Note on art ...
I don't know that the narrative about "what is art?" is over, per se, but it may well have finally moved beyond the arena of the artists. The artist now understands that anything can be art, and can now return to the actual production of art within whichever paradigm and needs they choose.
Now the philosopher takes over. The question moves slightly from "what can be art?" in general (or "can I make this into art?" in specific) to the actual analytic analysis of what is doing the work in any individual case ... what makes the Campbell's Soup Can art in this or that case, but not the Montgomery Ward building for Duchamp.
Now the critic takes over ... identifying what is doing the work in this or that case before them, the critic can then turn to judging the merits of the work vis-a-vis the means by which it has become art.
Example ... a piece of artwork may be very popular simply because it derides or lauds the President. The value of the piece of art stands or falls. however, not on the success of its political intent, but on the success of its artistic component. The latter can be many things, but whatever it is, the value of the art falls out from it ... not from the success or failure of the object as a political statement.
When the critic? ... and when the philosopher? ... and when, still, the artist as either? That is going to mostly depend on the work itself. Each of these parties has their own stills. I bring the philosopher in because the analytic tool-kit is (very often) lacking in the artist and the crtique (which is fine, because that is not their jobs).
Now the philosopher takes over. The question moves slightly from "what can be art?" in general (or "can I make this into art?" in specific) to the actual analytic analysis of what is doing the work in any individual case ... what makes the Campbell's Soup Can art in this or that case, but not the Montgomery Ward building for Duchamp.
Now the critic takes over ... identifying what is doing the work in this or that case before them, the critic can then turn to judging the merits of the work vis-a-vis the means by which it has become art.
Example ... a piece of artwork may be very popular simply because it derides or lauds the President. The value of the piece of art stands or falls. however, not on the success of its political intent, but on the success of its artistic component. The latter can be many things, but whatever it is, the value of the art falls out from it ... not from the success or failure of the object as a political statement.
When the critic? ... and when the philosopher? ... and when, still, the artist as either? That is going to mostly depend on the work itself. Each of these parties has their own stills. I bring the philosopher in because the analytic tool-kit is (very often) lacking in the artist and the crtique (which is fine, because that is not their jobs).
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 12:45 PM
1 Comments:
I always had problems with Adorno's Marxist formulation of art as that which critiques the ideology of the status quo. It puts too much value on overtly political art. While art is usually political, I think that it is often covertly political. And Adorno's rationalism has trouble accomodating what is not linguistically representable. It's kind of like the Russian formalists (i.e., Sholvsky) saying that poetry is the defamiliarization of the "naturalness" of language. But this works at multiple, often unconscious or irrational, levels.
Post a Comment
<< Home