“You Are My Sunshine” discusses the (noticeable) differences between spectacle and testimony (pg. 222).
Spectacle
· Voyeurism
· On display
· Not concerned with social justice, change
Testimony
· Speaker +audience
· The witness is a necessity
· It is an unfinished product, because it demands response, discussion, etc.
1. If I said that a museum is a spectacle because it revolves around a sense of voyeurism, for example ethnic experiences on display, would you agree? Why/why not? What about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial?
2. What are some examples of spectacle or testimony that you have experienced/been to? And Why would you characterize them as such (i.e. spectacle as opposed to testimony)?
2A. How can you REALISTICALLY make a production or an event that is more like a spectacle, read more testimonial?
3. In Lawson Inada’s “Drawing the Line,” what does it mean for you when Inada says, “Yosh is drawing the line” ? Why is it repeated throughout the piece?
*Optional media to look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loOBBJAP9yA (Lawson Inada talking about his time in camp and also him reading some poetry)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would like to comment on Q.1. It depends on the museum's agenda. If the works on display are a way for people to share experience, exchange dialogue, and that the pieces bring awareness and emotion, then the works on display are testimony. Today's museums are public spaces that reach out to the general public, not just elites, and provide them a place to socialize, to learn, and to critique as people do not necessarily respond to the intended meanings. As such, the old ways of operating museums, i.e. voyeuristic displays, are no longer applicable in today's society.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I believe it stirs emotions and bring awareness to the pains that wars can cause and that visitors are there to pay homage to those who lost their life during the war. As such, I see the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as a testimony.
I actually think that different works in various museums can be considered both a spectacle or a testimony, depending on the viewer/spectator. I don't really agree that it depends on the museum's agenda, but as we have mentioned many many times in class, the museums/artists/writers/filmmakers will usually have an intent/purpose, but we can never control how the audience views it. Thus, I believe that a piece of artwork in a museum could be a spectacle to one person, and a testimony to the next. For example, seeing artwork created by people who were put into the Japanese American concentration camps in the Japanese American Museum to me personally, would be much more of a spectacle as opposed to a testimonry, whereas the descendant of a person who happened to be interned at that camp and has visited the museum to learn about their hiritage may see that piece of work as more of a testimony.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe the idea a work is a spectacle or testimony itself is not binary. One might think of it as both a spectacle and a testimony--but perhaps one over the other more.
For example, I myself have seen the Vietnam War Memorial and the Iwo Jima memorial. My trips to the memorials has definitely increased my awareness of veterans and the wars in general, and I would view these types of memorials as both a testimony and a spectacle. However, someone who has had relatives who played a role in these wars would see the memorials as more of a testimony than I would. Whereas when I see various gravestones and war memorials in Taiwan, I see them more as a testimony than an outsider would, as I have my own ancestors who were actually involved.
2A. How can you REALISTICALLY make a production or an event that is more like a spectacle, read more testimonial?
I think I'd have to say "yes" to question one. Although I do agree with Cheukwa in that it can depend on how the exhibit presents itself, I do think that - no matter the presentation - there will be people who come to look, as nothing more than voyeurs. (I realized after writing this that Jessica said something quite similar. I have to agree with her.) There will always be people who visit exhibits and think to themselves, "Oh this is interesting. And different. Let's examine its beauty through its difference." I admit, I've been a voyeur at many a different museum, and I think part of this is because I was raised in a relatively homogeneous culture. So, yes, something that was considered "different" and art (whether because of its difference or no) would likely be something to examine, learn about, whatever. I feel as though, as a child, I was taught to "respect" differences, and therefore learn about them, but in some manner this was only another way of separating and segregating arts/cultures from those that are not "part of the group."
ReplyDeleteAs for question three: it means for me that he is attempting to take something so simple as a line and use it for change. Or that he is the line, going from one side of the page to the other, but never being truly what is expected, never fitting into some prescribed shape or drawing. Or perhaps that, for so long, the atrocities committed in the US during WWII were so oversimplified as to be almost ridiculous - maybe that is his line.
Truthfully, it's difficult to analyze. Poetry can have so many meanings, both those meant by the poet and those derived by the readers.
Hmm... I agree with Cheukwa. I think that the museum's intention matters. For example, there are some exhibits made for the purpose of advocating social justice and others that are just thought to be interesting anthropological relics. The "witness" part of testimony is hard to define, but perhaps if the exhibit is organized or created by someone with competency of the represented culture then it is more than mere spectacle. If, however, the exhibit is made without experience in the represented culture than it is spectacle.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that the ways in which forums are set up can help to shape the ways in which people see the exhibits. I think that exhibits with back stories from the author or people involved in the depicted event help to bring the piece from spectacle to testimony. Likewise, having knowledgeable guides, posted historical documents, or educational guidance present may help to prevent testimony from being consumed as spectacle.
I would disagree with the suggestion that museums are necessarily spectacle. It depends a lot on how the exhibit is presented. There are definitely times when museum exhibits interact with the audience more, demand an understanding audience, and are reaching out to connect. More often, I do see art in museums as spectacle. But the times when art in museums is testimonial can be really powerful. I think it happens more with smaller museums that target specific communities and artists are very intentional about engagement.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many examples of each, and I think the characterization definitely comes down to who makes the invitation for expression (or how an audience for the expression comes about), who is in the audience, and how the audience takes what is presented.