Kim Navarro, “Post-9/11 Public Terror in Art from Latin America” (paper presented at the University of Texas at Austin, Conference on Latin American Art, 2009).
Kim Navarro addresses the issue of representations of terror in a post 9-11 world and it’s symbolic effect globally through analysis of performance work from Latin America. It seems too appropriate to believe that through American conservative media that a certain type of symbol driven language to describe terror was created that works in complete opposite with art dealing with a similar message. What comes to my mind when 9-11 symbols are in question, is the too familiar colored terror alert chart to which I believe we were in red for the entirety of the Bush administration, creating what Navarro describes as “an invisible network or terrorists” that are “lurking around every corner” and “waiting to attack the innocent without warning or compassion.” Unlike American media, Navarro points out that artists continue to focus predominately on the image of loss. A constant reminder to “refuse to be complacent about crimes against the public.” It recalls an installation that was present in D.C. and I believe traveled the country, of boots representing soldiers that died during our War on Terror. Navarro describes how artists like Doris Salcedo “has give new meaning to discarded everyday objects.” Salcedo using “empty chairs of various sizes” to represent a mass grave for Columbians killed in Bogota. There is something haunting about the visualization of a number and other artists Navarro mentions utilize this technique as well. With a 24/7 news cycle where audiences are bombarded with information and statistics, works such as Munoz’s “Project for Memorial (2005)” where audience’s breath activates portrait etchings causing the viewer to be an active participant in the absence of a person creates a visceral experience important to contextualizing the loss of human life we are so far removed from in daily life. Although, I think the United States believes globally we live in a post 9-11 world, I think that is a stretch to say internationally terror is discussed in the same hyper- urgent way. Just as we were discussing socially constructed ideology concerning gender construction last week in class, we’ve also been socially constructed by the mass media to be aggressive towards foreign threats (although, much like Navarro states, it is the conservative media that pushes this agenda).
The example of Doris Salcedo reminds me of the work we talked about last week by the artists working for Proyecto Juarez, in which other objects (animal parts, piles of dirt, etc) stand in for the missing bodies. But I think what these projects are doing is quite different from Muñoz's Aliento (Breath) work, namely because of the use of the actual image (face) of the disappeared. What do you think about this subtle difference?
In “Post 9-11 Public Terror in Art From Latin America”, author Kim Navarro compares the depictions of terror and crisis through the perspectives of artists and the media. An important question that the author mentions in the article is the concept of “Western/Northern-centered notions of universalism and modernity” (2): “As the world becomes more and more globally postmodern -- and less universal in the modern sense -- it is appropriate to say that an even from one country can become the marker of an era, or a universal way of thinking?” (2). As I read this question, I realized how the world seemed to move according to the history of the United States. After September 11th occurred, many things have changed in terms of protection and security, which is especially seen at all airports. However, Navarro states that unlike the United States that experienced the enormous shock of the terrorist bombings, Latin America has always been living in the state of terror before and after September 11th happened. For example, Regina José Galindo’s “Quien Puede Borrar las Huellas?” and Teresa Margolles’s “¿De qué otra cosa podríamos hablar?: both used performance art in order to enact their response to the terror caused by the corruption of the government along with the loss of many innocent lives, specifically “women, gang members, the resource-poor, and other marginalized groups in society” (5). As both artists utilized human blood as their medium to shine light upon the truth behind the terrors happening within the different cities of Latin America, the (U.S.) government utilized the media to “re-define the meanings of terror” (3). Through a series of images, terror has become “Home-made videos, keffiyehs, beards, bombs, flags, skyscrapers, and airplanes” (3-4). Although corruptions continue throughout Latin America, the concept and ideology of “terror” constantly change based on “national, regional, and ideological perspectives” (1).
I'm glad you brought up globalization. Let's talk about this more in class. But, how has globalization changed the way we interact with each other? Or how we understand the world?
"Post 9-11 Public Terror in Art from Latin America" by Kim Navarro points out how "terror" is depicted differently by the media versus by artists. There are various examples of artists and their works in this article. One of the most striking quotes mentioned that: "Unlike government and conservative media sponsored messages, art narratives speak about loss" (Navarro). The government sponsored media did not, instead "ignored other deadly acts of terror" and covered stories that; in the case of Mexico, centered on the then president and his agenda, legitimizing the further militarization of a chosen region (Navarro). Artists such as Galindo and Margolles are in it to make sure that unreported deaths come to light - going as far as utilizing human blood to further intensive their call to attention of killings in their respective countries of Guatemala and Mexico. The article also points out that "there is not one, but many publics", and that perhaps these arts narratives "on loss could inspire increased plurality of voices both within the art world, and within the larger public space". The hopes that art will reach not only those who follow art but also those in their respective public spaces. Perhaps locally and nationally where the issues are taking place.
Kim Navaro’s article addresses the prospect of a “Post 9-11 era”. Her assertion that the media has created a language of terrorist semiotics is something that has been addressed before in art, cinema and the media itself. This post 9-11 language of symbols makes up a library of signs that have taken on new meanings. The detonated, or literal, meaning of an airplane, for example, now has a new conotated, or symbolic, signified meaning. So to answer her question, yes, there is “such a thing as a Post 9-11 era” (1). Navaro believes that artists are trying to use “multi-layered images to address similar issues”, and that when examined with the U.S. media, new meanings are created (1). I’m not sure that these artists Navaro is referencing are good examples of a Post 9-11 era. She describes these artists as using narratives that speak about loss, but I don’t see how this is paramount to post 9-11 meanings. Dorris Salcedo’s, The Disappeared, for example, recontextualizes chairs to signify emptiness in regards to mass violence against Columbians. While this is indeed patriotic and powerful, Josh Azzarella’s video works about 9-11 show a much more powerful critique of the semiotics of a post 9-11 world (http://vimeo.com/21674069). However, these artists have been dealing with “trauma and normalized violence” for most, if not, all of their lives (6). The United States has only now affected as an entire nation due to mass violence, or terrorism if we want to call it that. Is Mexico living in a post-Juarez era? I doubt it, although pink crosses now have a new meaning for me. Like Oscar Muñoz’s visceral etchings, the visible are made visible only by those who want them to be.
Yes, I agree, Matthew. And I think it was rather obvious, don't you? Navarro seemed to think people needed convincing, but you've done a great job, using the example of the airplane, really driving the point home. Great job!
It really shows that you're synthesizing all of the course material. Let's talk more about Muñoz's breathy etchings tomorrow. I like this idea that there are certain audiences who will see what they want to see. Let's discuss this idea of the spectator more in class tomorrow.
Kim Navarro addresses the issue of representations of terror in a post 9-11 world and it’s symbolic effect globally through analysis of performance work from Latin America. It seems too appropriate to believe that through American conservative media that a certain type of symbol driven language to describe terror was created that works in complete opposite with art dealing with a similar message. What comes to my mind when 9-11 symbols are in question, is the too familiar colored terror alert chart to which I believe we were in red for the entirety of the Bush administration, creating what Navarro describes as “an invisible network or terrorists” that are “lurking around every corner” and “waiting to attack the innocent without warning or compassion.” Unlike American media, Navarro points out that artists continue to focus predominately on the image of loss. A constant reminder to “refuse to be complacent about crimes against the public.” It recalls an installation that was present in D.C. and I believe traveled the country, of boots representing soldiers that died during our War on Terror. Navarro describes how artists like Doris Salcedo “has give new meaning to discarded everyday objects.” Salcedo using “empty chairs of various sizes” to represent a mass grave for Columbians killed in Bogota. There is something haunting about the visualization of a number and other artists Navarro mentions utilize this technique as well. With a 24/7 news cycle where audiences are bombarded with information and statistics, works such as Munoz’s “Project for Memorial (2005)” where audience’s breath activates portrait etchings causing the viewer to be an active participant in the absence of a person creates a visceral experience important to contextualizing the loss of human life we are so far removed from in daily life. Although, I think the United States believes globally we live in a post 9-11 world, I think that is a stretch to say internationally terror is discussed in the same hyper- urgent way. Just as we were discussing socially constructed ideology concerning gender construction last week in class, we’ve also been socially constructed by the mass media to be aggressive towards foreign threats (although, much like Navarro states, it is the conservative media that pushes this agenda).
ReplyDeleteThe example of Doris Salcedo reminds me of the work we talked about last week by the artists working for Proyecto Juarez, in which other objects (animal parts, piles of dirt, etc) stand in for the missing bodies. But I think what these projects are doing is quite different from Muñoz's Aliento (Breath) work, namely because of the use of the actual image (face) of the disappeared. What do you think about this subtle difference?
DeleteIn “Post 9-11 Public Terror in Art From Latin America”, author Kim Navarro compares the depictions of terror and crisis through the perspectives of artists and the media. An important question that the author mentions in the article is the concept of “Western/Northern-centered notions of universalism and modernity” (2): “As the world becomes more and more globally postmodern -- and less universal in the modern sense -- it is appropriate to say that an even from one country can become the marker of an era, or a universal way of thinking?” (2). As I read this question, I realized how the world seemed to move according to the history of the United States. After September 11th occurred, many things have changed in terms of protection and security, which is especially seen at all airports. However, Navarro states that unlike the United States that experienced the enormous shock of the terrorist bombings, Latin America has always been living in the state of terror before and after September 11th happened. For example, Regina José Galindo’s “Quien Puede Borrar las Huellas?” and Teresa Margolles’s “¿De qué otra cosa podríamos hablar?: both used performance art in order to enact their response to the terror caused by the corruption of the government along with the loss of many innocent lives, specifically “women, gang members, the resource-poor, and other marginalized groups in society” (5). As both artists utilized human blood as their medium to shine light upon the truth behind the terrors happening within the different cities of Latin America, the (U.S.) government utilized the media to “re-define the meanings of terror” (3). Through a series of images, terror has become “Home-made videos, keffiyehs, beards, bombs, flags, skyscrapers, and airplanes” (3-4). Although corruptions continue throughout Latin America, the concept and ideology of “terror” constantly change based on “national, regional, and ideological perspectives” (1).
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up globalization. Let's talk about this more in class. But, how has globalization changed the way we interact with each other? Or how we understand the world?
Delete"Post 9-11 Public Terror in Art from Latin America" by Kim Navarro points out how "terror" is depicted differently by the media versus by artists. There are various examples of artists and their works in this article. One of the most striking quotes mentioned that: "Unlike government and conservative media sponsored messages, art narratives speak about loss" (Navarro). The government sponsored media did not, instead "ignored other deadly acts of terror" and covered stories that; in the case of Mexico, centered on the then president and his agenda, legitimizing the further militarization of a chosen region (Navarro). Artists such as Galindo and Margolles are in it to make sure that unreported deaths come to light - going as far as utilizing human blood to further intensive their call to attention of killings in their respective countries of Guatemala and Mexico. The article also points out that "there is not one, but many publics", and that perhaps these arts narratives "on loss could inspire increased plurality of voices both within the art world, and within the larger public space". The hopes that art will reach not only those who follow art but also those in their respective public spaces. Perhaps locally and nationally where the issues are taking place.
ReplyDeleteI"m glad you brought up the public sphere and this question of "many public." What do you think this means?
DeleteKim Navaro’s article addresses the prospect of a “Post 9-11 era”. Her assertion that the media has created a language of terrorist semiotics is something that has been addressed before in art, cinema and the media itself. This post 9-11 language of symbols makes up a library of signs that have taken on new meanings. The detonated, or literal, meaning of an airplane, for example, now has a new conotated, or symbolic, signified meaning. So to answer her question, yes, there is “such a thing as a Post 9-11 era” (1).
ReplyDeleteNavaro believes that artists are trying to use “multi-layered images to address similar issues”, and that when examined with the U.S. media, new meanings are created (1). I’m not sure that these artists Navaro is referencing are good examples of a Post 9-11 era. She describes these artists as using narratives that speak about loss, but I don’t see how this is paramount to post 9-11 meanings. Dorris Salcedo’s, The Disappeared, for example, recontextualizes chairs to signify emptiness in regards to mass violence against Columbians. While this is indeed patriotic and powerful, Josh Azzarella’s video works about 9-11 show a much more powerful critique of the semiotics of a post 9-11 world (http://vimeo.com/21674069).
However, these artists have been dealing with “trauma and normalized violence” for most, if not, all of their lives (6). The United States has only now affected as an entire nation due to mass violence, or terrorism if we want to call it that. Is Mexico living in a post-Juarez era? I doubt it, although pink crosses now have a new meaning for me. Like Oscar Muñoz’s visceral etchings, the visible are made visible only by those who want them to be.
Yes, I agree, Matthew. And I think it was rather obvious, don't you? Navarro seemed to think people needed convincing, but you've done a great job, using the example of the airplane, really driving the point home. Great job!
ReplyDeleteIt really shows that you're synthesizing all of the course material. Let's talk more about Muñoz's breathy etchings tomorrow. I like this idea that there are certain audiences who will see what they want to see. Let's discuss this idea of the spectator more in class tomorrow.