The corruption of art by postmodernists
Cazador
influence in the history of art. This stems from a lost sense for the
fundamentals such as line, value, texture, color and for the basic
principles of forrm/organization, i.e., contrast, rhythm, harmony,
etc., which culminate in a sense of unity.
Artists who have led this corrupting influence include Bosquiat,
Schnabel, Salle and Koons. None can draw. Ergo, none can paint. These
four artists represent the collapse of quality and the weakest link in
public taste.
Ken Schaber (using a friend's computer)
BIG_ONE
>Postmodernism has been corrupted
as opposed 2 the honesty of ... erm ... modernism ?
Cazador
Well may you ask, sir. With tongue equally in cheek I allow that
corruption springs eternal.
But this is new corruption, contemporary corruption, to be struggled
against as we speak. Most of modernism's old corruption has in the
fullness of time been identified and rejected. Transient values have
long since collapsed. Values for those I mention deserve to
collapse---now. And the community ought to say so, openly.
BIG_ONE
>BIG_ONE wrote:
>> "Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Postmodernism has been corrupted
>> as opposed 2 the honesty of ... erm ... modernism ?
>
>Well may you ask, sir. With tongue equally in cheek I allow that
>corruption springs eternal.
but it is perhaps unusual for it to be revealed as openly as it has
been 'recently'ish
>But this is new corruption, contemporary corruption, to be struggled
>against as we speak. Most of modernism's old corruption has in the
>fullness of time been identified and rejected. Transient values have
>long since collapsed. Values for those I mention deserve to
>collapse---now. And the community ought to say so, openly.
recently I've awoken 2 the idea that the C20 was a blip & we're now
all forced back on course, the protests have been silenced... the form
of fiction changes from agents, contractors or employees but remains
subordinate and ultimately the product (line, painting, cars,
whatever.) is fixed in this fiction, trapped by context, and
subordinate to that frame.
Specific production growth can fluctuate (regardless of perceived or
actual quality,) but rarely in tidy patterns that permit just
investment of overall profits.
The values that hold profits to those u paint as corrupt[ing] are not
now or ever have been universal, an active corrupter, agitator,
iconoclast, whatever, may just as likely strike upon a successful
strategy as a passive representer, with regard to the unity u write
of. Consumption, appreciation and demand don't automatically adjust to
productivity growth, it's just not that tidy.
So when the mess of the whole system is revealed as it was during
parts of the C20, the art can only reflect this.
James Whitehead
"Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167067367.0...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Postmodernism has been corrupted and will be seen as a negative
> influence in the history of art.
On the "history" of art - or on art - post modernism marks the end of art -
though many will argue this - its anti art so of course its a negative
influence- like penicillin was a negative influence on
disease....post-modernity is the critical result of modernity...
>This stems from a lost sense for the
> fundamentals such as line, value, texture, color and for the basic
> principles of forrm/organization, i.e., contrast, rhythm, harmony,
> etc., which culminate in a sense of unity.
many could/can draw - if drawing in the sense of western 15thC perspective
(both actual and moral!) is what you mean... some couldn't - but that's
beside the point - the ability to do the above was never the criteria with
modernism - or before... have you seen Turner's figure painting esp.
nudes!!! Duchamp could draw - and was probably one of the first wave of
po-mo in terms of his relationship to western art.. The sense of unity is
just what the history of western art broke - otherwise it would have been
static - "primitive" if you like- (remember Giotto's big idea) or the sense
of unity of Thomas Kinkade.
>
> Artists who have led this corrupting influence include Bosquiat,
> Schnabel, Salle and Koons. None can draw. Ergo, none can paint.
Drawing well does not mean "ergo" one can paint - or otherwise - whatever
you mean drawing well to be? You might like to think of photography or
cinematography where being "good" aesthetically ? (if that floats your boat)
does not depend on drawing - and your mistaken as to the leaders of po-mo -
you list second probably third wave po-mo artists - what about Japer Johns ?
Warhol? - certainly Bosquait and Schnabel could paint - very old skool
expressionist too.. Koons certainly is Po-Mo - but very much riding a wave-
but against trying not to be over critical (ugh?) his work his of a high
quality
>These
> four artists represent the collapse of quality and the weakest link in
> public taste.
>
> Ken Schaber (using a friend's computer)
>
is this just a wind up?
James Whitehead
"BIG_ONE" <telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7p61p2lhjue85kk01...@4ax.com...
> "Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Postmodernism has been corrupted
>
> as opposed 2 the honesty of ... erm ... modernism ?
modernity attempted the truth... and failed
James Whitehead
are the alternatives - socialist realism? Pre Raphaelite paedophilia?
James Whitehead
>
> recently I've awoken 2 the idea that the C20 was a blip
I'm inclined to agree with you here - i think there is a deal of evidence -
we just cant have a proper war these days..
Anarcissie
James Whitehead wrote:
> "Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167067367.0...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Postmodernism has been corrupted and will be seen as a negative
> > influence in the history of art.
>
>
> On the "history" of art - or on art - post modernism marks the end of art -
> though many will argue this - its anti art so of course its a negative
> influence- like penicillin was a negative influence on
> disease....post-modernity is the critical result of modernity...
I think you're wrong about the "death of art". Art is something
people always produce, and buy and sell if they live in the kind
of community that does buying and selling. However, in the
contemporary industrialized world at least, various arts seem to
go through periods of intense innovation followed by periods of
relaxation and blandness. In the case of painting, for instance,
between the 1890s and the 1930s there was an explosion of
new styles, techniques, media, and, of course, theories, which
were followed by a conservative, classicizing period which
focused itself on abstract expressionism in the West and
socialist realism in the East Bloc. _That_ period ended in
the mid-60s with what was later labeled postmodernism.
But postmodernism turned out to be a revisiting of the earlier
concerns of modernism, for example surrealism, op art, pop
art, conceptual art, outsider art, and, of course, "anti-art",
but now turned against Abstract Expressionism instead of
Impressionism and Naturalism. It's really a revival of what
Modernism was at its beginning.
> >This stems from a lost sense for the
> > fundamentals such as line, value, texture, color and for the basic
> > principles of forrm/organization, i.e., contrast, rhythm, harmony,
> > etc., which culminate in a sense of unity.
Unity is death. What has happened with the arts,
repeatedly, is what happens with a lot of social processes:
the people at the top of the heap at any given moment try
to kill movement and development so they can maintain
their position, while those below (some of them) try to
subvert them. When the former are ascendant, they
"unify" everything they can, that is, subordinate everything
to their values. If they ever succeeded, you'd have the
perfection of George Orwell's nightmare at the end of
_1984_ -- a boot coming down on the human face,
forever. But so far they have never succeeded.
Erik A. Mattila
You've said a lot here, some of which I can agree with, and some not.
This isn't comprehensive, but here are a couple of points of contention:
"The Death of (fill in blank)" has become sort of a cliche since
Nietzsche wrote "God is Dead." What did he mean? Simply that religion
had lost its power over society. I don't know who first wrote "Death of
Art" but those who have used the concept (Kuspit, Danto and many other)
are clearly referencing Nietzsche's "death of..." concept - it would
follow than that "art" means something in a broad social context rather
than the more specific context of what individual artist's are motivated
to do with a blank canvas or stone.
Another "bone of contention" concerns periodization. Most critics,
philosophers and others who write about "art" include Abstract
Expressionism with "modernism" generally. The rupture (or the day art
died, if you prefer) was with Pop Art, which really re-channeled the
unmentioned "point" of art in society from any known historical
discourse on art,beauty,aesthetics to mass media culture. Pop Art is a
sort of proto-postmodernism, if you will, as postmodernism also turns
its eye to the historical manifestations of art in culture, where
historical appropriations (such as the "reinvention" of surrealism) by
postmodern artists is not a "continuation" but rather a self-reference
(the "self" being "art"). So historical surrealism, which didn't arise
out of a vacuum, addressed largely political issues such as the rise of
facism, is not duplicated at all by postmodern surrealism. Postmodern
surrealism addresses historical surrealism, and does not address the
social forces that brought historical surrealism into play.
A really excellent study of late modernism is Peter Bürger's "Theory of
the Avant Garde." (If you care for dense reading.) He argues that all
the myriad modernists "movements" had objectives whose possibilities
were quickly exhausted, creating the space for yet another movement with
an new wrinkle - for example analytic cubism only lasted a a couple of
years before Picasso and Braque and their followers didn't have anything
else to say about it, and moved on to synthetic cubism. In this
atmosphere of invention and innovation, there wasn't any sort of grand
narrative at play - it was fractured, disjunct, discontinuous by design.
It culminated in Abstract Expressionism, and "art" returned to culture
with the advent of Pop Art.
There's a lot of contention over the definition of postmodernism itself,
so without some agreement, debate can go anywhere, and won't really
serve anyone's interest. But that's the effect of mass media culture
anyway - the very terms we use become objects in themselves - catchistic
declarations - when no consensus exists about what they mean.
Lauri Levanto
This is a wonderful summary
-lauri
James Whitehead
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:6a2dnX7mp514RT_Y...@adelphia.com...
> Anarcissie wrote:
>
> > James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> >>"Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1167067367.0...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>Postmodernism has been corrupted and will be seen as a negative
> >>>influence in the history of art.
> >>
> >>
> >>On the "history" of art - or on art - post modernism marks the end of
art -
> >>though many will argue this - its anti art so of course its a negative
> >>influence- like penicillin was a negative influence on
> >>disease....post-modernity is the critical result of modernity...
> >
> >
> > I think you're wrong about the "death of art". Art is something
> > people always produce, and buy and sell if they live in the kind
> > of community that does buying and selling.
Thats a very wide concept - modern art was art not by virtue of this but by
virtue of its (or the artist's) exploration of what art was- at least i
could make a case as such which fits the practice- modern art had a very
obvious trajectory - and as such a beginning and an end...
if you call anything someone produces art then you could be correct - but
the history of art - aka western art isnt just anything....
>>However, in the
> > contemporary industrialized world at least, various arts seem to
> > go through periods of intense innovation followed by periods of
> > relaxation and blandness. In the case of painting, for instance,
> > between the 1890s and the 1930s there was an explosion of
> > new styles, techniques, media, and, of course, theories, which
> > were followed by a conservative, classicizing period which
> > focused itself on abstract expressionism in the West and
> > socialist realism in the East Bloc.
Are you saying that abstract expressionism was concervative - with the "Make
it new" war cry? The introduction of the all over picture plane etc. - i
dont think so
>> _That_ period ended in
> > the mid-60s with what was later labeled postmodernism.
I'm not aware of this labeling - recently pop-art has tried to be
reppackaged as such - but not to any great extent - conceptual art was the
very act of conceptualizing the art process - i.e. focus on truth - the
modernist dictum - truth is beauty...
> > But postmodernism turned out to be a revisiting of the earlier
> > concerns of modernism, for example surrealism, op art, pop
> > art, conceptual art, outsider art, and, of course, "anti-art",
> > but now turned against Abstract Expressionism instead of
> > Impressionism and Naturalism. It's really a revival of what
> > Modernism was at its beginning.
True post modern art begins after the failure or collapse of conceptualism -
at its extreme the empty gallery... etc. It has a sense of irony - but not
the same as pop whose irony is sentimental. Po-Mo art is ironic about art
itself and its production - "The type of modern art which goes back to
Picasso is over..." That art which has a focus on the truth... Po-Mo art*
ists has the more ironic Bruce Nauman as their historical predecessor - and
of course Duchamp in drag. And its art only because thats the label its
given - and perhaps its context. But for 40 years nothing new has been
said...
> >
> >
> >>>This stems from a lost sense for the
> >>>fundamentals such as line, value, texture, color and for the basic
> >>>principles of forrm/organization, i.e., contrast, rhythm, harmony,
> >>>etc., which culminate in a sense of unity.
> >
> >
> > Unity is death. What has happened with the arts,
> > repeatedly, is what happens with a lot of social processes:
> > the people at the top of the heap at any given moment try
> > to kill movement and development so they can maintain
> > their position, while those below (some of them) try to
> > subvert them. When the former are ascendant, they
> > "unify" everything they can, that is, subordinate everything
> > to their values. If they ever succeeded, you'd have the
> > perfection of George Orwell's nightmare at the end of
> > _1984_ -- a boot coming down on the human face,
> > forever. But so far they have never succeeded.
> >
> You've said a lot here, some of which I can agree with, and some not.
> This isn't comprehensive, but here are a couple of points of contention:
>
> "The Death of (fill in blank)" has become sort of a cliche since
> Nietzsche wrote "God is Dead." What did he mean? Simply that religion
> had lost its power over society.
I dont think so - he was afterall a philosopher :-) The consequences for God
of the theory of eternal return of the same is that he is redundant - as far
as society went - and still does - theire's alot of god related activity -
burrying the corpse as Nietzsche would have said...
> I don't know who first wrote "Death of
> Art" but those who have used the concept (Kuspit, Danto and many other)
> are clearly referencing Nietzsche's "death of..." concept - it would
> follow than that "art" means something in a broad social context rather
> than the more specific context of what individual artist's are motivated
> to do with a blank canvas or stone.
There was a general Death of - i.e. death of the author - which i dont think
relates to Nietzsche directly, but maybe via The End of Philosophy .. it
does - but its more the idea of the death of progress - the eternal return
again?
>
> Another "bone of contention" concerns periodization. Most critics,
> philosophers and others who write about "art" include Abstract
> Expressionism with "modernism" generally. The rupture (or the day art
> died, if you prefer) was with Pop Art, which really re-channeled the
> unmentioned "point" of art in society from any known historical
> discourse on art,beauty,aesthetics to mass media culture.
No - it only said that - Pop art was modern in the sense it was MORE
truthfull- in subject and form! than Post Painterly Abstraction - in fact
flatter! No Joke - i forget who said it but a cartoon is flatter than a
pollock - 'you can fly a spaceship through a pollock'
>Pop Art is a
> sort of proto-postmodernism,
thats only retrospective and mistaken - pop art was NEW - like all Modern
art - new NOW **NEW** po-mo is never new.
> if you will, as postmodernism also turns
> its eye to the historical manifestations of art in culture, where
> historical appropriations (such as the "reinvention" of surrealism) by
> postmodern artists is not a "continuation" but rather a self-reference
> (the "self" being "art"). So historical surrealism, which didn't arise
> out of a vacuum, addressed largely political issues such as the rise of
> facism, is not duplicated at all by postmodern surrealism. Postmodern
> surrealism addresses historical surrealism, and does not address the
> social forces that brought historical surrealism into play.
The content of po-mo is arbitrary... as is its form ...
>
> A really excellent study of late modernism is Peter Bürger's "Theory of
> the Avant Garde." (If you care for dense reading.) He argues that all
> the myriad modernists "movements" had objectives whose possibilities
> were quickly exhausted, creating the space for yet another movement with
> an new wrinkle - for example analytic cubism only lasted a a couple of
> years before Picasso and Braque and their followers didn't have anything
> else to say about it, and moved on to synthetic cubism. In this
> atmosphere of invention and innovation, there wasn't any sort of grand
> narrative at play - it was fractured, disjunct, discontinuous by design.
> It culminated in Abstract Expressionism, and "art" returned to culture
> with the advent of Pop Art.
right to a point - but such experimentalism was always reductive and truth
seeking - just like science (was) and that was the grand narrative - the one
called the enlightenment - modern art progressed 'reasonably' - you show
this above - as possibilities are exhausted new ones are invented.. it
wasn't allowed to go back - but over the last 40 years nothing new has been
invented.. po-mo looks like pop- surrealism - conceptualism - even minimal
painting - but is none of these - as each of these was in its time new. And
this newness is what made it modern art. Analytic Cubism was art because it
built on the past and added something NEW. Once its explored nothing new
can be done in it so its no longer modern art. (We can drop the word
'modern' as we can identify ART as beginning in the renaissance here
craftsmen - icon painters masons et al became Artists - craftsmen produce
craft - Artists produce - ART. To call folk art art is to tack onto
something which isnt art art - you can equally call a peasant knitting - a
textile engineer! It seeks to praise the craft by raising it to the status
of being an art. Singing as acoustic Science etc etc. This text as
poetry...)
>
> There's a lot of contention over the definition of postmodernism itself,
> so without some agreement, debate can go anywhere, and won't really
> serve anyone's interest. But that's the effect of mass media culture
> anyway - the very terms we use become objects in themselves - catchistic
> declarations - when no consensus exists about what they mean.
The one simple thing post-modern philosophy has taught us is you dont have
to abandon meaning/truth/ethics just because you cant fix one which is
definite for all time- a similar mistake is made regarding relativity - oh
everything is now relative - everything means anything - this is a mistake
isnt it. We have to work it out - continually- which is nothing to do with
mass culture as truth.
Erik A. Mattila
rich. But I was posting in raf - I didn't notice this was going to
alt.pomo. I think I would have been more careful;-).
But don't you think Pop Art crawled out of Greenberg's ass to some degree?
Mani Deli
>But don't you think Pop Art crawled out of Greenberg's ass to some degree?
I definitely gave him a massive fart attack.
James Whitehead
[...]
Fine Art - is that painting and sculpture - ?
>
> But don't you think Pop Art crawled out of Greenberg's ass to some degree?
Each successive ism in modernity was in part a reaction to what went before-
but pop art had at least two or more themes - in the UK it was sponsored by
Hamilton at the ICA who actually wrote a manifesto - "popular, transient,
expendable, low-cost, mass-produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky,
glamorous, and Big Business" - yet he made paintings and sold hem via the
gallery system - Blake was more about nostalgia for some past -
interestingly both did Beatles LP cover art... Hamilton's the much more
conceptual?? the Americans took a different slant - but again relied on
theory.... i think greenberg regarded the whole thing as a horrible
mistake - but pop put theory back into a central position - and so perhaps
paved the way for conceptual art, there is a video where Clem bemoans the
new art and longs for an art like the paintings of Fantin Latour....
Anarcissie
I agree with Man Ray, who said that all art was to some
extent surrealistic. Official Surrealism, with a capital _S_
under Fuehrer André Breton, was indeed put into a narrow
political channel, but I don't see why that should concern
us very much. It was the '30s; everyone was hunkering
down for the next big war.
If you look at the non-conventional art before the '30s,
you see many pop elements in the mix in many different
areas. In the 1960s, actually the late 1950s, a number
of "fine art" artists ( == paint on canvas) started fooling
around with representations of pop elements. Nervously,
because Ab-Ex was the Word of God. (I read that
Rothko, in the 1940s, told someone that he and his
colleagues were creating the art "of the next thousand
years." A strange and unpleasant echo of the political
discourse of the times, and perhaps all too revealing
of the mentality into which Modernism had degenerated.)
As I see it, artists in the 1960s simply recovered what
had been going on thirty or forty years before and
proceeded.
> A really excellent study of late modernism is Peter Bürger's "Theory of
> the Avant Garde." (If you care for dense reading.) He argues that all
> the myriad modernists "movements" had objectives whose possibilities
> were quickly exhausted, creating the space for yet another movement with
> an new wrinkle - for example analytic cubism only lasted a a couple of
> years before Picasso and Braque and their followers didn't have anything
> else to say about it, and moved on to synthetic cubism. In this
> atmosphere of invention and innovation, there wasn't any sort of grand
> narrative at play - it was fractured, disjunct, discontinuous by design.
> It culminated in Abstract Expressionism, and "art" returned to culture
> with the advent of Pop Art.
The dominant motivation for the creation of movements,
it seems to me, was marketing. The customer base for
innovative art, then as now, was the haute bourgeoisie,
who were used to a system of value determination based
on authority, but the authority couldn't be traditional. The
politics of the time was replete with small revolutionary
would-be elites and vanguard classes; why not imitate
the form in the arts?
I suppose by the middle of the 20th century, the h.b.
realized they needn't submit to critics and curators any
more. They had the money, and he who pays the piper
calls the tune. There's a lot of play-acting, though.
> There's a lot of contention over the definition of postmodernism itself,
> so without some agreement, debate can go anywhere, and won't really
> serve anyone's interest. But that's the effect of mass media culture
> anyway - the very terms we use become objects in themselves - catchistic
> declarations - when no consensus exists about what they mean.
If they're objects they, too, can presumably be bought
and sold. And that is probably what drives so many people
crazy about "postmodernism".
James Whitehead
"Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168449026.8...@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
" It was the '30s; everyone was hunkering
down for the next big war."
I cant see how this relates in anyway to art practice - it common to regard
the two world wars as one and the same - and the results of events that had
been anticipated in art well before...
"If you look at the non-conventional art before the '30s,
you see many pop elements in the mix in many different
areas. "
Where? Looking at the Bauhaus and De Stijil (amongst others) its possible
to trace ideas through the 1920s into the late 60s which relate to
non-representational abstract art..
"In the 1960s, actually the late 1950s, a number
of "fine art" artists ( == paint on canvas) started fooling
around with representations of pop elements."
Paolozzi 1947 collage I was a rich man's plaything
Peter Blake On the Balcony, 1955 - 1957
Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
Richard Hamilton, 1956.
Jasper Johns White Flag (1955)
"Nervously,
because Ab-Ex was the Word of God. "
Robert Rauschenberg Erased de Kooning Drawing, 1953
" (I read that
Rothko, in the 1940s, told someone that he and his
colleagues were creating the art "of the next thousand
years." A strange and unpleasant echo of the political
discourse of the times, and perhaps all too revealing
of the mentality into which Modernism had degenerated.)"
During the mid 40s Rothko's work still had quite obvious surrealist
overtones...
"As I see it, artists in the 1960s simply recovered what
had been going on thirty or forty years before and
proceeded."
Which artists? and what - by the mid 60s we were into minimal / conceptual
art both traditional painting and sculpture was being abandoned-
"The dominant motivation for the creation of movements,
it seems to me, was marketing. "
Movements are created in two ways - first is deliberate - pre-rahelites,
pop, futurists - non of these fit your bill-
the second is by an external label - impressionists / minimalists are good
examples as both terms were derogatory - in this case the 'movement' being a
derogatory remark is hardly a marketing ploy - the nearest thing would be
the YBAs - so you might argue with the advent of post-modernist art that
marketing was the motivation - but not before-
"The customer base for
innovative art, then as now, was the haute bourgeoisie,"
Well in the main late 19th /early 20th c the market was the americans who
could be flogged what the europeans would not buy...
"who were used to a system of value determination based
on authority, but the authority couldn't be traditional. The
politics of the time was replete with small revolutionary
would-be elites and vanguard classes; why not imitate
the form in the arts?"
I think you have things the wrong way round...
"I suppose by the middle of the 20th century, the h.b.
realized they needn't submit to critics and curators any
more. They had the money, and he who pays the piper
calls the tune. There's a lot of play-acting, though."
The 1950s was the rise of the gallery system - above and beyond the Salon -
it was the gallery owners who manipulated the market.. today whilst this is
still true its also the government institutions - the Tate curators get
first pickings as to get a work in the Tate ups ones market price... but the
galleries still hike prices by roundabout selling.
> There's a lot of contention over the definition of postmodernism itself,
> so without some agreement, debate can go anywhere, and won't really
> serve anyone's interest. But that's the effect of mass media culture
> anyway - the very terms we use become objects in themselves - catchistic
> declarations - when no consensus exists about what they mean.
"If they're objects they, too, can presumably be bought
and sold. And that is probably what drives so many people
crazy about "postmodernism"."
Post Modernity in art is very simple to define as it breaks with the ideas
of invention novelty and truth & beauty. Its marked by a return to painting
and sculpture - even representational - as well as the inclusion of anything
else - video - happenings etc etc. Post Modernity is Post-Art-
Matthew Collins - "The type of Modern Art that goes back to impressionism is
over.... it (new modern or post-modern art) doesnt express reverence for the
art of the past, which older art used to do... old Modern art want(ed) to
develop it (art) and advance it... new Modern art is still art... because it
isnt anything else"
Post-Modernism doesnt advance - doesnt have progress - is retro - witty -
ironic - personal - sexy - popular - etc etc...
Erik A. Mattila
> "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168449026.8...@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> " It was the '30s; everyone was hunkering
> down for the next big war."
>
> I cant see how this relates in anyway to art practice - it common to regard
> the two world wars as one and the same - and the results of events that had
> been anticipated in art well before...
>
>
> "If you look at the non-conventional art before the '30s,
> you see many pop elements in the mix in many different
> areas. "
>
> Where? Looking at the Bauhaus and De Stijil (amongst others) its possible
> to trace ideas through the 1920s into the late 60s which relate to
> non-representational abstract art..
Only if you're keen on the "like begets like" inference. I was warned
against this in my first History of Art seminar. One has to be careful.
I wrote a paper on an early Xtian catacomb painting in Rome, with a
Jungian interpretation. With Jung you can do anything. So the bowl of
pomegranites became Jerusalem, and the fish became Osiris' penis. I got
a "B" on the paper, but with a scathing comment from the Prof. "I've
always thought that Jungian psychology was an impediment to clear
thinking. You've convinced me that I am correct." I was outraged, and
made an appointment to protest. But when I finally got the interview, I
said "Gee, Bob, considering your comments, the "B" grade was certainly
generous." "You're damned right it's generous" but we went on with a
dialog about it, and he told me that if I wanted to defend Jung, he
would read my paper fairly. I accepted, but as I planned my attack it
dawned on me that all I had done with the original paper was pointed out
that this looked like that and it all seemed pointless in terms of what
Art history should be doing.
Yet George Kubler argued in his theoretical work, The Shape of Time,
that there were "grand sequences" in art that migrated across periods
and cultures. The implication was that we should see a cohesive
tradition in landscape painting, for example, between Roman murals and
Diebenkorn's Ocean Park series. But that can only be seen within the
like begets like inference.
James, maybe you know something that I've been trying to retrieve
unsuccessfully from my memory for years: who wrote "The theory of
modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as a theory of
production." Kuspit? It really nags at me.
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> > "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168449026.8...@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > " It was the '30s; everyone was hunkering
> > down for the next big war."
> >
> > I cant see how this relates in anyway to art practice - it common to
regard
> > the two world wars as one and the same - and the results of events that
had
> > been anticipated in art well before...
> >
> >
> > "If you look at the non-conventional art before the '30s,
> > you see many pop elements in the mix in many different
> > areas. "
> >
> > Where? Looking at the Bauhaus and De Stijil (amongst others) its
possible
> > to trace ideas through the 1920s into the late 60s which relate to
> > non-representational abstract art..
>
> Only if you're keen on the "like begets like" inference.
No - the influences are clear - through impressionism - which traces
backwards to classical art - through to Cezanne - cubism surrealism &
abstractionism, each successive generation and movement seeing itself as
being part of and adding to the tradition as outlined in the Collins quote i
gave- a practice which is not found in post-modern art.
> I was warned
> against this in my first History of Art seminar. One has to be careful.
> I wrote a paper on an early Xtian catacomb painting in Rome, with a
> Jungian interpretation. With Jung you can do anything. So the bowl of
> pomegranites became Jerusalem, and the fish became Osiris' penis. I got
> a "B" on the paper, but with a scathing comment from the Prof. "I've
> always thought that Jungian psychology was an impediment to clear
> thinking. You've convinced me that I am correct." I was outraged, and
> made an appointment to protest. But when I finally got the interview, I
> said "Gee, Bob, considering your comments, the "B" grade was certainly
> generous." "You're damned right it's generous" but we went on with a
> dialog about it, and he told me that if I wanted to defend Jung, he
> would read my paper fairly. I accepted, but as I planned my attack it
> dawned on me that all I had done with the original paper was pointed out
> that this looked like that and it all seemed pointless in terms of what
> Art history should be doing.
But i'm saying that in modern art (historically) each artist studied the
past / previous art and was influenced by it. The idea than Jung had an
influence on early christian art is stupid - but to say Jung had an
influence on Rothko might not be - "Rothko's use of mythology as a
commentary on current history was by no means novel. Rothko, Gottlieb and
Newman read and discussed the works of Freud and Jung, in particular their
respective theories concerning dreams and the archetypes of the collective
unconscious" What it appears you were doing in your paper was art theory...
>
> Yet George Kubler argued in his theoretical work, The Shape of Time,
> that there were "grand sequences" in art that migrated across periods
> and cultures. The implication was that we should see a cohesive
> tradition in landscape painting, for example, between Roman murals and
> Diebenkorn's Ocean Park series. But that can only be seen within the
> like begets like inference.
again maybe thats art theory - all i'm saying is stuff like - Matisse was
influenced by Cezanne - why - because he said so - and it can be seen in his
work "in 1899 Matisse, who could ill afford even the modest price ... bought
a painting... Three Bathers, was to remain in his possession until 1936,
when he presented it to the City of Paris, with the remark in an
accompanying letter that for thirty-seven years it had 'sustained me
spiritually in the critical moments of my career as an artist...'"
That Cezanne seeing the world terms of 'the cylinder, the sphere, the cone'
kind of hints at an influence on cubism? Cezanne was exhibited in Paris in
1904 1905 1906 and a memorial exhibition in 1907(*)... that Picasso
influenced directly Leger .. Picabia Duchamp - Mondrain and so on - the
meetings - writings and work carefully examined to show this influence- till
we have someone like Ad Reinhardt calling his paintings Ultimate and saying
that the history of painting leads to his door.
> James, maybe you know something that I've been trying to retrieve
> unsuccessfully from my memory for years: who wrote "The theory of
> modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as a theory of
> production." Kuspit? It really nags at me.
Sorry cant help - but it appears much more inline with post-modernity esp
Saatchi the super collector... I read in ARTforum that the rot was noticed
when the at one show in the 80s curators/critics travelled club class whilst
the artists were in tourist class....
Anarcissie
James Whitehead wrote:
> Post Modernity in art is very simple to define as it breaks with the ideas
> of invention novelty and truth & beauty. Its marked by a return to painting
> and sculpture - even representational - as well as the inclusion of anything
> else - video - happenings etc etc. Post Modernity is Post-Art-
>
> Matthew Collins - "The type of Modern Art that goes back to impressionism is
> over.... it (new modern or post-modern art) doesnt express reverence for the
> art of the past, which older art used to do... old Modern art want(ed) to
> develop it (art) and advance it... new Modern art is still art... because it
> isnt anything else"
>
> Post-Modernism doesnt advance - doesnt have progress - is retro - witty -
> ironic - personal - sexy - popular - etc etc...
It would be simplest to say that it breaks with the notion
of _progress_. That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
There is still plenty of innovation but now it is simply
a matter of the artists doing something they like, or
think will sell, and the collectors buying enough of it
to keep the artists going. We have given up the
priests and gone back to the shamans.
Erik A. Mattila
But you really can't argue successfully without concrete evidence. If
Matisse wrote somewhere, or if Matisse told someone, that Cezanne
influenced his work, so be it. But if you decide the influence is
obvious, based on circumstantial evidence, or appearance, it won't fly -
and it's not really a theory issue. It's part of the Art History
discipline - which really puts a lot of pressure on scholars to refrain
from speculation.
Personally, I didn't like this too much when I was hot on another paper
that argued that Delacroix' salon piece, Dante and Virgil in Hell, was a
political piece. I thought it was pretty solid and I had a good case.
But Delacroix left us several volumes of letters and papers, and you
can't find a political bone in his body from those. But two years prior
to his Salon painting he apprenticed with Gericault, on Gericault's own
Salon piece, The Raft of the Medusa, which was overtly political,
confirmed by Gericault, and depicting a historical event that brought
great shame and dishonor on the Bourbons. Plus, the Bourbons were great
enemies of the Delacroix family, even spreading the rumor that Delacroix
himself was a bastard. The kicker, in my mind, was that the scene from
Inferno that was depicted was that of Dante and Virgil encountering
Dante's political enemies suffering for eternity in hell - the guys who
drove Dante out of Florence and into exile.
I'm convinced I am correct about this, but it just isn't art history.
>
>
>>James, maybe you know something that I've been trying to retrieve
>>unsuccessfully from my memory for years: who wrote "The theory of
>>modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as a theory of
>>production." Kuspit? It really nags at me.
>
>
>
> Sorry cant help - but it appears much more inline with post-modernity esp
> Saatchi the super collector... I read in ARTforum that the rot was noticed
> when the at one show in the 80s curators/critics travelled club class whilst
> the artists were in tourist class....
Too bad. I will be unpacking my library soon - it's been in boxes for
over ten years now. I'll be able to look it up.
>
>
James Whitehead
[..]
> >
> > again maybe thats art theory - all i'm saying is stuff like - Matisse
was
> > influenced by Cezanne - why - because he said so - and it can be seen in
his
> > work "in 1899 Matisse, who could ill afford even the modest price ...
bought
> > a painting... Three Bathers, was to remain in his possession until 1936,
> > when he presented it to the City of Paris, with the remark in an
> > accompanying letter that for thirty-seven years it had 'sustained me
> > spiritually in the critical moments of my career as an artist...'"
> > That Cezanne seeing the world terms of 'the cylinder, the sphere, the
cone'
> > kind of hints at an influence on cubism? Cezanne was exhibited in Paris
in
> > 1904 1905 1906 and a memorial exhibition in 1907(*)... that Picasso
> > influenced directly Leger .. Picabia Duchamp - Mondrain and so on -
the
> > meetings - writings and work carefully examined to show this influence-
till
> > we have someone like Ad Reinhardt calling his paintings Ultimate and
saying
> > that the history of painting leads to his door.
>
> But you really can't argue successfully without concrete evidence.
I quite agree - and i've offered evidence for my argument -as this is a
group 'conversation' i've not posted a 20,000 word thesis!
> If
> Matisse wrote somewhere, or if Matisse told someone, that Cezanne
> influenced his work, so be it.
Well no - you need to look at the paintings - often a failing in Art
Historians - presently lots of po-moers gush about Bruce Nauman - they might
be just following the crowd... telling lies... I think asking questions and
looking for evidence is needed.
>But if you decide the influence is
> obvious, based on circumstantial evidence, or appearance, it won't fly -
> and it's not really a theory issue. It's part of the Art History
> discipline - which really puts a lot of pressure on scholars to refrain
> from speculation.
Quite agree - and space prevents me here from going into detail - but if you
look at the work of most 20th C artists early on in their career they seem
to be "impressionist" -(in some cases/most early European breaking from a
classical training) (something not found in artists prior to 1840!) -
further they seem to move from this through pointillism - and then depending
just on where in the 20th maybe cubism and surrealism / expressionism. Space
prohibits detail - but Van Gough is a good model - Klee - Mondrian -
Rothko - then you have things like Denis ' Hommage a Cezanne etc.- i think
the evolutionary development of modern art dos have wings - and its argued
in most texts on the subject - even Matthew Collins points this out whose
texts show no evolutionary structure. I think it used to be the case in
mathematics to reach euclidean geometry and simple arithmetic first...
modern art was very much like modern science -music - literature etc. with
its ideas of breakthroughs and inventions and answers to problems set within
the discipline... that is typical of the modern/enlightenments
metanarrative. Again i can offer evidence for this - in science the truth is
it seems a explanation which is simple and broad - as to what is he case.
>
> Personally, I didn't like this too much when I was hot on another paper
> that argued that Delacroix' salon piece, Dante and Virgil in Hell, was a
> political piece. I thought it was pretty solid and I had a good case.
> But Delacroix left us several volumes of letters and papers, and you
> can't find a political bone in his body from those. But two years prior
> to his Salon painting he apprenticed with Gericault, on Gericault's own
> Salon piece, The Raft of the Medusa, which was overtly political,
> confirmed by Gericault, and depicting a historical event that brought
> great shame and dishonor on the Bourbons. Plus, the Bourbons were great
> enemies of the Delacroix family, even spreading the rumor that Delacroix
> himself was a bastard. The kicker, in my mind, was that the scene from
> Inferno that was depicted was that of Dante and Virgil encountering
> Dante's political enemies suffering for eternity in hell - the guys who
> drove Dante out of Florence and into exile.
>
> I'm convinced I am correct about this, but it just isn't art history.
Its a theory - which has a certain amount of evidence - but maybe has
insufficient evidence - but this could come to light... it would be wrong
to say its fact - but perhaps wrong also not to express it as a
possibility - given the provisos you have. You say its not art history -
but it seems more like this than your Jungian episode. It might be though
that the overtly political feel to the piece was the influence of the style
of the Raft - even unconscious - which is very dangerous waters..but artist
do sometimes copy style without thinking about the content...
[..]
James Whitehead
> > ...
>
> James Whitehead wrote:
> > Post Modernity in art is very simple to define as it breaks with the
ideas
> > of invention novelty and truth & beauty. Its marked by a return to
painting
> > and sculpture - even representational - as well as the inclusion of
anything
> > else - video - happenings etc etc. Post Modernity is Post-Art-
> >
> > Matthew Collins - "The type of Modern Art that goes back to
impressionism is
> > over.... it (new modern or post-modern art) doesnt express reverence for
the
> > art of the past, which older art used to do... old Modern art want(ed)
to
> > develop it (art) and advance it... new Modern art is still art...
because it
> > isnt anything else"
> >
> > Post-Modernism doesnt advance - doesnt have progress - is retro -
witty -
> > ironic - personal - sexy - popular - etc etc...
>
> It would be simplest to say that it breaks with the notion
> of _progress_.
Yes - but the problem is that the idea of being progressive re materials
differentiated the Artist from the Craftsman. Without invention you are left
with craft.
Unfortunately or not most po-mo artists show little or no craftsmanship...
>That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
> and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
> that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
> century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
> hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
> had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
> That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
Truth-is-beauty (is over)
>
> There is still plenty of innovation but now it is simply
> a matter of the artists doing something they like, or
> think will sell, and the collectors buying enough of it
> to keep the artists going. We have given up the
> priests and gone back to the shamans.
This amounts to saying they can do anything - the only measure being the
ability to sell it.
(reminds me of the British car industry circa 1975)
Anarcissie
Actually, when I tour the galleries, I see quite a bit
of very high-powered craftsmanship. And plenty of
innovation on the technical level. Often cold and
soulless perhaps, but that's a different problem.
> >That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
> > and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
> > that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
> > century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
> > hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
> > had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
> > That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
>
> Truth-is-beauty (is over)
I don't know if "truth is beauty" makes any
sense. Maybe it did when people believed in
progress.
> > There is still plenty of innovation but now it is simply
> > a matter of the artists doing something they like, or
> > think will sell, and the collectors buying enough of it
> > to keep the artists going. We have given up the
> > priests and gone back to the shamans.
>
> This amounts to saying they can do anything - the only measure being the
> ability to sell it.
> (reminds me of the British car industry circa 1975)
Economically speaking, that is so. In what way
does that remind you of the British car industry?
James Whitehead
>
>> >
[...]
> > Yes - but the problem is that the idea of being progressive re materials
> > differentiated the Artist from the Craftsman. Without invention you are
left
> > with craft.
> > Unfortunately or not most po-mo artists show little or no
craftsmanship...
>
> Actually, when I tour the galleries, I see quite a bit
> of very high-powered craftsmanship. And plenty of
> innovation on the technical level. Often cold and
> soulless perhaps, but that's a different problem.
>
I suspect the craftsmanship is - when high powered - outsourced-
> > >That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
> > > and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
> > > that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
> > > century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
> > > hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
> > > had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
> > > That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
> >
> > Truth-is-beauty (is over)
>
> I don't know if "truth is beauty" makes any
> sense. Maybe it did when people believed in
> progress.
yes - that was the idea...
>
> > > There is still plenty of innovation but now it is simply
> > > a matter of the artists doing something they like, or
> > > think will sell, and the collectors buying enough of it
> > > to keep the artists going. We have given up the
> > > priests and gone back to the shamans.
> >
> > This amounts to saying they can do anything - the only measure being the
> > ability to sell it.
> > (reminds me of the British car industry circa 1975)
>
> Economically speaking, that is so. In what way
> does that remind you of the British car industry?
>
The Austin Allegro for instance sported a square steering wheel -
(product is important and once the idea of product is abandoned you can only
sell the rubbish for so long) this i know is different in art as its market
based- however product with no intrinsic value is more volatile than one
which has some value. There are already plans to replace the original Hirst
Shark as its falling apart... Mark Quins bloody head was accidentally
defrosted by Saatchi's girl friend - so no longer exists... but i think
more importantly the premise of much of post modern art is the cult of the
artist as personality - and as these grow older and get kids and country
houses they seem dull - like the rest of us.
i still enjoy galleries - the best thing about the Tate is its food (and the
boat trip between tate brit and tate mod) and the ICA has a really nice bar,
the white cube is in hoxton square where again there are some really cheesy
poser bars and Cru - good food.
The Duke of York's HQ building offers an ideal environment to view
contemporary art, with very large well-proportioned rooms and high ceilings.
The Gallery will occupy the entire 50,000 sq ft building giving the gallery
scope for a book shop, educational facilities and a café/bar. It is ideally
located in a central London location on Kings Road, Chelsea.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/virtual-tour-windows.htm
Anarcissie
James Whitehead wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168607160.2...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >
> [...]
> > > Yes - but the problem is that the idea of being progressive re materials
> > > differentiated the Artist from the Craftsman. Without invention you are
> left
> > > with craft.
> > > Unfortunately or not most po-mo artists show little or no
> craftsmanship...
> >
> > Actually, when I tour the galleries, I see quite a bit
> > of very high-powered craftsmanship. And plenty of
> > innovation on the technical level. Often cold and
> > soulless perhaps, but that's a different problem.
> >
>
> I suspect the craftsmanship is - when high powered - outsourced-
Does that matter? The point is that lots of very
high-powered craftsmanship is available in the
galleries, so it is not the case that "po-mo artists
_show_ little or no craftsmanship..." (emphasis
mine). Artists have been using specialist craftsmen
for centuries, probably millennia.
> > > >That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
> > > > and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
> > > > that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
> > > > century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
> > > > hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
> > > > had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
> > > > That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
> > >
> > > Truth-is-beauty (is over)
> >
> > I don't know if "truth is beauty" makes any
> > sense. Maybe it did when people believed in
> > progress.
>
> yes - that was the idea...
Right. But truth and beauty (and, probably, truth-and-
beauty) are still with us.
I don't feel like being arch this afternoon. Maybe
someone else will be up the raquet.
James Whitehead
James Whitehead wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168607160.2...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >
> [...]
> > > Yes - but the problem is that the idea of being progressive re
materials
> > > differentiated the Artist from the Craftsman. Without invention you
are
> left
> > > with craft.
> > > Unfortunately or not most po-mo artists show little or no
> craftsmanship...
> >
> > Actually, when I tour the galleries, I see quite a bit
> > of very high-powered craftsmanship. And plenty of
> > innovation on the technical level. Often cold and
> > soulless perhaps, but that's a different problem.
> >
>
> I suspect the craftsmanship is - when high powered - outsourced-
Does that matter? The point is that lots of very
high-powered craftsmanship is available in the
galleries, so it is not the case that "po-mo artists
_show_ little or no craftsmanship..." (emphasis
mine). Artists have been using specialist craftsmen
for centuries, probably millennia.
Does it matter - well yes and no. The problem is establishing some criteria
when looking at art - if you're not bothered then that's OK. The defence of
outsourcing in po-mo has been the "artist did it in the past" - but i don't
think that's quite true. Maybe we shouldn't be bothered with that idea
(truth) anyway. That artists in the past used technicians is true - but as
far as i know they did the hack work - leaving the technical stuff to the
maestro (another Austin car of the 70s). That's not the same as Poons Hirst
et al. Further if the audience get their thrill not from the idea of a dead
shark - pickled cow - but from the glee of seeing sliced meat - well sure
does it matter. But as i've said in po-mo art something has changed - as
i've quoted Collins who is not hostile to po-mo - even he sees the
significant difference.
Art these days is immensely popular - more visit galleries in the UK than go
to soccer matches, perhaps its because the very lack of ideology in po-mo
makes it attractive?
> > > >That doesn't necessarily mean that truth
> > > > and beauty and all that have been dispensed with, only
> > > > that we can't get progressively closer to them, 19th-
> > > > century style. Late Modernism was _progressive_,
> > > > hence Rothko's unfortunate remark. The innovation
> > > > had to be towards the ideal, which seemed to be Ab-Ex.
> > > > That is what's over, not truth-and-beauty.
> > >
> > > Truth-is-beauty (is over)
> >
> > I don't know if "truth is beauty" makes any
> > sense. Maybe it did when people believed in
> > progress.
>
> yes - that was the idea...
Right. But truth and beauty (and, probably, truth-and-
beauty) are still with us.
Yes - but now they are only optional..
i doubt it...
Anarcissie
The technical approach to art criticism seems to be
to regard artistic performance as a kind of athletic
event. With the Impressionists and the Modernists,
the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
that." Now we have stuff that a four-year-old can't
do, but the complaint has become so habitual it
continues unabated.
> Art these days is immensely popular - more visit galleries in the UK than go
> to soccer matches, perhaps its because the very lack of ideology in po-mo
> makes it attractive?
The public knows what they like. Art critics don't
seem to get it, so I suppose they're becoming
irrelevant.
Mani Deli
wrote:
> The point is that lots of very
>high-powered craftsmanship is available in the
>galleries, so it is not the case that "po-mo artists
>_show_ little or no craftsmanship..." (emphasis
>mine). Artists have been using specialist craftsmen
>for centuries, probably millennia.
>
Do I read you right? Are you saying that where craftsmanship in a
painting is required an artists hires others to do it?
Mani Deli
wrote:
> With the Impressionists and the Modernists,
>the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
>that."
Not with the Impressionists.
Mani Deli
>the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
>that."
Not with the Impressionists.
> Now we have stuff that a four-year-old can't
>do, but the complaint has become so habitual it
>continues unabated.
>
Now he have stuff that any ten year old can do. The complaint is
valid.
If it looks like it was done by a ten year old it's the artist's
problem, not the viewer's.
Anarcissie
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2007 05:00:51 -0800, "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > With the Impressionists and the Modernists,
> >the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
> >that."
>
> Not with the Impressionists.
That's what they said when the Impressionists first
appeared -- that they were merely smearing paint
around, etc. Go read some 19th century art criticism,
it'll sound very familiar.
Anarcissie
Let me put it this way: If what you care about are
the objects, the works of art themselves, and you
happen to want those with lots of "finish", then it
doesn't matter whether the artists executed them
themselves, or had someone else do it. What
matters is what's on the wall, or wherever it is.
On the other hand, if what you're interested in
is the acts, the performances, of the artists as
they go about creating their art, then maybe only
the _personal_ application of the required glitz
will appeal to you. You may also want to restrict
the artists' tools, and so on. It seems to me,
then, that it is not the art you're interested in, but
the act the artist puts on. I was talking about the
objects, not the I-am-an-artist performances.
Mani Deli
wrote:
So tell us where it says anything about a four year old.
James Whitehead
However the post-modern art is located in the signature of the artist - not
the object.
James Whitehead
[...]
The technical approach to art criticism seems to be
to regard artistic performance as a kind of athletic
event. With the Impressionists and the Modernists,
the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
that."
The 4 yr old might have been able to mimic certain modern art - the more
expressionistic - but that's hardly surprising - but not the more abstract
or theoretical. Within expressionism is the idea on unlearning the
stylistic tricks which get in the way of expression - so child art is a
valid comparison- though the child is working towards control of the media -
the artist is attempting to relinquish it. The Childs ideal is probably to
create a realistic picture - not surprising then that realism is simplistic
and childish theory.
Now we have stuff that a four-year-old can't
do, but the complaint has become so habitual it
continues unabated.
If the execution is by say a ceramics factory in china of a model of Michel
Jackson and his monkey - and the idea of its production one which is fairly
empty- then that's exactly the work of a 4 yr old. Or take the work like
Chapman's Nazi dioramas are like those built by 11 year old boys - in both
form and idea....
Once theory is removed we have a very "childish" art form - which perhaps
accounts for its popularism, there is no awkward theory to trip one up. For
instance Olafur Eliasson 's The Weather Project - or the current set of
slides in the turbine hall.
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/carstenholler/webcam.shtm
a treat for all 4 year olds....
> Art these days is immensely popular - more visit galleries in the UK than
go
> to soccer matches, perhaps its because the very lack of ideology in po-mo
> makes it attractive?
The public knows what they like.
sure - Big Macs and playground slides -
Art critics don't
seem to get it, so I suppose they're becoming
irrelevant.
The curators get it - keep it child friendly
Anarcissie
James Whitehead wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168693249....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
> The technical approach to art criticism seems to be
> to regard artistic performance as a kind of athletic
> event. With the Impressionists and the Modernists,
> the complaint was that "my four-year-old could do
> that."
>
> The 4 yr old might have been able to mimic certain modern art - the more
> expressionistic - but that's hardly surprising - but not the more abstract
> or theoretical. Within expressionism is the idea on unlearning the
> stylistic tricks which get in the way of expression - so child art is a
> valid comparison- though the child is working towards control of the media -
> the artist is attempting to relinquish it. The Childs ideal is probably to
> create a realistic picture - not surprising then that realism is simplistic
> and childish theory.
With regard to expressionism you also have theories of
positive control; for instance, I have read a long essay
about how Jackson Pollock controlled the process by
which he created his drip paintings. I found much of it
dubious, but on the other hand it is said to be difficult
to imitate Pollock's work. In general Modernist theory
seems like fluff, or possibly a kind of parallel art, rather
than a reasoned analysis of methods and effects, but
my readings in it have been pretty sporadic.
> Now we have stuff that a four-year-old can't
> do, but the complaint has become so habitual it
> continues unabated.
>
> If the execution is by say a ceramics factory in china of a model of Michel
> Jackson and his monkey - and the idea of its production one which is fairly
> empty- then that's exactly the work of a 4 yr old. Or take the work like
> Chapman's Nazi dioramas are like those built by 11 year old boys - in both
> form and idea....
> Once theory is removed we have a very "childish" art form - which perhaps
> accounts for its popularism, there is no awkward theory to trip one up. For
> instance Olafur Eliasson 's The Weather Project - or the current set of
> slides in the turbine hall.
> http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/carstenholler/webcam.shtm
> a treat for all 4 year olds....
Some people will do stuff like that. Jeff Koons is
certainly an example of very deliberately made bad
art. However, all of the work on display in the
galleries and the museums is not by Jeff Koons,
thank God.
> > Art these days is immensely popular - more visit galleries in the UK than
> go
> > to soccer matches, perhaps its because the very lack of ideology in po-mo
> > makes it attractive?
>
> The public knows what they like.
>
> sure - Big Macs and playground slides -
>
> Art critics don't
> seem to get it, so I suppose they're becoming
> irrelevant.
>
> The curators get it - keep it child friendly
Not really, at least not in the places I visit.
James Whitehead
untraind or a 4 yr old a pollock would take some doing - but so would a
turner.
Well my list would include all the Tates - The Saatchi collection - white
cube ICA - all of these have proved to be very popular.
"A slightly retro backdrop lets you pose while you while away the hours over
games of Cluedo, Jenga and Monopoly... Babies and Children Admitted; nappy
changing facilities .... ICA Bar The Mall - from Time Out guide.
Anarcissie
That may be true among some communities of
collectors, but it is not what I observe among artists,
collectors, galleries, museums, curators and so
forth in general.
James Whitehead
"Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > However the post-modern art is located in the signature of the artist -
not
> > the object.
>
> That may be true among some communities of
> collectors, but it is not what I observe among artists,
> collectors, galleries, museums, curators and so
> forth in general.
>
then fakes are impossible
Anarcissie
Fakes are impossible for people who collect art because
of the way it looks -- it looks the way it looks. That is almost
certainly a majority of both persons and of money, since we
have to include every form of art including posters from the
mall, the gift store and the head shop (or whatever they
have now). For rich collectors bidding against one another
for signatures, whether on works of art, antiques, or cans
of tomato soup, of course fakes are possible. Please note
that I said "in general" above.
People also collect autographs, and you can get something
for a cigar-butt certified to have come from the mouth of
Winston Churchill. I was talking about art.
Erik A. Mattila
Oops - perhaps you've never heard of the "Morellian Methond." Giovani
Morrelli, Italian art historian who discovered that artist's leave their
"signatures" in insignificant details (usually derived from formula
drawing) - i.e. ears, fingers etc. He published his theory under a
pseudonym, since he knew there would be serious reprecussions when it
was shown that about half the collected art in Europe - collected by
people who collected by the "way it looks" - would be shown to be forgeries.
Anarcissie
By "the way it looks" I meant not "a determination of who
made the work of art by the way it looks" but "the way it
looks". As in, "This'll look nice over the couch" as opposed
to "If we put this over the couch everyone will know we're hip
to Jeff Koons, even though it's ugly and stupid." There are
people who actually like art out there, quite a few of them.
James Whitehead
The "it looks nice" theory of art doesn't account for modernity - or
post-modernity - maybe second rate interior decoration - though i doubt it.
Anarcissie
I don't know about your rating system for interior decoration.
You might want to tell us about it. Do you grade it by letter?
"Ah, this is B- interior decoration. If they had put a less
clicheed bouquet over the fireplace, I'd have given it a straight
B."
As for the rest, I guess the question is whether we're talking
about art or the curious behavior of a small number of rich
people who compete with one another to possess rare
artifacts. Agreed, that sort of thing swung a lot of weight
two or three generations ago, but I think it's fading out these
days, which is probably one of the things postmodernism
(in the arts) is about.
A lot of what's going on has to do with wealth. A few
generations ago, only the rich and those they gave money
to had the means to make and distribute works of art. Now,
due mostly to computers and advanced telecommunications,
although Krylon spray paint in cans has also helped, almost
anyone can make and distribute movies, music, graphic
art, whatever. The people have no need of the critics.
They don't need to have their interior decoration given a
grade.
James Whitehead
You seem to have given up talking about art - you might choose to call
whatever you hang on the wall art - your welcome to do this. But people
still model their decor on given artistic theory - even though they maybe
unaware - they choose to wear what the critics - via celebrities have
endorsed... and the very idea of not doing this is again a modernist
trait... and again this they are not aware of...
A good deal of late modern and post-modern art is a reaction to just this
state - from those in the know.
Erik A. Mattila
Anarcissie
If you define art as that which duly chartered critics and
institutions say is art, then of course art is what these
critics and institutions say it is. Can't argue against that,
at least not in this universe. I think the world has gone
another way, however.
James Whitehead
Interesting - i assume you mean your world - check out art magazines art
books and art galleries and you will find a different story- i've defined
modern art - with examples - and why po-mo differs (you've yet to give
examples and the only theory is that art is nice...) I expect you sit on
Bauhaus influenced chairs in a Corbusier inspired buildings like a good few
million all around you - some go for minimal decor - others these days pick
and mix styles (v po-mo)
Anarcissie
The sociology of art magazines -- meaning the plastic arts,
of course -- is indeed peculiar. Like some other magazines,
they tend to focus on celebrity and wealth. But celebrity and
wealth are a small part of human life. In any case, the rich
and famous are occasionally interested in art for its own sake,
for art's sake, you might say. Hence after 20 or 30 years
they discovered Van Gogh, and now his work sells for many
millions of dollars, as well as gracing, in reproduction form,
innumerable malls. For the former set the signature alone
may matter, but for the latter they like the way it looks over
the couch, because buying a Van Gogh repro at the mall
doesn't enhance your status.
James Whitehead
> > books and art galleries and you will find a different story- i've
defined
> > modern art - with examples - and why po-mo differs (you've yet to give
> > examples and the only theory is that art is nice...) I expect you sit
on
> > Bauhaus influenced chairs in a Corbusier inspired buildings like a good
few
> > million all around you - some go for minimal decor - others these days
pick
> > and mix styles (v po-mo)
>
> The sociology of art magazines -- meaning the plastic arts,
> of course -- is indeed peculiar. Like some other magazines,
> they tend to focus on celebrity and wealth.
Your probably not reading the right magazines - or should i say journals-
but there focus is on what they consider current art practice- as is the
focus of the galleries- you may not like what they show - but that's current
contemporary art. I also have issues with the contemporary art scene - but
its more than just celebrity and wealth - for instance the K foundation
gives a lie to that theory i think. I think its also a social/institutional
issue.
>But celebrity and
> wealth are a small part of human life. In any case, the rich
> and famous are occasionally interested in art for its own sake,
> for art's sake, you might say. Hence after 20 or 30 years
> they discovered Van Gogh, and now his work sells for many
> millions of dollars, as well as gracing, in reproduction form,
> innumerable malls. For the former set the signature alone
> may matter, but for the latter they like the way it looks over
> the couch, because buying a Van Gogh repro at the mall
> doesn't enhance your status.
>
The values might be considered high - but unlike music and literature the
plastic arts produces original works. In the main i would consider the
present prices reasonable - what price would you put on a Shakespeare play?
Contemporary art is a different matter and much more of a gamble - well as
po-mo art isnt part of the teleological story of modern art its difficult to
see how historically its going to acquire status - so a short term
investment only. (As demonstrated by Saatchi - whose selling his hirsts
etc,..)
Anarcissie
James Whitehead wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >
> > > Interesting - i assume you mean your world - check out art magazines art
> > > books and art galleries and you will find a different story- i've
> defined
> > > modern art - with examples - and why po-mo differs (you've yet to give
> > > examples and the only theory is that art is nice...) I expect you sit
> on
> > > Bauhaus influenced chairs in a Corbusier inspired buildings like a good
> few
> > > million all around you - some go for minimal decor - others these days
> pick
> > > and mix styles (v po-mo)
> >
> > The sociology of art magazines -- meaning the plastic arts,
> > of course -- is indeed peculiar. Like some other magazines,
> > they tend to focus on celebrity and wealth.
>
> Your probably not reading the right magazines - or should i say journals-
> but there focus is on what they consider current art practice- as is the
> focus of the galleries- you may not like what they show - but that's current
> contemporary art. I also have issues with the contemporary art scene - but
> its more than just celebrity and wealth - for instance the K foundation
> gives a lie to that theory i think. I think its also a social/institutional
> issue.
I think the K Foundation, etc., is dealing with broader issues
than art (in the sense of art-to-go-over-the-couch). The
Diggers burnt dollar bills in the '60s as a political response
to the burning of draft cards.
> >But celebrity and
> > wealth are a small part of human life. In any case, the rich
> > and famous are occasionally interested in art for its own sake,
> > for art's sake, you might say. Hence after 20 or 30 years
> > they discovered Van Gogh, and now his work sells for many
> > millions of dollars, as well as gracing, in reproduction form,
> > innumerable malls. For the former set the signature alone
> > may matter, but for the latter they like the way it looks over
> > the couch, because buying a Van Gogh repro at the mall
> > doesn't enhance your status.
> >
>
> The values might be considered high - but unlike music and literature the
> plastic arts produces original works. In the main i would consider the
> present prices reasonable - what price would you put on a Shakespeare play?
> Contemporary art is a different matter and much more of a gamble - well as
> po-mo art isnt part of the teleological story of modern art its difficult to
> see how historically its going to acquire status - so a short term
> investment only. (As demonstrated by Saatchi - whose selling his hirsts
> etc,..)
The old system for evaluating art in terms of money is breaking
down. I should say previous system -- it wasn't that old.
Erik A. Mattila
It's an old story...consider the history of the art museum, which began
in the Early Modern era in the form of the Wunderkammern (wonder
cabinet). These were collections of the wealthy, with the social
purpose of the ostentatious display of wealth and status.
The attrition rate of works of art of the Italian renaissance is around
95%. The 5% that survived the ravages of time represented the patronage
of those people and institutions that had the means to protect them -
largely bankers and the church. I did a study once which was simply
counting the pages in art survey books to see what the percentage of
text was devoted to the Italian Renaissance, and it was something
approaching 25%. You know, those Art of the World text like Jansen's or
Gardner's. So it's safe to assume that Italian art is the standard that
all the rest is measured against. Yet this is only 5% of Italy's output
in Early Modernism, and reflects the tastes of an elite minority in
Italy. That is exactly a "focus on celebrity and wealth" - indeed a
"small part of human life". So isn't the sociology of modern art rags
simply a continuation of this tradition?
You are of course free to do so, but your use of "art for art's sake" is
a distortion. What Greenberg meant when he coined the phrase was that
the reference for painting changed from representing things in the world
to reference to painting itself.
Van Gogh, btw, was virtually unknown in US pop culture until the
blockbuster Van Gogh exhibit in the early 50s, which was mounted in
several art museums (I saw it at the LA County Museum or Art.) I think
it was the first blockbuster exhibit, but I could be wrong. Now Van
Gogh is as popular as Mona Lisa. And that one, btw, Mona Lisa, came to
fame when it was stolen by Vincenzo Perugia in 1911. The theft was
sensationalized in the press, and advertiser even picked it up and you
could by everything from Mona Lisa underwear to Mona Lisa toothpaste.
Thus the painting was embedded in mass media culture, and has achieved
the status of the best painting in the world, regardless of its merits
(and I'm not knocking it, I think it's a find painting).
Anarcissie
Yes, of course, but it's a troubled and dying tradition.
It's not that we're running out of rich people, but that
the rich people, and those further down the economic
food chain as well, have become less obedient to and
interested in the idea of authoritative evaluation of
works of art.
> You are of course free to do so, but your use of "art for art's sake" is
> a distortion. What Greenberg meant when he coined the phrase was that
> the reference for painting changed from representing things in the world
> to reference to painting itself.
Greenberg didn't coin the phrase. It is the slogan of
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (in Latin) and has been attributed
to Gautier, Poe, Coleridge and others. I used it to refer
the value of whatever people get directly from the work
of art itself, rather than wealth or status which may come
from possessing or displaying it. I regard Greenberg's
usage, as reported above, to be the distortion; it would
have been more accurate of him to say something like
"art about art". Non-representational art might be art for
art's sake or not in my sense, regardless of what it was
"about", if anything.
> Van Gogh, btw, was virtually unknown in US pop culture until the
> blockbuster Van Gogh exhibit in the early 50s, which was mounted in
> several art museums (I saw it at the LA County Museum or Art.) I think
> it was the first blockbuster exhibit, but I could be wrong. Now Van
> Gogh is as popular as Mona Lisa. And that one, btw, Mona Lisa, came to
> fame when it was stolen by Vincenzo Perugia in 1911. The theft was
> sensationalized in the press, and advertiser even picked it up and you
> could by everything from Mona Lisa underwear to Mona Lisa toothpaste.
> Thus the painting was embedded in mass media culture, and has achieved
> the status of the best painting in the world, regardless of its merits
> (and I'm not knocking it, I think it's a find painting).
I am surprised to read what you say about Van Gogh since
there were books about Van Gogh in the rather petit-bourgeois
household in which I grew up in exurban New Jersey in the
1940s, and a reproduction on the wall, as well. It was my
impression that VG had become hip and widely known in the
1920s. If anyone didn't know who he was as late as 1956,
they were given the answer: Kirk Douglas. The historical
novel on which the film was based was a best-seller in
1934, however.