Post-modernism
Iian Neill
Refuse to live in whose historical context? Historians of all people are the first to admit that interpretations of past events are never completely certain - whether it is because records have been lost, sources were biased, or simply because historians have their own prejudices, it does seem to be the case that we can not know for certain what transpired at a given historical event, simply because all of the facts are not available to us. That is not to say that we can't create theories that are almost spot-on, but it does seem prudent to remember that the past has changed before on us. Textbooks have been re-written.> My question is not here do debate the pro and cons of > PostModernism. My questions is why this debate is so active here ? > My guess is that many people try to simply bypass it. They harken back to the past, to convention, to main stream and refuse to live in their own historical context. Continuing to paint landscapes - still life - nudes and protecting their convention from anything that might threaten it.
How is this relevant to your statement, you may ask. Well, it has to do with one's interpretation of "historical context". You seem to be claiming that painting landscapes, nudes and still lifes is in someway not being true to our "historical context". But what has historical context to do with the individuality of the artist? I will elaborate on this a bit - I am not saying that historical context is not relevant, and that it does not shape the artists and the work they produce - what I am questioning is your use of a supposedly concrete "historical context" to bludgeon contemporary artists into a style that you approve of.
Post-Modernism has lauded itself as being many things, and chief amongst those seems to be its promotion of "self expression" in the arts, which is another way of saying that they are promoting the individual, the self. Now, how can one possible be encouraging individuality in art if you are at the same time declaring all those contemporary artists who paint landscapes, nudes and still lifes are somehow not conforming to a "historical context"?
Well, I ask you: Whose historical context? If individuality in art is to be so treasured, then why should one care whether an artist paints in the Baroque, Rococo, Neo-Classical or Cubist styles, merely based on their position in history alone? Some will claim that all contemporary artists should paint in a Pomo style, because they come from a Pomo culture. Well, why should they? If one supports the idea of the individual, then one should encourage all artists to paint according to whatever style suits their temperament best. I am not speaking at the moment of qualitative judegements on art - I am merely speaking of Pomo's apparent promotion of individuality, whilst at the same time (in some circles) attacking those who do not follow their idea of individuality.
Perhaps it is a case of, "all artists are individual, but some artists are more individual than others".
> Continuing to paint landscapes - still life - nudes and protecting
their convention from anything
> that might threaten it.
And why should these artists not defend themselves intellectually if
called upon? If there are critics like yourself who seem to require contemporary
artists not to follow their inclinations, because they are not congruent
with Pomo, then how should these traditionalists respond? One can refer
to - of course - the old allegory of Truth being unveiled by Time, but
why should an artist have to wait until some decades (or centuries) after
his or her death to receive fair criticism?
Perhaps a better question might be to ask: "How does the
painting of landscapes, still lifes, and nudes threaten certain Post-Modernist
critics and artists?" Why is that they respond to such works by betraying
their values - if they supposedly support individuality in art, then why
do they claim that modern art must be of a certain type to be modern? I
am inclined to agree with Salvador Dali when he said that "being modern
is the one thing that an artist cannot avoid".
Some may find that unsatisfactory, as their ideas of "modern"
(read: progressive, with it, hip, right on, etc) conflict with those of
artists who place value in beauty, content and comprehensibility.
In closing, I ask you to consider this: - Is it not somewhat
sinister to regard the fact that there are (at least some) Pomo critics
out there who claim that they are all for originality and individuality,
but only so long as it meets their criteria of what it is to be modern?
Are we not seeing here a subtle attempt to censor art? All contemporary
works painted in a traditional style can - according to these particular
critics - be condemned as "retrogressive", "reactionary", "conservative".
And all those works that conform with their own philosophies are described
as "progressive", "challenging", "cutting edge", and so forth.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Marilyn
Iian,
Your discussion is tendentious as you defend your renaissance position.
Our context is 1999+ post World War I & II, post holocaust, post atomic bomb.
You have dismissed most of the art achieved in this century,
100 years of expressionist, modernist, post-modernist art and
all the art which escapes category & which you dismiss for lack of
your academic criteria. Therefore your lack of objectivity
discourages any response to your statements.
Marilyn