Alcohol Worship

We have been learning in sculpture my sculpture class that contemporary sculpture is about meaning created, and about provoking  thought, or even anger. So I decided to make an art piece representative of contemporary art.  

Background stuff my mind has been debating: 

I remember my teacher mentioning The Art Guys, who are brothers in Houston who apparently married a plant in 2009. They made this marriage into a big deal where they got all dressed up in suits, had family and friends over, and did the whole ceremony in the sculpture garden of the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. Their point was to create conversation about the relationship between humans and nature but instead it led lots of controversy over gay marriage. As I have already discussed in prior blogposts, I am wary of what gets labeled as art in contemporary society. It seems that contemporary art is about taking an ordinary object and giving it attention and meaning. This plant, just like Duchamp's Fountain (basically a urinal), was simply removed from how we are generally perceive plants, and was presented as something more, and therefore labeled as art by attaching a special meaning to it. This  extraordinary meaning attached to ordinary objects seems to be the new "in" thing in Art. 

Rothko's art was considered revolutionary because he emphasized the importance of the impact of individual colors on human emotions, and therefore his paintings were simple, one or two color paintings. If someone was to paint something that looked similar to a Rothko today, I doubt anyone would shell out a million dollars for it. I feel that in the future (and I am hoping the near future because I am not a fan of this type of art), people will feel that same way about the presentation of simple things as art. I mean, seriously, where is the actual art in this, except perhaps in the mind? But of course, the obvious question that follows is, isn't all art basically a sensation created by the mind through a presentation of objects or pigments? 

I know I have spent quite a while criticizing contemporary art, but if I was to point out perhaps why the contemporary movement makes sense, it is because attention needs to be paid about our surroundings. Contemporary art seems to be taking ordinary objects and "forcing" the observer to think about what is surrounding us in our society, the art around us that we often do not seem to notice in our mundane lives. Contemporary art urges us to ponder about the meaning that is held in every single object. Too often, we forget how each object around us has an purpose it plays, a comfortable location and orientation where we expect it, and also where we are comfortable with its existence. If that object is removed from that location and placed in another setting, it is offsetting for us because it challenges our comfort zones. If one day, I find my shoes in hangers and my clothes on the floor, that would disorient me, and if would perhaps make me wonder about why my shoes and clothes are organized in the manner they are organized. 

But we realize just how much meaning some people place on certain objects and the locations and treatments of these objects, particularly when just reorganizing location can create violence and death. And we have all seen this come up in the media where people are willing to kill and more importantly, to die, when someone burns a flag or flushes a religious book. In an objective sense, that is cloth and paper, but we have chosen to place an important meaning on the final product, and therefore involved our emotions with inanimate things, giving them a high status. 

But where does the line lie between what is art and what is sacrilege when removing things from their regular and comfortable settings? I mean seriously, isn't marrying a tree really crossing some sort of line? 

And finally, about my actual project: 

I decided to bring attention to the western obsession over alcohol. I think I am more prone to observing this obsession than others because I have been brought up in a culture where alcohol is not present at all. 

If someone was to offer me something that would alter my thinking and my sense of judgment and make me act unlike myself, and could potentially get me sick to the point of death and blackouts, I think my choice would be obvious. This is why I am surprised to see the ever presence of alcohol in American culture (and I am guessing in other Western cultures as well). The positives that I have heard of alcohol is that it provides courage and helps people become more free and relaxed. But seriously, if we need a drug to induce courage and relaxation, then I think we need to take a serious look the kind of humans we are producing in our society. If I wish to improve myself, I tell myself to try harder and to work towards improvement, I do not pop a pill or induce a drug. 

My perception about the ethics of alcohol are irrelevant, however, to my art piece. I did not wish to create an art about the dangers of alcohol because consumers of alcohol are perhaps the most aware. I only wanted to show and perhaps remind the audience that alcohol is omnipresent in American culture, and arouse conversation about the status of alcohol in the culture by altering the way in which alcohol is generally seen. 

My piece is a diya (an oil lamp used for worship in hindu culture) containing a beer bottle where the bottle is adorned with beautiful blue cloth that kind of looks like vapors pouring out slowly. The bottle is also adorned with LEDs that were supposed to work (although I am terrible at making LEDs work so they are merely serving as decoration beads). I was afraid that an American audience would not catch on to what a diya was, but I thought my diya looked like a broken egg as well, so I covered the diya with some feathers, symbolizing birth. I wanted to juxtapose birth and religion with drinking, to perhaps get the audience to wonder about the meaning and status of alcohol in daily society. 

The picture of the final piece is below, and yes, I am aware that it looks like trash. I think the first day of class, the instructor mentioned that there is a shared skill between those who view art and those who make art, where if you view art often and are passionate about art, odds are, you are able to make great art yourself. I think I would have to disagree with that. I love art, and I love thinking about art, but making the art is not my forte. I think my teacher was correct in saying that a kindergardener could have made my piece. Although, I would be intimidated by that kindergardener if he/she could come up with the same meaning and purpose that I came up with. :)