commodity critics-
anti-aesthetes like negation of aesthetics in dada- like, duchamp's urinal.
commodity critics like the GESTURE, rather than deflating high art (what is walter benjamin's famous aura??)
So, art isn't really dead, instead there is nothing more for art to do but splinter into different varieties of art making- the pluralistic creation of hand-crafted objects that no longer asked philosophical questions. In other words, art is now shallow. ?
Commodity critics believe there is no real individuality, only the illusion of it.
The work is a response to this takeover of individual consciousness by the mass media.
So, now the commodity status of art is being ironically celebrated. ?
PoMo Feminism-
I love this and the following essay!!
1st wave= feminist consciousness raising, changed "woman as nature, body, emotion" from negative to positive qualities
2nd wave= reveal the way the ideas of womanhood and femininity are socially constructed
Reading states "woman is only an internalised set of representations." Our body is what sets us apart from man. I feel this reading does not take biology into account. Perhaps our biological differences have something to do with many socially constructed stereotypes. The reading states there is "no reality outside of representation." Therefore, doesn't that make it reality??
What is the castrated woman?
Analyzing pleasure or beauty destroys it. I love that.
If there is no complementary female gaze (pg 54), there is no other. ?
I'm not a mother, so I don't know, but the statement on pg. 60 that motherhood is socially constructed seems terrible to me. I can agree perhaps to an extent, but aren't women, again, biologically predisposed to be mothers?
Postmodern Multiculturalism-
(pg67) why must art be judged as they reflected the historically necessary progress of art?
I feel like categorizing artists by race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality only perpetuates the problem. Why can't one just be judged based on talent or credentials? I hate when people play the race card or the sex card.
The discussion on 68 about where a multi-ethnic person should turn for identity parallels with the presidential campaign. I wish people could stop turning this into a black president thing. I understand this is history in the making, but he is bi-racial and has ties to numerous ethnicities. I was listening to a radio program today that absolutely enraged me. The African Americans who were speaking could only talk about how we have a black president and how this is so great for black america. Why does this have to turn into a race thing. Why can't people focus on the great things he can do for ALL of america? I wonder what kind of artwork this will spawn?! ha
Some argue this is an issue of representation, not identity. I disagree with Thomas McEvilley here, I believe. Images govern reality (but I also believe there is no set reality, but each person can have their own reality that is true and real to them. How do I know for a fact that you see the color blue the same way I do? Neither of us are right or wrong, it is just our own personal reality). So, who represents whom? Each person's experiences are different just as each person is different, so why can't each person represent themselves? No one white woman can represent me. I represent me. And the only way we know I'm a white woman is because of these socially constructed images that have become reality, right?
Are the projections of Wodiczko and the spectracolor of Jaar legal??
The excerpt from Piper's cornered I feel is more about identity than representation, but rather enhanced by representations of what you view as your identity.
No one can speak for anyone!! because we all have our own personal experiences.
The nature of the representations that govern public perceptions = stereotypes
An exclusive focus on representation offers little in the way of a map for positive change!!
The idea of cultures and individual identities continually being remade through their contact with each other is interesting to me.
representations become raw materials for transformations and new kinds of meaning
There seems to be a thin line between representation and identity here.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Anti-Aesthetes
Things appear to mean something by themselves. Representation- our illusory senses of self and reality are composed. Clarity is the enemy (initially this statement seemed contradictory to me. It seems self-defeating that clarity be the enemy. I feel I have been searching my whole life for clarity. . . but after reading the essay in entirety, this statement makes more sense to me.). Poststructuralism is married to postmodernism. I need to refresh myself on the meanings of poststructuralism and deconstruction. Are these terms synonymous? They deal with the subject of language and the sign and so on, right? I really like the concept of unearthing the contradictions hidden in ideological constructs.
On the top of pg. 30 it talks about subjects being jostled together in a way that encourages and undermines meaningful associations. With this idea of meaningless art, I am reminded of dada. I know this is a different concept, I was just put in mind of it.
Richter notes that he likes to use images from the mass media because they liberate him from personal experience. This seems counter to what I consider art. When I think of an artist creating, I imagine him exuding personal experience and self-expression. The act of creating art is a personal experience. Salle's works are said to deliberately suppress any hint of self-expression. I find this ironic. And also ironic is that I find many of the works in this section aesthetically pleasing, and they are called anti-aesthetes. I am particularly drawn to the works of Polke, Richter, Longo, Rosenquist, Salle, and Baldessari.
I like these lines:
'They are dead, inert representations of the impossibility of passion in a culture that has institutionalized self expression.'
'The camera, in all its manifestations, is our god, dispensing what we mistakenly take to be truth. The Photograph is the modern world.'
Obama won.
On the top of pg. 30 it talks about subjects being jostled together in a way that encourages and undermines meaningful associations. With this idea of meaningless art, I am reminded of dada. I know this is a different concept, I was just put in mind of it.
Richter notes that he likes to use images from the mass media because they liberate him from personal experience. This seems counter to what I consider art. When I think of an artist creating, I imagine him exuding personal experience and self-expression. The act of creating art is a personal experience. Salle's works are said to deliberately suppress any hint of self-expression. I find this ironic. And also ironic is that I find many of the works in this section aesthetically pleasing, and they are called anti-aesthetes. I am particularly drawn to the works of Polke, Richter, Longo, Rosenquist, Salle, and Baldessari.
I like these lines:
'They are dead, inert representations of the impossibility of passion in a culture that has institutionalized self expression.'
'The camera, in all its manifestations, is our god, dispensing what we mistakenly take to be truth. The Photograph is the modern world.'
Obama won.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Neo-Expressionism
This text is a much easier read than the internet downloads and the other text.
This article mentions that we have reached the end of art. It later says, "History is dead and everything is permitted." Does this really mean art is dead. This statement to me says that perhaps art history and philosophy are dead. This statement to me means that art is liberated. If everything is permitted, art should reach new levels and transcend all boundaries. It is no longer tied down by the shackles of meaning and history. It can just be art.
This article also makes the statement that Neo-Expressionism is a sickness that is as product of consumer capitalism. I don't find this connection evident in the examples provided.
"...In a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum." I know that if things are over-done they are viewed as trite, tired or boring, but is it not possible to pull inspiration from past movements and styles? Would this always be considered imitation? Is it not possible to breath new life into into a style and make it your own? These critics seem so pessimistic and closed-minded. Or perhaps I'm looking at things too simply.
Later that article says, "Neo-expressionism only appears to be a ... celebration of individual creativity." This is stated as a bad thing. That is ridiculous. Art should be a celebration of individual creativity. There would be no art if it weren't for individual creativity.
It says, "Artists began to explore what had been forbidden fruit." Haven's artists been doing this for a long time. Could this be called that avant-garde?
Later in the article it makes mention that some debate over a new German painting "revolves around its political implications." This seems contrary to what the article is earlier arguing. Isn't it in the beginning saying that art is dead because it no longer has any meaning, political or otherwise?
"He sees no contradiction between abstraction and figuration, noting that his images evolve during the painting process like half-forgotten memories tossed up by the subconscious." I just really like this line. The idea of your images evolving in such a way is really romantic to me.
This article mentions that we have reached the end of art. It later says, "History is dead and everything is permitted." Does this really mean art is dead. This statement to me says that perhaps art history and philosophy are dead. This statement to me means that art is liberated. If everything is permitted, art should reach new levels and transcend all boundaries. It is no longer tied down by the shackles of meaning and history. It can just be art.
This article also makes the statement that Neo-Expressionism is a sickness that is as product of consumer capitalism. I don't find this connection evident in the examples provided.
"...In a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum." I know that if things are over-done they are viewed as trite, tired or boring, but is it not possible to pull inspiration from past movements and styles? Would this always be considered imitation? Is it not possible to breath new life into into a style and make it your own? These critics seem so pessimistic and closed-minded. Or perhaps I'm looking at things too simply.
Later that article says, "Neo-expressionism only appears to be a ... celebration of individual creativity." This is stated as a bad thing. That is ridiculous. Art should be a celebration of individual creativity. There would be no art if it weren't for individual creativity.
It says, "Artists began to explore what had been forbidden fruit." Haven's artists been doing this for a long time. Could this be called that avant-garde?
Later in the article it makes mention that some debate over a new German painting "revolves around its political implications." This seems contrary to what the article is earlier arguing. Isn't it in the beginning saying that art is dead because it no longer has any meaning, political or otherwise?
"He sees no contradiction between abstraction and figuration, noting that his images evolve during the painting process like half-forgotten memories tossed up by the subconscious." I just really like this line. The idea of your images evolving in such a way is really romantic to me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
