Thoughts on Robert Hill: Making Noise/Marcus Garvey

Jessica Wildman

I definitely agree with Hill when he says, “the camera is not neutral” (p 187). In my opinion the camera is an interpretive instrument where realities are edited to cater to the vision of the photographer and the needs of a client. In some cases, those needs and desires may be propagandistic. The cropping, composition, and depth of field of a photo are all choices and there are usually reasons behind those choices. In regard to the image of Marcus Garvey in Making Noise the image, Hill explains, has become a, “visual language in which the visual doubles as a voice” (p 202).  

What I knew of Marcus Garvey before reading Robert Hill’s Making Noise was that he was an active figure during the Harlem Renaissance. It would be advantageous for me to read more about Garvey to more fully understand his politics, which, according to Hill, are powerfully symbolic in his costumery worn in various processions as pictured in Making Noise (p 180). Hill explains Garvey’s mimicry of royal procession as, “rested on something more substantial than mere fascination with gaudy pageantry” (p 182). The military attire worn by Garvey in this procession assumes him a position of power, similar to those uniforms worn by officials with rank. I see the military uniform as something worn by a people who fight for a cause. The use of this costumery as a source of symbolism is artful and theatrical. Hill says that Garvey was, “convinced that the solution to the problem of black inferiority lay in establishing a powerful black government” (p 182).

Further on in the article it is noted that women were not equal amongst men in The Universal Negro Improvement Association, led by Garvey. Even his wife, Amy Jacques Garvey, who served as Garvey’s de facto chief of staff was not permitted to ride by his side in these processions, instead riding behind him (p 192). Discriminating gender seems counter intuitive to an organization claiming Universal Improvement, and Hill explains that, “the procession was, fundamentally, a celebration of black manhood” (p 192). 

Goldberg, Chapter 3 - Dada

            RoseLee Goldberg’s chapter three, on performance in Dada, discusses the various groups that were involved within the movement. First, the author discusses the beginnings of Dada in Zurich, more specifically a group of artists and writers that created the Cabaret Voltaire. The goal of the Cabaret Voltaire was to “…create a center for artistic entertainment. The idea of the cabaret will be that guest artists will come and give musical performances and readings at the daily meetings.” (p. 56).  Although the Cabaret Voltaire had only functioned for five months, it seems that the group had a strong influence on Dadaism and what it would become.

            Another significant group was the Berlin Dadaists, who would give new meaning to the context of Dadaism. “But Berlin’s literary bohemians had little in common with Zurich’s pacifist exiles. Less inclined to an art-for-art’s sake attitude, they were soon to influence Dada towards a political stance that it had not known before” (p. 67).  Although the Berlin Dadaists were more concerned with politics, it seems that their performances were similar to those of Zurich’s performers.  Heulsenbeck, one of the significant members involved in the Cabaret Voltaire, was also involved with the Berlin Dadaists. During Heulsenbeck’s performance in Berlin, he took on a provocative subject of satirizing the war and declaring, “…that the last one had not been bloody enough” (p. 67).  Like Heulsenbeck, the Berlin Dadaists appeared to be anti-war and made this an important aspect of their work. Unlike the more pacifist approach taken by the artists and writers in the Cabaret Voltaire, did the political and anti-war motivations of the Berlin Dadaists seem more persuasive and relatable to the everyday public?

Marcus Garvey

            Robert Hill adds a great energy to his depiction of the UNIA’s parades. These public spectacles would not have manifested as poignant a unified spirit without the presence of Marcus Garvey. The author highlights the commanding, inscrutable, if not at times conflicting, nature of the persona which Garvey portrayed in parade as well as in photographs and in written word. In the latter half of the article, Hill draws a fitting connection between Garvey’s “caricature” and the aspirations of the Dada movement by affirming that Garvey had indeed a keen insight into social satire. I find as a remarkable example his flippant response to being called ‘spectacular.’ I believe he intentionally mentions the adjective over and over again as a way to erode the word’s significance to the state of banality. (199-200)

            Similarly, I find Garvey’s satirical flippancy and overall commanding air, even down to his flamboyant, yet austere accessories, comparable to the description of Richard Huelsenbeck’s “stage” persona in Goldberg: ‘When he enters, he keeps his cane of Spanish reed in his hand and occasionally swishes it around. That excites the audience. They think he is arrogant, and he certainly looks it.’ (58)

            With further reference to Garvey’s statement, Hill quite astutely deepens his analysis of the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ by penetrating the surface of Garvey’s calculated caricature to the underlying paradoxical nature of his personality. “Garvey’s statement reveals his penchant for satire…. Garvey was clearly not being naive, even if at times his mimicry seems a bit ingenuous, smacking less of criticism than emulation. But in Garvey’s mimicry of monarchical and aristocratic symbols, one can also detect a powerful element of social striving. For Garvey was just as determined in his quest for social recognition as any of the educated West Indian elite.” (200) Hill delineates this tendency as “a twin set of competing imperatives” (201) while at the same time quoting another commentator, who referred to Garvey as an “artistic juggler.” (202) But I think it would be beneficial in celebrating Garvey’s outward audacity and inner resolve by referring back to Gilroy’s examination of “double consciousness” in his “Black Atlantic as a Counterculture of Modernity,” in which he states, “Striving to be both European and black requires some specific forms of double consciousness…. Where racist, nationalist, or ethnically absolutist discourses orchestrate political relationships so that these identities appear to be mutually exclusive, occupying the space between them or trying to demonstrate their continuity has been viewed as a provocative and even oppositional act of political insubordination.” (1)

     Anthony Scott

Dada, Robert Hill and RoseLee Goldberg

     Author RoseLee Goldburg correlates a complex evolution of the performing arts in chapter three which highlights a focus on the term Dada. Like a cross bred grape vine producing a hybrid intertwined in a complex visual, much like the painting by Marcel Janco on page 59. This image Cabaret Voltaire (p. 50) was displayed at the peak of its short lived days of “only five months” (p. 63). One of the two founders of “Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich in 1916”, Hugo Ball, during its peak wrote that it was becoming “a playground for crazy emotions.” (p. 56). The club filled with a variety of exiles through diaspora due to the war, where writers, poets, painters and artist expressed rejection to the bourgeois, thus forming an anti-art and cultural protest. As a result, perhaps inspired by some from past Expressionist and Futurist, and thus forming a hybrid termed Dada. Ball for one, quotes that his “strongest impression” of theatre was Frank Wedekind. (p. 51) Wedekind (noted by Goldburg on page 58 as “the German Expressionist”) was known for his “provocative performances” (p. 50), yet “Wedekind viewed with extreme disfavour any attempts to align his works with Expressionism”, as he claimed he used these “techniques” prior to its new popularity (p. 52). In addition, after “Ball and Huelsenbeck had coined…” “…Dada,” which “Ball said” “it is a sign for foolish naivete”, he gives favor for his later writings of “words-in-freedom” (p. 62) to Futurist Marinetti. During Ball’s tour with “the Flamingo” in Switzerland, he corresponded with “Marinetti, the leader of Futurist.”
(p. 55)

     This (cross-bred) combination of cultures, styles and expressions, branched off (the grape vine) which one may perhaps view as (hybrid) in some cases, with different approaches and agendas, internationally, and simultaneously in some cases. “Grosz and Heartfield” became “increasingly political”, Tzara, perhaps radically, continued his pursuit in his version of anthology, and Huelsenbeck left his involvement, perhaps beating his drum on the way, became a “psycho-analyst” (p. 63) which to me is not as crazy as the “anti-painter” Francis Picabia with “his drunken state”, a challenge to fight “Jack Johnson”, and “raving obscenities” in New York as his form of protest.
(p. 73)

     As I see it, the Cabaret Voltaire is perhaps the main stem of the (grape vine) in Goldburg’s chapter three as to the form of Dada, with newly formed hybrid branches and past events as a focus, I am intrigued with the 1919 “first live photomontage” produced by Erwin Piscator (p. 70). Only three years later, “August 1922” (p. 181) as written by author Robert Hill, Marcus Gravey’s photo on “Seventh avenue in Harlem” appeared. (p. 182) Gravey’s photo was not pulled off a complex collage, or cropped from Janco’s Cabaret Voltaire painting, yet an intertwined complexity was what Gravey’s photo, along with others, eventually represented as a whole. A population of “African Americans”, “foreign-born blacks from Cuba,” “Virgin Islands”, “Portuguese Atlantic islands”, “Cape Verde”, “Azores”, and a majority from “West Indians” to which lived in Harlem. (p. 195) In addition, unified internationally with other countries such as Jamaica and Ethiopia. As a whole, the visual effect may be a complex Dada form of representation, but let’s not take our focus off the ship in the “Black Atlantic”, for its cargo is cultural traditions and performance.                 

        

     

    

          

Gender Roles

Although, the chapter was significantly an analysis of Marcus Garvey and his role in the UNIA, the aspect of the chapter that I found most interesting was the discussion of women. Beginning with the role of Amy Jacques Garvey, Marcus Garvey’s wife, Hill presented an aspect of the movement and association that is not typically as publicized and analyzed. The gender divide was very prevalent throughout this section of the chapter and Hill continued by mentioning that there were also class division within the female groups of the UNIA and the parade. Although Hill acknowledged that the parade was a “celebration of black manhood” and the UNIA mostly restricted women from publically taking an active role in the “business of politics,” he made clear the role that women played in legitimizing male dominance. (p 192-193) However, with indoor UNIA ceremonies, women played a more prevalent role, which was indicative of the domestication of women and further legitimized the theory of “the primacy of black manhood as the dominant ideal of the UNIA.” (p 193) Without more in-depth research of the African cultures in which Garvey and the UNIA were attempting to portray, it is not evident why this deliberate degradation of, yet utilization of females was utilized to create the continuity particular between males and females in the UNIA and continuously legitimize male dominance. I’m curious to further research exactly where the connotations of domesticity of the female gender originated for this particular association. Additionally, by not only allowing themselves to be subjected to the supporting roles in the movement, but also seemingly voluntarily performing these roles, can it be assumed that the women in the procession and movement were proponents of the dominance of males or were they simply accepting the only way they were allowed to participate in the movement?

Anthony A Scott

AH 5560

S. Noel

September 20, 2015

                                                    Body Art Performing the Subject

        Author, Amelia Jones introduces the term “body/art” as a relative center point for many theories and examples from herself as well as various historical implications in regard to the “performing arts,” along with multiple perspectives and models of postmodernism. The body is the medium in “body art” as a visual art and/or performance, which may give perception through discourse a focus on race, gender, class and sexual identity, thus leading to opportunities to exploit current cultural and political concerns or injustice related to. (p. 13) Jones focuses on a particular time period from the 1950’s to 1970’s as to the introduction of “body art” in the performances, which through Jones views brought about “the dislocation or decentering of the Cartesian subject of modernism” which produced the introduction to postmodernism. (p. 1)

     As a (center point) from this time period, history is not disregarded by Jones, nor is the time period regarded as history “but a study” of “body art” or performance. (p. 10) Pollock is represented as an introduction to an (artist as a performer) in lesser words, to which Jones refers to as “Pollock performative” (p. 16) and “a kind of hinge” between modernism and postmodernism. (p. 15) The latter introduction leads to one of my personal favorites as to the boldness and integrity of a “body art” performer, Jones’s “Case one: Carolee Schneemann”. (p. 1) Although Pollock was perhaps coined by Kaprow and noted as “action painter” with support of “Greenberg” and “Rosenburg” (p. 15), I argue Schneemann’s “body art” performance of Eye Body was far more obvious in expressing the use of the body as visual art then Pollock, along with an intense and “juxtaposition” presentation. In her own words “the body is in the eye” (p. 1) and the eye of the current critic Greenburg who was “disinterested” perhaps only saw the “body” with “hegemonic formalist ideas” and missed the message completely.(p. 3)  On the contrary, Greenburg unknowably perhaps emphasized her message by his rejection. Once again, Schneemann’s Eye Body performance “radically negotiates the structures of interpretation” during the “three decades” that Jones centers her concentration on as a starting point. 

     Hopefully I haven’t presented a paradox with my extractions and writing which avoided discussion of historians and emphasized the possible beginning of postmodernism. In conjunction, Jones makes clear on page 10, “This project thus attempts to enact the “paradoxical performative” that art historian Thierry de Duve has located as constitutive of postmodernism:”                      

                  

Goldberg's "Futurism"

In RoseLee Goldberg’s first chapter, she discusses early performances in Futurism. Goldberg begins the chapter by explaining that these performances by the Futurists were, “…more manifesto than practice, more propaganda than actual production (p. 11).” This claim is thoroughly explored in the chapter and holds some truth. The manifestos, mostly written by Tommaso Marinetti, described in detail the sort of rules and goals Futurist performers should strive to complete. Futurist manifestos called for artists to disrupt the public and despise their audiences (pp. 14 and 16). They also believed that it was unimportant for their viewers to always necessarily understand performances, and to explain the performances would mean indulging “the primitivism of the crowd” (p. 27).

However, Marinetti praised variety theatre in its ability to involve the viewer, liberating the audience from voyeurism (p. 17). There seems to be some contradictions by the Futurists in that they were not necessarily concerned with being easily comprehensible to the audience, yet wanted the involvement of the viewer. This leads me to think that Futurist artists were more concerned with the artist’s role in a performance rather than establishing any sort of relationship with the audience.  This is not to say that a performance’s underlying meaning must always be legible, but I cannot help question the goal of a performance if the viewer’s understanding is not considered. It seems a bit exclusive in that only the artist and non-“primitive” individuals can comprehend a performance. This is interesting to me considering that Marinetti praised the audience for booing performers because it meant they were not blinded by “intellectual intoxication” (p. 16).