Is Post-Modern Theory huring art?
Starsaint
I like to have a modest discussion, modest in that I don't want it to be
people
trying to talk at their most uptight level of abstraction.....but to talk to
communicate.
The subject matter is something that in the end of this century has a tendency
to be
obtuse, and I really wonder if this obtuse quality is just, in contrasts,
fluff.
It's not that I can't understand what the author is saying in the quoted below,
but I question
how authentic it is. I have met artists that I thought were great, and they
didn't speak in such
verbiage. And in reading art history, I wonder where this style of
philosophizing in the
language of epistomologists about art started. I don't read it in the works of
Andre Breton.
Shouldn't all works of art affect us in the same way? Does a work by Matta or
Ernst affect
you like Renoir or Da Vinci? And similarily, don't many moderns even
considered great >do not<
impress you that way, but don't you find that you have to kind of whimper in
your soul to give
it that credit?
Maybe people won't be honest enough to admit it. I've been on the net since 92
so I know all about
internet conversations.
Robert Pearson
http://www.eskimo.com/~telical
http://members.aol.com/virtuism
Exhibit A:
Radical Changes in Aesthetics
Joseph Margolis
The changes that are currently taking place principally in the theory of art
and the theory of interpretation and criticism
reflect a deeper change in the arts themselves and, even more broadly, a change
in philosophy and science in general. I
should say that they were marked by the following features:
i.a preference for ontologies of flux over ontologies of invariance;
ii.the replacement of assuredly rigorous methodologies by open-ended
critical and explanatory practices opposed to a
priori constraints on relevance and validity;
iii.the denial that we can legitimate any form of objectivity or epistemic
neutrality suited to the sciences or critical
disciplines that is not an artifact of our habitual practices or that
claims cognitive access to an order of reality not
itself constituted in accord with the categories of human understanding;
iv.the admission that human selves--human agents, human cognizers--are
themselves emergent and similarly
constituted by the enabling processes of history and enculturation;
v.the further admission that human thinking is profoundly historicized,
formed under the conditions of changing
history and subject, through its own exercise, to further variable and
divergent transformation; and
vi.the recognition that a bivalent logic is not likely to be best placed to
service the rigor and objectivity of
truth-claims in accord with (i) - (v) and that it must be replaced or
supplemented by some accommodation of
relativism.
Lee Goddard
On 25 Dec 1997 07:52:41 GMT star...@aol.com (Starsaint) posted article
<19971225075...@ladder02.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
I like to have a modest discussion, modest in that I don't want it to be
people trying to talk at their most uptight level of abstraction.....but to
talk to communicate. The subject matter is something that in the end of this
century has a tendency to be obtuse, and I really wonder if this obtuse quality
is just, in contrasts, fluff.
Modesty is not something I see much of on within this group, though sometimes a
cross=post from rec.arts.books does liven things up a little. There's no doubt
that there are a number who spout iconoclstic rhetoric in a vain attempt to
reduce the wieght of the world on their chests, and I confess at times I have
been amongst them. But they are in the minority.
Pleae indulge me whilst I reflect:
Thanks to welfare systems (in Europe at least) more of us gain good, University
educations, and bring the Avant Garde to a more proletarian consistancy: less
concerned with the bourgeois passions for individuality that can be found in the
Impressionists, the Post-Impressionists, even the Fauvists. The concern becomes
centred on the ideals shared by Gross, by Die Blau Reiter, the Supremisists,
even the Surrealists; a concern for a new order, an equality and a humanity.
Two world wars and many totalitarian states later, we find genocide is ignored
when it appears on the news; we find that political ideals have virtually
vanished. We find that the major ecconomic powers that are dominating the
planet have succumbed to The System of Free Trade and raised of gold an image of
The Individual Realising Himself (sic).
Radical revolution has failed.
For most, Modernism has failed.
What to do? Cynicism in check, I say that we carry on with some optimism,
increased subtlety, greater sensitivity. We infaltrate the establishment and do
what can to change the directino of our societies for The Bestter...
So said Barthes, Derrida and Foucault, the darlings of pomo/postie street.
To do this we must learn the languages of power (Lyotard) - though most of the
pomo-posties would tell you that we must learn the parole or idiolect of the
hegemony. Anyway, no problems there, until we begin to take sanctuary in those
languages.
And that is the obscurity of you write of, the obscurity Orwell fought against.
It's not that I can't understand what the author is saying in the quoted below,
but I question how authentic it is. I have met artists that I thought were
great, and they didn't speak in such verbiage.
I too have met artists I consider good, and they neithr spoke in the manner
you describe.
And in reading art history,
I wonder where this style of philosophizing in the language of epistomologists
about art started. I don't read it in the works of Andre Breton. Shouldn't all
works of art affect us in the same way? Does a work by Matta or Ernst affect
you like Renoir or Da Vinci?
Only in the very broad sense that we should be captivated by art. What goes on
within that trance is up to the individual artist to decide.
And similarily, don't many moderns even
considered great >do not< impress you that way, but don't you find that you
have to kind of whimper in your soul to give it that credit?
It depends what you mean with 'modern': the works of the early Enlightenment do
not interest me, do not effect me greatly; the works of the Modernists
(post-plain air (sp?!)) all effect me differently.
Works by contemporary artists, though... I often find hard to credit.
Maybe people won't be honest enough to admit it. I've been on the net since 92
so I know all about internet conversations.
No, I admit that there is a lot of crap around. Probably there always has been.
But right now it is most noticable because the artists we see, or are allowed to
see, all lack direction, purpose, ideology, conviction, hope. They lack all the
things that make for great art, are left with an inversion of Pope's sycophancy
that remains licking the arse of the money-givers.
Fuck 'em, we can do better, can't we Robert?
Lee Goddard
Starsaint
That's not so obscure, but perhaps getting the meat out of
Lyotard or Derrida would be. It gets to the point where philosopher's are
writing at a very armchair university level,
and so what you said about the problem of "taking sanctuary in those
languages" is a problem.
The goal is to protect the beautific and the artistically meaningful from being
overshadowed. I see a problem in that when one picks up a current art magazine
like Art Forum or Art News,
there is so much of the abstract and non-aesthetic, non-beautific
work which gets so much coverage. I wonder what the relation
is of these artists (covered often in Art Forum) and the mastery of the power
structure. Often I wonder if a lot of these artists aren't just
rich kids, albeit grown up, and the editors of such magazine know
what perks comes with praising such artists. I've thought perhaps
Art Forum was a totally corrupt magazine, perhaps totally biased on
the notion of covering whom with get a few (the editors/owners) what, and
having very little to do with aesthetics.
And perhaps many of the gallery situations are like this also. So,
then the new order, the equality you spoke of.....I am interested in this
because I think it can make all of our lives better, but then I am
also have a concern for art, and the access of great artists have to
the public. I have seen that in history it is often the case that great
artists don't have access to the public until they die.
It could be that the future may see many of the latter half of the
20th Century artists in the same way we see the medieval artists.
But I think it's dangerous to be too much against modern art,
ultimately you have to come to it, face it, and try to see what there
is of value in it. Often, there may not really be anything of value
and then it's a personal decision. Even Marchel Duchamp said
this about certain modern art ("Neo-Dada").
I admit that there is a lot of crap around. Probably there always has
>been.
>But right now it is most noticable because the artists we see, or are allowed
>to
>see, all lack direction, purpose, ideology, conviction, hope. They lack all
>the
>things that make for great art, are left with an inversion of Pope's
>sycophancy
>that remains licking the arse of the money-givers.
>
>Fuck 'em, we can do better, can't we Robert?
>
>Lee Goddard
>
I'm not sure I will ever be able to do anything that well!
At least I can keep doing what I personally try to do, make a noise! state
what I believe in, and seemingly ruin all chances of obtaining professionalism.
Thanks Lee,
Robert Pearson
http://www.eskimo.com/~telical/
Lee Goddard
And what of the historical schtuff? Hmm?
G*rd*n
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| Margolis cannot be faulted for clarity in the quoted passage. However
| his claim that the five categories of change he describes are taking
| place in science are simply false.
|
| While certain minor threads in the enormous fabric of modern science
| could be stretched to accomodate his arguments, there is absolutely no
| general change of the kind he suggests. Whether his claim is made out
| of ignorance, self-delusion, or a deceitful attempt to co-opt the
| authority of science to bolster the somewhat lesser truth-values which
| many people may ascribe to the claims of art criticism and philosophy,
| I cannot tell.
| ...
I think he's worrying (or perhaps professionally
pretending to worry) about the very peculiar work (by the
standards of prior science) which came out of physics in
first half of the 20th century, allowing such books as
_The_Tao_Of_Physics_ to be inflicted on the public. The
Copenhagen Interpretation unquestionably tries to retire
science from the ontological battlefronts, although this
retreat was implicit at least since Hume; and as Jesus
observed, when one devil is cast out, seven new ones may
rush in to take its place.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Gerry Quinn
>It's not that I can't understand what the author is saying in the quoted below,
>but I question
>how authentic it is.
>
Margolis cannot be faulted for clarity in the quoted passage. However
his claim that the five categories of change he describes are taking
place in science are simply false.
While certain minor threads in the enormous fabric of modern science
could be stretched to accomodate his arguments, there is absolutely no
general change of the kind he suggests. Whether his claim is made out
of ignorance, self-delusion, or a deceitful attempt to co-opt the
authority of science to bolster the somewhat lesser truth-values which
many people may ascribe to the claims of art criticism and philosophy,
I cannot tell.
(As for art, criticism and philosophy, the concepts he describes are
undoubtedly prominent at present - but in fields which change more
than they advance, the cultural importance of changes is not so
obvious.)
- Gerry
>Radical Changes in Aesthetics
>
>Joseph Margolis
>
>The changes that are currently taking place principally in the theory of art
>and the theory of interpretation and criticism
>reflect a deeper change in the arts themselves and, even more broadly, a change
>in philosophy and science in general.
[remainder snipped]
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Goddard
On 25 Dec 1997 07:52:41 GMT star...@aol.com (Starsaint) posted article
<19971225075...@ladder02.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
Exhibit A: Radical Changes in Aesthetics (Joseph Margolis)
The changes that are currently taking place principally in the theory of art
and the theory of interpretation and criticism reflect a deeper change in the
arts themselves and, even more broadly, a change in philosophy and science in
general. I should say that they were marked by the following features:
i.a preference for ontologies of flux over ontologies of invariance;
So what if this is so? Maybe a reflection of a reality? Maybe not a reflection
of a dominant reality.
ii.the replacement of assuredly rigorous methodologies by open-ended
critical and explanatory practices opposed to a priori constraints on relevance
and validity;
Tosh. Where's the evidence for this? Leavis is dead.
iii.the denial that we can legitimate any form of objectivity or epistemic
neutrality suited to the sciences or critical disciplines that is not an
artifact of our habitual practices or that claims cognitive access to an order
of reality not itself constituted in accord with the categories of human
understanding;
Who are 'we'? Impotent passages.
iv.the admission that human selves--human agents, human cognizers--are
themselves emergent and similarly constituted by the enabling processes of
history and enculturation;
Come on, why the need to qualify 'self' - this man has inner turmoil like I have
dog ends. No fault there though.
v.the further admission that human thinking is profoundly historicized,
formed under the conditions of changing history and subject, through its own
exercise, to further variable and divergent transformation; and
Thank God, eh?
vi.the recognition that a bivalent logic is not likely to be best placed to
service the rigor and objectivity of truth-claims in accord with (i) - (v) and
that it must be replaced or supplemented by some accommodation of relativism.
Hell, no.
Just don't take this shit seriously.
Gerry Quinn
In article <683jd1$t...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
>| Margolis cannot be faulted for clarity in the quoted passage. However
>| his claim that the five categories of change he describes are taking
>| place in science are simply false.
>|
>| While certain minor threads in the enormous fabric of modern science
>| could be stretched to accomodate his arguments, there is absolutely no
>| general change of the kind he suggests. Whether his claim is made out
>| of ignorance, self-delusion, or a deceitful attempt to co-opt the
>| authority of science to bolster the somewhat lesser truth-values which
>| many people may ascribe to the claims of art criticism and philosophy,
>| I cannot tell.
>
>I think he's worrying (or perhaps professionally
>pretending to worry) about the very peculiar work (by the
>standards of prior science) which came out of physics in
>first half of the 20th century, allowing such books as
>_The_Tao_Of_Physics_ to be inflicted on the public. The
>Copenhagen Interpretation unquestionably tries to retire
>science from the ontological battlefronts, although this
>retreat was implicit at least since Hume; and as Jesus
>observed, when one devil is cast out, seven new ones may
>rush in to take its place.
>--
I don't think the CI has too long to live - it is
obviously philosophically incoherent. It would have been better to
defend the battlefront, even if that meant concessions might have to
be made regarding indeterminism, non-locality etc. Anyway, we
probably know as much about what quantum 'stuff' is made of as we
knew a century ago about atoms.
There are other threads - my first thought was not of quantum physics
but of the computer-influenced tendency towards 'experimental'
mathematics. Of course, this is not strictly part of science. But in
any case, it is a natural trend influenced by the available
technology. Of course it is done more than it was done twenty years
ago - it couldn't be done then.
He speaks also of the death of bivalent logic; but 'quantum logic' has
never really shown promise, while fuzzy logic (used for well over a
decade to control cement kilns, and lately appearing in washing
machines) is solidly based in bivalent machinery.
- Gerry
Starsaint
>Exhibit A:
>
>Radical Changes in Aesthetics
>
>The changes that are currently taking place principally in the theory of art
>and the theory of interpretation and criticism
>reflect a deeper change in the arts themselves and, even more broadly, a
>change
>in philosophy and science in general. I
>should say that they were marked by the following features:
or not philosophy is in this (de-evolved) state could be a topic here. I
think that there is some kind of new phenonmena, which can hardly be
called "art" as we know it, that is informed by the "changes that are
currently taking place
principally in the theory of art" as Margolis describes. But these
products are not created in the same way that aesthetically-charged art
of old is.
These new products are hardly art, perhaps like some non-metaphysically
influenced writing is hardly philosophy. It becomes calculus, logic, word
games, linguistics, but it isn't very similar to concerns of earlier
philosophers.
We are told by pragmatists that God isn't dead, that transcendence is as valid
a concern as is meaning.
I don't think aesthetic theory is in such a good place. At least the
professors
and editors are not yet bold.
Are we going to be robbed of our aesthetic experiences as well? Shall we
be told that Renoir isn't beautiful, but that it is on the level of abstract
"expressions" or
photographs of people painted blue with feather dusters up their butt (as one
can see by looking
at Art Forum, this is pretty equivalent if you want to compare things to
Renoir).
The lesson comes out: art isn't cheap!
> i.a preference for ontologies of flux over ontologies of invariance;
> ii.the replacement of assuredly rigorous methodologies by open-ended
>critical and explanatory practices opposed to a
> priori constraints on relevance and validity;
> iii.the denial that we can legitimate any form of objectivity or epistemic
>neutrality suited to the sciences or critical
> disciplines that is not an artifact of our habitual practices or that
>claims cognitive access to an order of reality not
> itself constituted in accord with the categories of human understanding;
>
the denial of this is the death of human evolution. Read Novalis's philosophy.
A good example where philosophy seemed to reach a peak and then declined.
> iv.the admission that human selves--human agents, human cognizers--are
>themselves emergent and similarly
> constituted by the enabling processes of history and enculturation;
I agree, and this is a useful idea. Thus the idea that philosophy 200 years
ago
might be more advanced than today's. Ego's come in and need praise and
thus overthrow the work of other ego's regardless of the truth values.
> v.the further admission that human thinking is profoundly historicized,
>formed under the conditions of changing
> history and subject, through its own exercise, to further variable and
>divergent transformation; and
This is true to, but can we handle it? Do we just destroy old values of
spirituality, like Nietzsche did, for a slippery walk on the pond of the
non-historicized blank page?
> vi.the recognition that a bivalent logic is not likely to be best placed
>to
>service the rigor and objectivity of
> truth-claims in accord with (i) - (v) and that it must be replaced or
>supplemented by some accommodation of
> relativism.
This may prove to be very false.
Lee
On 31 Dec 1997 15:51:27 GMT star...@aol.com (Starsaint) posted article
<19971231155...@ladder02.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
>Exhibit A:
>
>Radical Changes in Aesthetics
>
>Joseph Margolis
>
>The changes that are currently taking place principally in the theory of art
>and the theory of interpretation and criticism
>reflect a deeper change in the arts themselves and, even more broadly, a
>change in philosophy and science in general. I should say that they were
>marked by the following features:
It was already shown how this statement isn't true in science. Whether
or not philosophy is in this (de-evolved) state could be a topic here. I
think that there is some kind of new phenonmena, which can hardly be
called "art" as we know it, that is informed by the "changes that are
currently taking place principally in the theory of art" as Margolis describes.
But these products are not created in the same way that aesthetically-charged
art of old is.
These new products are hardly art, perhaps like some non-metaphysically
influenced writing is hardly philosophy. It becomes calculus, logic, word
games, linguistics, but it isn't very similar to concerns of earlier
philosophers.
Depends on your reading of the word 'art.' The art of the dark ages and the art
of today share at least the desire to manipulate, if not to communicate.
But being different doesn't make it so disimillar that a broad term such as
'philosphy' can't be applied. There's not that much of worth from those bygone
days that we could benefit from preserving.
We are told by pragmatists that God isn't dead, that transcendence is as valid
a concern as is meaning.
What do they mean by 'God'?
I don't think aesthetic theory is in such a good place. At least the
professors and editors are not yet bold.
They're profiteers, after all. Create a demand, they'll be with you in the end.
Are we going to be robbed of our aesthetic experiences as well? Shall we
be told that Renoir isn't beautiful, but that it is on the level of abstract
"expressions" or photographs of people painted blue with feather dusters up
their butt (as one can see by looking at Art Forum, this is pretty equivalent
if you want to compare things to Renoir).
Sorry, that what is on the level of Art Forum's subjects?
What is beauty? And what is the effect of opium?
The lesson comes out: art isn't cheap!
Not for the artist, but most often it is for the patron.
> ...iv.the admission that human selves--human agents, human cognizers--are
>themselves emergent and similarly
> constituted by the enabling processes of history and enculturation;
I agree, and this is a useful idea. Thus the idea that philosophy 200 years
ago might be more advanced than today's. Ego's come in and need praise and
thus overthrow the work of other ego's regardless of the truth values.
Advanced towards where? what?
> v.the further admission that human thinking is profoundly historicized,
>formed under the conditions of changing
> history and subject, through its own exercise, to further variable and
>divergent transformation; and
This is true to, but can we handle it? Do we just destroy old values of
spirituality, like Nietzsche did, for a slippery walk on the pond of the
non-historicized blank page?
Nietzsche did not destroy anything, but depicted (some might say predicted, but
I'd not) the demise of 'God.' That's not spirituality, though: Marx is quite
spiritual if you consider the effects his calls for the end of child labour had
on the children who'd been up the chimnnies.
Lee
David Christopher Swanson
You left out a t or an l.
DCS
Please post replies or e mail me, but not both; it's too confusing.
Starsaint
>You left out a t or an l.
>
>DCS
>
it was a y
Lee
On 16 Jan 1998 05:08:13 GMT star...@aol.com (Starsaint) posted article
<19980116050...@ladder01.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
>You left out a t or an l.
>
>DCS
>
it was a y
O