What a fantastic read! This book really gave me a great analysis of Modernism, and then is posed some very fertile questions about the direction of art since then. I was especially moved by her insistence that the spiritual in art is something worth retrieving from the dustbin of Modernism's rejects. I appreciate that sentiment very much, and it has a lot to do with my goals in art.
I also really enjoyed her fresh approach with writing style, even though it was a bit dense to read.
Unfortunately I didn't get the new revised edition of the book and so I am missing the last two chapters. The version I got was seeped in 80's current events and issues. I look forward to reading what she has to say since then.
I guess part of me still sees that artist as "the last active carrier of spiritual value in a materialist world" even if it hasn't been true for a long time. (p. 21) I guess I have old fashioned notions, but in my owl life I have noticed a slow but steady deterioration of belief as well.
Her examination of the over personalization of art was fascinating to me because I have done that, and imagined art that way my whole life. I assumed it was primarily about the artist's private vision, and that we didn't really have any responsibility to the community unless we were interested in being commercial, but even that is a private act. (p. 32) Life has lost its hold on the sacred, nothing is left, everything has been plundered. (p. 47)
The artists sold out, I guess I never thought about it. They had sold out long before I knew it could be otherwise. I always imagined that success in art meant fame and money, "making it."
(p. 58)
The whole chapter Pluralism: The Tyranny of Freedom, was amazing to read. I had never in my life considered things from her viewpoint. I always assumed, without question that the maximum freedom was the maximum good. The poses that big question terms of ethical debate, "either we accept that there are real and inherent values - eternal truths which transcend individual existence - or there are no such truths..." (p. 77)
Her point is well put and I think that much of the tension is due to the conflict between individualism and communal values. (p. 79)
Perhaps the merging of life with art was inevitable, in order to pull something unifying back into the arena. The spontaneous creation of graffiti art shows that art is impossible to cage or limit.
Nevertheless, I am lead through the book to understanding her call for socially conscious, meaningful, transcendent art.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Painted Word - Tom Wolfe
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Simulacra & Simulations pt 2
I read and re-read that thing, and I think it's brilliant. I ignore all the Marxist talk, I realize that the continental and post-modern philosophers all have that bent, and so it doesn't distract me, or disturb me. I think I understand his point about the loss of reality, the loss of a point of reference for power. Although I think it is most like a loss of some determinate reference for truth.
Nothing is as it seems and everything seems to be what it is not.
It reminds me of the last words uttered by Hassan i Sabbah, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." It's like we've really come to that, I guess it's hyperreality, and it's here.
The essay gives me a deepening sense of alarm. It explicated something I've sensed for a long time, but it's strike is potent, it gives me a start.
At various times, various people have expressed that same kind of feeling, that overwhelming lack of reality, multiple ambiguous truths floating around, the smoke and mirrors, the audacity of media, the absence of sanity and so on. However, Baudrillard tells it in a very succint way. He is accusing and incendiary, but he has reason to be. I get caught up in him. His points are well made, his language is fascinating.
That's good philosophy.
Nothing is as it seems and everything seems to be what it is not.
It reminds me of the last words uttered by Hassan i Sabbah, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." It's like we've really come to that, I guess it's hyperreality, and it's here.
The essay gives me a deepening sense of alarm. It explicated something I've sensed for a long time, but it's strike is potent, it gives me a start.
At various times, various people have expressed that same kind of feeling, that overwhelming lack of reality, multiple ambiguous truths floating around, the smoke and mirrors, the audacity of media, the absence of sanity and so on. However, Baudrillard tells it in a very succint way. He is accusing and incendiary, but he has reason to be. I get caught up in him. His points are well made, his language is fascinating.
That's good philosophy.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Simulacra & Simulations
This piece of writing became impressed upon me in the strangest way. For the first couple of pages I wasn't following him very well, but then I started to see.
It was like a veil being slowly lifted and then I started to see quite clearly what he was getting at, and then I started to agree. It eerie how much this piece of writing applies to what's happening right now in the political arena of the world. There is the over abundance of imagery which leads to a meaninglessness, the loss of any reference point for the truth, the masking of and double masking, also the never ending parade of illusions until all is illusory, clearly we are lost in a house of mirrors.
We are victims of a sophisticated kind of doublespeak, as he says, "All the hypotheses of manipulation are reversible in an endless whirligig."
I feel as if we are all victims of this indeterminate discourse, and it's not a purposeful conspiracy as much as the nature of the game, "such collusions admirable knit together without their authors even knowing it..." The participants of this kind of conspiracy do their parts unconsciously.
It is inevitable.
I am fascinated by what he says of the presidents who must die, or pretend to, in order to reinvent the power. Also this idea that a simulated crime might cause a greater outrage than a real one, since the threatened domain is one of paradigmatic importance.
more later...
It was like a veil being slowly lifted and then I started to see quite clearly what he was getting at, and then I started to agree. It eerie how much this piece of writing applies to what's happening right now in the political arena of the world. There is the over abundance of imagery which leads to a meaninglessness, the loss of any reference point for the truth, the masking of and double masking, also the never ending parade of illusions until all is illusory, clearly we are lost in a house of mirrors.
We are victims of a sophisticated kind of doublespeak, as he says, "All the hypotheses of manipulation are reversible in an endless whirligig."
I feel as if we are all victims of this indeterminate discourse, and it's not a purposeful conspiracy as much as the nature of the game, "such collusions admirable knit together without their authors even knowing it..." The participants of this kind of conspiracy do their parts unconsciously.
It is inevitable.
I am fascinated by what he says of the presidents who must die, or pretend to, in order to reinvent the power. Also this idea that a simulated crime might cause a greater outrage than a real one, since the threatened domain is one of paradigmatic importance.
more later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
