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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Death of Art really refers to the end of the narrative of art (a linear narrative) in which the idea of progress or evolution within art. Greenberg is most famous for defending just such a narrative. He believed in refinement of a medium. In a postmodern world, the idea of a single narrative trajectory splinters into a multitude of directions. This may or may not constitute a part of the narrative. Danto's idea is that there is no story left to tell. Art does not die; people continue to innovat. But the story of art is finished. In other words, the character in the story lives on, but we are no longer going to read about her life. She continues her life out of the spotlight.
Of course, there are many spotlights in the art world, but the end of art (as opposed to the death of art) asks, which particular story should be told?
Post a Comment