Art Questions and Students
Sharon Traut
the article on art students asking questions. I was a little disturbed to
notice that it discoraged people from asking questions. I thought this forum
was for the open exchange of ideas and learning. If a person has an honest
question let them ask it. Everyone has the right to ask any question no
matter how "stupid" as long as it is on topic for the forum. Now as a
STUDENT of art history I was wondering if someone could give me a clear idea
of the difference between modern and post-modern art. I have not been able
to find a clear explanation either in class or in my research. I hope that
this does not make me naive or high schoolish.
Sharon C. Traut
Andy Pearlman
> I was thinking of posting a question to this forum when I noticed
>the article on art students asking questions. I was a little disturbed to
>notice that it discoraged people from asking questions. I thought this forum
>was for the open exchange of ideas and learning. If a person has an honest
>question let them ask it. Everyone has the right to ask any question no
This comes down to the signal-noise ratio problem. The group is worth reading
as long as the 'noise' is tolerable. Several people were stating that 'I
feel asking questions to satisfy a class requirement is both a waste of my
time and the asker.'
>matter how "stupid" as long as it is on topic for the forum. Now as a
>STUDENT of art history I was wondering if someone could give me a clear idea
>of the difference between modern and post-modern art. I have not been able
>to find a clear explanation either in class or in my research. I hope that
>this does not make me naive or high schoolish.
Here you go with one explanation:
Modernism primarily deals with theories involving what constitutes meaning.
Post-Modernism primarily deals with what constitutes ideas.
In a sense, Modernism is the heir to Impressionism, while Post-Modernism is
the heir of Surrealism/Dada. Abstract Expressionism deals with abstracting
forms. Pop, which is a reaction against AbEx in a lot of ways, looks more
into the idea of an object and involves humor.
You have to remember, that movements are definitions cooked up by those trying
to define the artworld into simple terms or occasionally as a practical joke
(ex: Dada) Except for the artists who were thought about, other artists
rarely fall into the category neatly. Also, typically, movements are started
by the writers, not the artists.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
Say: "That's not finished yet, is it?"
kevin sawad brooks
>of the difference between modern and post-modern art. I have not been able
>to find a clear explanation either in class or in my research.
>
One problem why it is hard to get a handle on this distiction, is that
different "post-modernists" attempt to claim certain heritages for
themselves. Among the privileged moments claimed for the heritage of
post-modernism are dada, surrealism, medieval art, the list continues.
Of course, post-modernists often claim that they are not modern.
Among the many significances of this claim is that the post-modernists
have given up certain of the key premisses that the post-modernists
claim held up modernist artistic production. Some of these key premises:
originality, genious, teleology toward pure form, aestheticism,
revolution (aesthetic and political), cult of the self, cult of the
object, commodification, myth of resistance to commodification, and so
forth. As you can see, some of these are not only incompatible, but
downright antithetical. Little wonder then that we have trouble making
a distinction between the modern and the post-modern when the
post-modernists have problems defining that which they define themselves
against. In fact, some of the things are claimed to be modern are at
other times claimed to be post-modern, and vice versa. However, perhaps
the *single* most conspicuous distiction often cited between modern
and post-modern artwork is that the former embodies "unity," it is
a united whole, while the latter is "fragmentary," it is often "broken"
in some way, it does not attempt to represent a totality. So it is
claimed that Monet presents a single vision (unity), but David Salle
*plays* with a variety of styles (fragmentation). This distiction is
often interpreted to be a historical one, thus Salle's work signifies
for some post-modernists critics a different historical moment,
a post-modern one, in the history of representation. However, this
distinction breaks down when we look at surrealist work, dada, and
such work as John Hartfield's, and even Manet's. In order to account
for this historical scrambled eggs, critics attempt to claim
those artists as "precursors" to the post-modern. This raises a lot
of questions about these categories. This is not to say that
categorization is bad, or good. It is merely unavoidable. But given
that we have categories, we should be willing to work with them more
fluidly, rather than allow them to concretize into truths and histories.
--
"This is a signature?"