Week 4 discussion

1. I am left puzzled by Margolles' work and so I pose the question: how does this spark understanding of a conflict of borders or immigration? Can this even be considered art? It is so deeply disgusting, alienating, and base, that I find it does not provoke thoughts of conflicts past, but rather the conflicts of my eyes not wanting to look at such violent, graphic images. Sure, it is performative and is, by definition, art, but what beauty (be it implicit or explicit) is there in Margolles' work? Her scientific background makes me question the art even further. How much of this work is merely for shock value rather than actual substance?

2. After watching Charles Bowden's interview and hearing about the real brutalities going on at the border, are Margolles' art/performance pieces justified? If it truly is as violent and murder-ridden (towards innocent civilians) as Bowden would lead me to believe, I am able to better understand Margolles' work. Bowden also suggests that a lot of what we are hearing about the drug war from our side of the border is fabricated. And so I ask, how different are Mexican artists' interpretations of the situation than American artists', based on perspective and available information alone?