Fate vs. Chance or Other

To me fate is the end result of something that is in the hands of a higher power, and chance is random factors that happen to someone but that someone didn't have control over it. I like to believe that neither of these guide my life and that the choices I make guide how my life goes. I think chance is the result of preparing the right way and catching a break as a result of the work put in. In sports the hard work leads to lucky breaks. Most of the time the losing team or lazy team doesn't get the lucky breaks. To a certain extent I believe that everything happens for a reason, so in that way I guess I believe in fate. I don't know really, I just live and what ever happens happens and I move on and keep making decisions that put me in the best position to be where I want to be in the future. 

Based on what I've read so far (Act 1and 2) I believe that Shakespeare thought fate played a role in life and impacted how people lived and made choices. I believe Macbeth as person, like not as a character ,had the power to make his own decisions and he could have ignored "fate". However as a character his fate was predetermined by the higher power of Shakespeare. At the beginning of Act 1 the witches set up the fate that Macbeth played out throughout the rest of Act 1 to make come true. The first witch says,"All hail Macbeth! Hail to thee, thane of Glamis," (Shakespere). Then the second witch says, "All hail Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Cawdor," (Shakespeare). At this point Macbeth is confused as to why he is being called King of two places. He then has an internal struggle and decides that he wants to make the fate as said by the witches true so he has to kill Duncan. Helping to push Macbeth towards fulfilling fate Lady Macbeth pushes him to get him to have the drive to want to take Duncan's place. In Act 1 she and Macbeth have a conversation in which she uses tactics such as comfort, humiliation, and blame to convince Macbeth he has to kill Duncan. 

Macbeth controlled the outcome of his situation. He made the decision to kill Duncan and he didn't have to do that. I think that he let other people get in his head and that caused him to make the poor decision to kill Duncan, not fate. In Act 2 he says,"I have done the deed," (Shakespeare). During this Act he regrets killing Duncan and spends the act trying to convince himself he did the right thing. In Macbeth I think Shakespeare has the main character be driven and in a way obsessed with making fate come true because it reflects on his time and how he felt about the power fate had. 

89 Huicholes

As I walked through the Limited Visibility exhibit at The Contemporary Art Museum  I was intrigued by the art displayed. I don't generally enjoy art museums or looking at art for long periods of time, as I easily get bored staring at art wondering why someone created it. However the art at CAM had parts of the pictures artists left out of their art which made it more interesting to look at. I found it especially interesting to look at the work while listening to the curator discuss the background of the artist. By leaving certain features out of their art I think the artist creates more meaning and pulls viewers in to think more about why the artist left something out, instead of why the artist created it in general.

I chose to do my visual analysis on the 84 black and white images put together by Santiago Sierra, called 89 Huicholes. The work features 84 pictures of people from the Huichol tribe in Mexico, where the pictures were taken. The limited visibility aspect of this piece is that the people are photographed from behind and we can't see their faces, only their back, neck, and back of the their head.

Santiago Sierra. 89 Huicholes. 2006. Mexico

sketch

                                    

At CAM 89 Huicholes is displayed by 5 rows of 17 framed 5x7 or 6x9 pictures (Not sure which), except the 5th row only has 16 pictures. Each picture is black and white and is taken of a person or persons looking away from the camera. The plain black and white color scheme adds to the limited visibility, it takes away from the personality of the people in the pictures leaving the viewer to ponder what the person is like. Each picture is taken in front of the same white back drop leaving the focus and importance on the people in front of it. Also important to the composition of each shot is the body language presented by the Huichol people. Some of them are holding small children, some have their shoulder shrugged, some are tilted or angled towards something, and some fill up more of the white than others.

The pictures are of people from the Huichol Tribe who live in the rugged terrain of Mexico in 2006. They are said to be one of the few remaining tribes that still have Pre-Colombian Traditions. The rugged terrain and 5 day journey to their village has kept the modern way of life out of their society. They live a simple life and survive of the land. Huichol means the life of Shamans, they are healing people and are very connected spiritually with the Earth. They do have some modern ways of life such as a dentist that travels to them every so often to provide dental care. The Huichol Foundation is working to help them preserve their culture and traditions by providing them with the things they need to do so. The Huichol Tribe is open to people coming to their village to learn about their ways of life. (http://www.huicholfoundation.org)

With that being said they are indigenous people who struggle to like Native Americans in America did/do for land and other rights. In the pictures they have their backs to the camera which creates the meaning of the work. All Sierra gives the viewers is the title which explicitly gives the viewers exactly what they are looking at, however he doesn't go further than that leaving the viewers to interpret his art to find the meaning. I think the meaning created by not showing their faces is that they don't have a voice or are not "worthy" of having their faces shown. The position of facing away from someone also suggests guilt, or punishment. This work makes me think about how the people of the Huichol Tribe are different than modern society and might be viewed like they aren't as good as modern people. This work particularly caught my eye at CAM because of the interactive role the viewer has with the art to give the people meaning and faces. Looking at someones back who is holding a small child, and both are wearing traditional clothes made me think about the differences in the life I live and the life they live. If I had seen their faces I wouldn't have connected myself to them because I'd be able to read their faces to know how they feel about their lifestyle.

This is what Santiago Sierra had to say about it, "The interesting thing is also that when you have somebody… when you don’t see the face of somebody, their position becomes more active, you know, you have to think why does she not show me the face, you know. And in a world full of images, this image, which is an anti image in a way, becomes full of meaning, because the person has to create what the person doesn’t see."  (http://www.magasin3.com/en/exhibition/santiago-sierra-2/)

This is not the only work by Sierra that captures the backs of people, leaving their faces unknown. In 184 Peruvian workers he does the same thing capturing the backs of 184 workers. He also gave homeless women one night in a hotel room for standing facing a wall in a mall. Following the Iraq Afghanistan war he had veterans stand facing a corner for an exhibit. All of his work is very evocative and has deeper meanings. They all have meaning surrounding social conditions, violence, religion, or societies in general. (magasin3)

I think this piece was chosen by the Curators to be apart of the Limited Visibility exhibit because it represents limited visibility in every way. It provokes viewers to think about the people photographed and find the meaning behind the work. This was easily my favorite work at CAM because of the level of thought I had to put into determining the purpose behind it.