A comparatively light and enjoyable read, very witty and full of the flavor of its time. I love the glimpse of the culture he offers us with this vivid descriptions of New York in the Modernist era. It is a palpable description. I was struck by how small the art world actually was in those times, and how just a few aggressive personalities shaped the history of art through the last century.
His tone reminded me of how someone with an 'insider's' view explains things. It has a cleverly conspiratorial tone, as if he were saying, 'lemme tell ya how it was.' At the same time he seems trustworthy, even though he casually judges everyone as he moves through an easy historical banter. The overview is remarkable in its good natured, well informed, and succinct voice.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Inside the White Cube - The Ideology of the Gallery Space
This book by Brian O'Doherty was very informative about the history and development of the gallery space. The gallery, essentially a kind of specialty shop that made deliberate choices about presentation fore its product. Even as commerce stole the monopoly that religion had on art, it then mimicked it with the chapel-like setting of the white cube that is a gallery space.
The reaction of artists to this containing and commodifying of their sensibility was all out revolt.
Attacks upon the gallery space itself reached a level both outrageous and absurd, but these attacks were constantly diffused by instant commodification. Nevertheless I greatly appreciate these last dying gasps off the artist's attempt to avoid being integrated as an economic interest.
His afterword has a note of resignation, "History in art is, ultimately, worth money." p. 109
I think what he is noting is, the contamination of a craft by the practice of business, as Socrates would say. Much like that way that Sony is not interested in the craft of stereo making, they are merely in the business of selling stereos - and when that is the general nature of things, even in an art world, then the integrity of the product suffers.
The reaction of artists to this containing and commodifying of their sensibility was all out revolt.
Attacks upon the gallery space itself reached a level both outrageous and absurd, but these attacks were constantly diffused by instant commodification. Nevertheless I greatly appreciate these last dying gasps off the artist's attempt to avoid being integrated as an economic interest.
His afterword has a note of resignation, "History in art is, ultimately, worth money." p. 109
I think what he is noting is, the contamination of a craft by the practice of business, as Socrates would say. Much like that way that Sony is not interested in the craft of stereo making, they are merely in the business of selling stereos - and when that is the general nature of things, even in an art world, then the integrity of the product suffers.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Society of Spectacle - Guy Debord
What a brilliant piece of writing! It was like being in philosophy school again, except that I was reading Continental thought, instead of Analytic thought.
The book, while it presents a very disturbing perspective of society, was a great comfort to me. I guess that I had always felt a sense of illusion and unreality about modern life, but this book put a name on it, brought it out into the open and dissected it for me. I was able to put all those shadowy suspicions on the table and really see them.
At age 18 I carried my television out to the dumpster because I had grown bored of that media spectacle long before. I remember that night clearly. I knew in a deep intuitive way that television was a waste of my life. I wrote in my diary that I was sure to be able to live a better story than anyone I could watch on TV. I have also worked to keep mainstream media to a minimum, as well as advertising, and popular culture. All of those things are major components of the Spectacle that Debord is pointing out. "...the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system." (p. 8)
We all know that our culture has shifted meaning and fulfillment from 'being to having.' In the U.S. this has been true for a long time, definitely in my entire life time. The Spectacle is as he says, pervasive and omnipresent. It is so foundational to modern life that few people seem to even recognize it, let alone question it. I am curious what makes some people resist it, and others embrace it?
He skillfully follows shift in paradigm and various attempts to realize Marxist philosophy. His analysis of the Russian power structures that variously ruled under the pretext of socialism or communism is penetrating and insightful. He is also right in his critiques of capitalism, that the proletariat has not been eliminated, but more intensely alienated by the modernity of the system. (p. 66)
He's got some good advice, including a warning to revolutionary organizations who reproduce the power structure of what they sought to overthrow. (Animal Farm)
Finally, he speaks of the way that revolution might occur within the Spectacle. He talks of the individual, saying that emancipation is only possible when 'individuals are directly linked to universal history.' (p. 119)
Current philosophies of Human Rights charge that the only way to improve conditions is for the seat of the rights to reside in the individual. No special, different, or unequal rights can exist if the holders of those rights are always ultimately individuals, not nation-states, city states, tribes, or even families. Not until each individual human holds all the rights within themselves, will justice prevail.
I find myself closely aligned with both ideals, that individuals should be the ultimate holders of themselves, and have a real stake in the development of the culture they live in.
The book, while it presents a very disturbing perspective of society, was a great comfort to me. I guess that I had always felt a sense of illusion and unreality about modern life, but this book put a name on it, brought it out into the open and dissected it for me. I was able to put all those shadowy suspicions on the table and really see them.
At age 18 I carried my television out to the dumpster because I had grown bored of that media spectacle long before. I remember that night clearly. I knew in a deep intuitive way that television was a waste of my life. I wrote in my diary that I was sure to be able to live a better story than anyone I could watch on TV. I have also worked to keep mainstream media to a minimum, as well as advertising, and popular culture. All of those things are major components of the Spectacle that Debord is pointing out. "...the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system." (p. 8)
We all know that our culture has shifted meaning and fulfillment from 'being to having.' In the U.S. this has been true for a long time, definitely in my entire life time. The Spectacle is as he says, pervasive and omnipresent. It is so foundational to modern life that few people seem to even recognize it, let alone question it. I am curious what makes some people resist it, and others embrace it?
He skillfully follows shift in paradigm and various attempts to realize Marxist philosophy. His analysis of the Russian power structures that variously ruled under the pretext of socialism or communism is penetrating and insightful. He is also right in his critiques of capitalism, that the proletariat has not been eliminated, but more intensely alienated by the modernity of the system. (p. 66)
He's got some good advice, including a warning to revolutionary organizations who reproduce the power structure of what they sought to overthrow. (Animal Farm)
Finally, he speaks of the way that revolution might occur within the Spectacle. He talks of the individual, saying that emancipation is only possible when 'individuals are directly linked to universal history.' (p. 119)
Current philosophies of Human Rights charge that the only way to improve conditions is for the seat of the rights to reside in the individual. No special, different, or unequal rights can exist if the holders of those rights are always ultimately individuals, not nation-states, city states, tribes, or even families. Not until each individual human holds all the rights within themselves, will justice prevail.
I find myself closely aligned with both ideals, that individuals should be the ultimate holders of themselves, and have a real stake in the development of the culture they live in.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Shape of Content - by Ben Shahn
This was a marvelous read, and I have waited to long to write about it. Many of the finer points have slipped my mind now. It was fascinating to read about the integration of the Arts into the university setting. I had never actually thought about that before and how it might have come about.
I also enjoyed reading about the perception of Minimalist artwork at the time of the writing. It was a telling lens into a past era that was both surprising and colorful. Mr. Shahn's descriptive writing talents lead me again and again to a feeling of excitement about how the shape of my content will look, and how I will find my unique voice in the unfolding history of the Art World.
I also enjoyed reading about the perception of Minimalist artwork at the time of the writing. It was a telling lens into a past era that was both surprising and colorful. Mr. Shahn's descriptive writing talents lead me again and again to a feeling of excitement about how the shape of my content will look, and how I will find my unique voice in the unfolding history of the Art World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
