evolution of the Better Life Corporation in addition to her Irational.org website. Minerva Cuevas is ascribed as the founder of Mejor Vida Corp. According to Cuevas, the corporation stemmed from Minerva’s endeavors of allocating art objects within public spaces with public good being the objective. As a company, Mejor Vida Corporation practiced systematic acts of generosity for as their dictum indicates “ for a human interface.” Her page on the website like the site administers free products and services. Cuevas is responsible for services that elicit assistance yet also carries aspects of Clientelism. Cuevas oversees the business that expends on needs and is compensated with queries and/or treatise. For Fischer, the MVC is a surrogate for a absent form of activism and has no discernible political leanings. MVC’s existence as an economy of promises implies to Fischer, the mourning for a local political history. Fischer categorizes Cueva’s operations to be a “counter monument for a populist regime that seems on the way to vanishing by the democratic struggles of its population and the unstoppable advance of global capitalism.”
I incorporated the citation because I felt it efficently summarized Fisher's points and is crucial to the understanding of the article. I became aware through the reading that illegal immigrants pay taxes to subsist and of the structures in place in regards to them.
Jean Fischer’s article about Minerva Cuevas’ work echoes the ideas behind Proceso Pentagono and their distaste with modernist alienation. However, Cuevas delves further into this through a more corporate sense rather than governmental. Consumerism and media imagery are the tools of these corporations. Together, they are exploitive and create a luring spectacle of social life. In reference to Guy Debord’s “society of the spectacle”, “He contended that in consumer societies structured around the commodity, social relations were no longer constructed through dialogue and exchange but mediated through images, such that reality becomes displaced by the prefabricated illusions of the spectacle: all social life is dissolved, becoming mere appearance in a triumphant negation of life” (58).
ReplyDeleteObviously we live in a day and age where we consume imagery and media constantly, and this is one of the biggest components of societal alienation. We are infatuated with visual stimulation. The dissemination of visual information is an ongoing complex phenomenon, or problem, that Cuevas acknowledges in her work. With Mejor Vida Corp, Cuevas undermined corporations, and even art, by providing free services and products for those who cannot afford them. While these acts of hospitality are generous and kind, I am not sure if they are as effective as Cuevas wants them to be. It’s interesting that MVC gives away free “products” in order to battle consumerism.
What I find more interesting is Cuevas manipulation of corporate logos to expose these companies and their corrupt dealings. Proceso Pentagono had the same idea when they published their own catalogue after their discontentment with their assigned writers whom were affiliated with politics they didn’t agree with. Cuevas “hijacks the system’s channels of communication and diverts them to other pathways” (59). This tactic of using the tools of the institution isn’t entirely new, but Cuevas takes a slightly different route, especially with Pure Murder (2003). Referencing theories of the “spectator”, this work helps lift the veil hiding the secretive dealings of
Del Montte.
As a viewer, or spectator, we learn to decode images and their meaning, whether we realize it or not. Through semiotics, Cuevas uses new signifiers to create new meanings behind these corporations for us. The goal, is for the viewer to have a new meaning of this familiar sign. I think this work is successful in doing that because of the words she uses break that “forth wall” between the viewer and the corporation. As viewers, we tend to suspend so much belief when consuming imagery, especially in film and photography, that we begin to identify with these corporation’s ideologies.
How would you define "effective" in terms of the work of MVC? Do you think that the artist expects sweeping economic change? Could her aim be smaller/quieter?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that her deeds through MVC don't subvert the corporations anymore than her artworks do, such as Pure Murder, in the grand scheme of things. I think the viewer of Pure Murder becomes more educated than someone who was simply given a free Metro ticket because they were in a rush. What does the person learn and take away from that?
DeleteI don't think she expects a sweeping economic change, because she doesn't even know how long MVC can support itself and give back to people. I think the video installation ideas are interesting in the aspect of capitalism, corporations and consumerism.
Foucault's ideas about Panopticon and Debord's quote about the spectacle that I used speak about the modern/contemporary society that she is trying to address. "Social relations were no longer constructed through dialogue and exchange but mediated through images". This quote supports my argument for her Pure Murder piece being more successful than a random act of kindness. By altering an image that we constantly consume, Cuevas is displacing the spectacle of this illusory logo and its false idealizations.
Perhaps her aim doesn't necessarily need to be smaller, but more conscious of how she wants to “hijack the system’s channels of communication” and where she wants to divert these other pathways. Also, where will these pathways lead the viewer and how does that validate what she is doing?
“Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention”, written by Jean Fisher, focuses on Minerva Cuevas’s works that depict her view towards capitalism. As I was reading the article, I could not help but to wonder if I was able to call Cuevas a “performance artist”. Although the artist released a video performance in 1995 “Drinker” and created a single-person company called MVC (Mejor Vida Corp; Better Life Corporation) in 1998 while conducting random acts of “good deeds”, she also created works of art on paper like “Del Montte” (2003). I do understand the fact that the works Cuevas has produced are directed towards the government in terms of their “camouflaged transgressions” (De Certeau), but I feel that how she works as an artist does not seem to fit into the category of “performance art”. From what I have learned so far in class, performance artists utilize their bodies in order to execute their works along with receiving a response from their audiences; however, in the case of Cuevas, the artist was not present in most of her works.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that I question Cuevas as a “performance artist”, I do appreciate the methods she uses in order to spread awareness about the corruption of capitalism: “MVC’s aim was to subvert the conventions of corporate trading, and by extension art as commodity form, by providing free services, products and publicity campaigns.” I was also amazed to find out through “Recent Political Forms: Radical Pursuits in Mexico”, by Medina Cuahtémoc, that these works were conducted by herself and the only support that she received was from outside sources that provided certain items and goods.
Another question: What does the author mean by umbrella title?
Jackie, I think you bring up an interesting point, though I would argue that, while the artist's body is traditionally central to performance art, performance artists bodies do not necessarily need to be present (or be using their own bodies for that matter). One might argue that there is a body art subgenre to performance. Or that young artists are re-defining what performance is, questioning the centrality of the body to performance art in general.
DeleteMinerva Cuevas’ work as described in the Jean Fisher article on the subject, brings a whole new meaning to Mitt Romney’s 2011 comment that “Corporations are people.” By launching her own corporation to “subvert the conventions of corporation trading, and by extension art as commodity form” I instantly saw her as not only rejecting neo-liberalistic ideology, but also Pop art and it’s somewhat superficial critique of contemporary culture. Although she utilizes corporate logos, much like Andy Warhol, she does so in a way in which she believes will “expose the corrupt underside of company operations,” not just critique the mass consumerism of Americans. Whereas Pop art used the capitalism to it’s advantage, Cuevas’ looks to take the critique beyond her own self fulfillment. Unlike pop art, which artists Warhol used to celebrate himself and mass produce art, she takes her art to the people in an attempt to create better community conditions. She does this through her small acts of sweeping the subway and passing out lottery tickets. None of these acts can be purchased, only experienced by those that receive her small tokens that attempt to shift “illusions shaped by advertising.”
ReplyDeleteI find all of the topics touched on in the piece fascinating, how “consumerism may not be as passive as is commonly thought” and that “consumption is also a form of production” but I find it difficult to tie all of my thoughts together on this one considering the depth of the article presented. The idea of neo-liberalism and the abuse corporations unleash on people is so incredibly topical to where we find ourselves today in the United States. However, we still are considered a power in that field, we don’t know what it is like to not house the IMF and World Bank HQ’s. Cuevas’ experiences consumerism and abusive corporations in a different way and sees a greater disparity between the elite and the poor.
The world “parasitic” is frequently used in the piece to describe how Cuevas’ infiltrates corporations, “the peddlers of unrealizable dreams and fake utopias.” Is it not more of a symbiotic relationship? One where Cuevas’ and corporations benefit from associations?
In a parasitic relationship, the parasite benefits from the host, who does not. Who is who here? If the answer to your question is "yes," the relationship is symbiotic, then how do each of them benefit?
DeleteThroughout the the article by Jean Fisher, "Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" I couldn't shake my immediate juxtaposition of Andy Warhol and Minerva Cuevas. Especially when it came to "Del Montte," and "Campbell's Soup Cans" how both took something so generic, something so common, yet one condones the mass production, and capitalism, where as the other condemns it. This is art. But I have to agree with Jackie, is this enough to be dubbed "performance art?" The article introduces us to a performance piece called the Drunker (1995) in which Cuevas drinks from a bottle of tequila, then proceeds to write down her thoughts, yes a performance piece. But are a few performance pieces enough? Also, is the creation of the Mejor Vida Corp performance art? It seems as though these are "acts" in which she opposes the "prefabricated" (p.58) are attempts to ignite the individual yet they don't strike me as "performance" pieces.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I find her acts via the MVC were extremely significant! The fact that she drew attention to the pollutants such as oil, and created "photographs of oil distressed sea birds, and an array of corporate oil products and other objects partially coated in chapopte" reminded me of the BP oil spill. How may Craw fish farmers (and tons of other people) had lost there income due to that disaster, and were coerced into contracts that allowed them to be "compensated" by removing oil from the water without protective gear (because it made BP, and the disaster "look bad.") Little did they know that they were being exposed to chemicals that were the equivalent Napalm and Agent Orange. Not to mention the amount of wildlife that was harmed throughout this oil spill. If only someone took the same action as Cuevas and exposed more of the detrimental effects. However, weaving this together, the works she produced to expose the injured wildlife doesn't seem to be performance art. So is she an artist that dabbles in performance? And does her political activism deem her a performance artist for this reason?
I'm glad both of you brought up Warhol. Let's talk more about that in class tomorrow.
DeleteAlso, in regards to your comments (and Jackie's) about defining performance. Artists can do performances one day and paintings the next, no? Perhaps some of the works discussed would not be categorized as performances, yet other undoubtedly would fall under the umbrella of art actions. Do you think artists need to be pigeonholed, put into categories?
Also, have you seen the series of photographs (I can't remember the name of the artist) of the contents of dead sea birds' stomachs? They're all full of plastic and trash -very disturbing images.
Ok, I guess Ariel and I were writing ours at the same time, because I hadn't seen it posted before mine and therefore didn't know we were talking about the same things. But I'm glad someone else referenced, Warhol and saw that connection as well.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Minerva Cuevas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" by Jean Fischer describes and analyzes the works of Cuevas, particularly those works executed as part of her pseudo-corporation Mejor Vida Corp. (MVC). Cuevas, a Mexican artist is aware of the trauma caused by the neoliberal policies of globalization. This trauma is not only seen in Mexico but also relates throughout Latin America. MVC mimicks the privatized model of the corporation that mass produces, advertisers and sells to the public that which increasingly homogenizes them. In contrast to these operations, MVC is philanthropic, giving back to the people and using its presence to "expose the corrupt underside of company operations or the illusions projected by advertising" (58). This seen most directly in the "Pure Murder" project, where the artist appropriates and brings attention to the corrupt practices of Del Monte in the third world. Unlike the corporations, by altering the product's logo, Cuevas is not trying to sell the product but rather the message which causes the viewer to reconsider and question Del Monte. The viewer is confronted with a familiar image juxtaposed with a not so familiar message that is hidden to most who consume it. This is also true with other products that are mass produced and advertised. The artist creates a new relationship between the product and the viewer, exposing the reality of the product beyond a pretty picture. I wonder what has caused the artist to be so anti-globalization and neoliberalism and why the need to portray these messages.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the article point to some of the concerns? What is the problem with capitalism, according to Cuevas? What is she trying to do with her art actions?
DeleteIn Minerva Cuevas and the Ar of Para-sitic Intervention, Jean Fisher wrote about the work of Minerva Cuevas in relation to anti-capitalism, and her efforts to "repair" social relationships disbursed by the 'multinational corporate interest'. Fisher commented that "the problem lies less in technologies themselves than in the uses to which they are put, which have ethical, aesthetic and political dimensions." She was talking about the primitive lands being exploited under the mask of corporate projecting fake dreams and utopian ideas, but in reality, "inequities and iniquities" hover the system. Instead of taking no part in "the opposing political art activism", Cuevas' protest, or a strategy to create dialogue/ awareness, was done in a way that avoids stepping into opposing territory, like handing out free travel tickets during rush hours, or giving away free student identification cards to provide access to museums etc All of these are done through the act of free services to everyday lives activities where the consumers need to pay.
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to grasp the meaning of her work, since I felt like she has created several campaigns and I got lost in the article.
What about the ethical concerns, for example, of the false barcodes?
DeleteLet's discuss this tomorrow in class.
"Minerva Cuervas and the Art of Para-sitic Intervention" written by John Fisher is very fascinating in the way it fleshes out what it is Minerva Cuervas is actually doing. After reading the excerpt from "Recent Political Forms" I really was not quite sure how she went about producing and circulating her social/political ideas. Another thing I brought into question was: How is Minerva Cuervas a performance artist?
ReplyDeleteI see Minerva's work an almost anarchistic action against authority and big corporate entities involved with the government in shady business. Which brings me to make the connection between Minervas "Pure Murder" piece which was a reference to the Del Monte brand which was involved in Guatemalan foul play backed by the CIA and former dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt which I believe was also apposed by Galindo in her work of bloody footprints in the heart of Guatemala City! My favorite line from Fisher's article I believe summarizes Minervas intentions not just for the mentioned piece but for her body of work "Thus, the operation of Pure Murder intercepts the message between the corporate producer and the consumer to expose the concealed reality of the exploited first level of production-land and human labour." (59)
It looks like we will be discussing what makes a performance artist a performance artist tomorrow in class. This keeps coming up. Let's discuss!
DeleteJean Fischer traces the labor of Minerva Cuevas counting the genesis and evolution of the Better Life Corporation in addition to her Irational.org website.
ReplyDeleteMinerva Cuevas is ascribed as the founder of Mejor Vida Corp. According to Cuevas, the corporation stemmed from Minerva’s endeavors of allocating art objects within public spaces with public good being the objective. As a company, Mejor Vida Corporation practiced systematic acts of generosity for as their dictum indicates “ for a human interface.” Her page on the website like the site administers free products and services.
Cuevas is responsible for services that elicit assistance yet also carries aspects of Clientelism. Cuevas oversees the business that expends on needs and is compensated with queries and/or treatise. For Fischer, the MVC is a surrogate for a absent form of activism and has no discernible political leanings. MVC’s existence as an economy of promises implies to Fischer, the mourning for a local political history. Fischer categorizes Cueva’s operations to be a “counter monument for a populist regime that seems on the way to vanishing by the democratic struggles of its population and the unstoppable advance of global capitalism.”
I incorporated the citation because I felt it efficently summarized Fisher's points and is crucial to the understanding of the article. I became aware through the reading that illegal immigrants pay taxes to subsist and of the structures in place in regards to them.
ReplyDelete