My presentation on Tuesday will be on Donna Haraway’s writings on the artworks of Patricia Piccinini.
Haraway sees Piccinini as an artist with ideals similar to her own, a ‘sister in technoculture, a co-worker committed to taking “naturecultures” seriously’ without leaning toward the two often-portrayed extremes of either a return to Eden or a coming technological apocalypse.
The turning of this dichotomy into a continuum is a theme throughout Haraway’s essay, her describing Piccinini’s creatures as ‘simultaneously near kin and alien colonists’, and something of a reconciliation between Frankenstein-type fears and an unfettered endorsement of harvesting and disposing of technological and genetic creations.
Haraway also sees Piccinini to be conveying her Australian context in her work, saying that she ‘seems to me to be proposing ... a decolonizing ethic indebted to Australian aboriginal practices of taking care of country and accounting for generations of entangled human and non-human entities’. She makes comparisons between the technological advancements that Piccinini’s creatures may seem to be a product of and introduced species in Australia like the cane toad and white settlers, and how these effect their respective ecosystems.
Perhaps the most powerful quote in Haraway’s essay is from Piccinini herself, saying “in my work, perhaps I am saying that whether you like them or you don’t like them, we actually have a duty to care. We created them, so we’ve got to look after them”.
I would like to examine three main questions based on the article, set out below with some points for thought.
1. As a viewer, do you think Piccinini’s artworks evoke empathy or disgust?
o Do they appear threatening? and is there any significance in that the human children in many of the sculptures have hands while their creature counterparts do not?
2. Do the apparent themes in Piccinini’s artworks harmonise with Haraway’s ideas in a her cyborg manifesto?
o Consider the notion of the cyborg as both a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction, it’s evolution being a continuum without a start or end.
3. If it is accepted that Piccinini’s artworks are intended to evoke some kind of empathy amongst viewers, is her own context apparent in the ways she attempts to do this?
o Including her context as someone who migrated to Australia, a potentially isolating experience
o Piccinini’s race as an element of her context reflected in the relateability (or otherwise) of the sculptures
o Her context as female, and whether any appeal to maternal (or paternal) instincts is employed (Haraway writes: ‘The point for me in Piccinini’s Nature’s Little Helpers is parenting, not reproducing. Parenting is about caring for generations, one’s own or not; reproducing is about making more of oneself to populate the future, quite a different matter’.)
Piccinini's artwork for me was very confronting and I was more intrigued than I was disgusted, although I must admit I was not empathetic what so ever. I remember reading an article on her artwork about four months ago in the West Australian and I was drawn to it mainly by the accompanying image of the little boy sleeping with the 'subject'. I think we are confronted by her artwork because the creature is so similar to a human; with human skin, hair and shape. An article from Artlink goes into detail about another sculpture of Piccinini's called the 'Foundling'- an aged baby with oversized eyes in a bassinet. The article describes the creative as tragic and it makes me wonder how long the baby has been left in this bassinet without any nurturing love. I think this artwork can have many different meanings to different people and I cant say that I would want this artwork on display in my house.
ReplyDeleteArticle: Patricia Piccinini: Related Individuals
http://www.artlink.com.au/articles/3229/patricia-piccinini-related-individuals/
I agree with a lot of the comments made in the tutorial about Piccini’s artwork being confronting. Her works can be read as evoking both empathy and disgust, mainly due to the fact that a child is being attached in some way to the creatures. This portrays a somewhat alienating spectacle as an element of the surreal/ fantasy is placed with a seemingly innocent/ real child. This was my impression of the artwork anyway. If Haraway writes: ‘The point for me in Piccini’s Nature’s Little Helpers is parenting, not reproducing’ then my impression of the artwork has been reinforced to a degree. I thought that, in relation to cyborgs also that the child is seeking refuge or guidance from a new unknown territory (which could be read as technology). The look of curiosity on the child’s face made me think of technologically savvy children who know how to use technology and the internet from being introduced to it at an early age. This is of course in reference to the generation of kids now. According to Haraway: ‘Parenting is about caring for generations’, so if the artwork is reflecting the exotic other being technology and the child learning and adapting to it as a child would to a parent than yes- I think it is very confronting.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw Piccini's exhibition I found the experience very confusing. Because the sculptures were not behind glass or roped off it was difficult to know what was part of the exhibition. It was scary to think that you would be looking a sculpture and that it could move at any moment!
ReplyDeleteIt was odd because I was so repulsed and uncomfortable but at the same time I wanted to give the kids a hug. They really did stir a protective feel in me and at the same time I just wanted to leave...
It was bizarre that these children were not afraid of the new creatures, but rather seemed either curious or at ease.
I like the point made in the previous comment, that the link between the creatures and the children is like children and new technologies. The newest generations are becoming more and more comfortable with technology being a part of their lives. I think generations will become increasingly more accepting of technology not just helping their lives but being the main focus of it. In the tute I really freaked out in reaction to the idea of having chips and wires put through my brain, but who knows how the next generation will feel about it. I have a sneaking suspicion that I will be an old lady ranting about how the youth are so involved with technology and 'that back in my day we knew when technology started and human beings ended...'
Thinking about this afterwards, two interrelated concepts crossed my mind.
ReplyDeleteOne is that Piccinini’s works are Simulacra. They represent humans, are a product of humans - but - (assuming they are a completely technological creation) they are no longer really redeemable to that representation any more, they are empty signifiers of humans. They are a development that would appear to have come so far from its human beginnings that such origins would be completely unapparent to the unacquainted outsider.
The other thing was that, in relation to the idea of parenting in the artworks, and in them being simulacra, perhaps Piccinini’s works are meant to be our children (if, as a collective, an entire generation or species could conceive children). They are born of technology created by humans, who are entirely responsible for their existence and at least part of their physical appearance. Accordingly, they are positioned adjacent to the literal offspring we ordinarily understand.
I certainly felt a great deal of empathy for the creatures, and I’m sure these ideas are biased heavily because of that.