This week's readings included the words; intertextuality, sampling, art MOVEments.
This last word provides some insight into the nature of art and representation.
There is a sense that for art to have value it must have difference. It must be different, yet in practice it must also be similar enough to remain within the frame of reference of its given category. From this we get a false sense of progress, of movement, but towards what end? Where is art going?
It would appear now as though any destination for art proposed, would now be considered unacceptable. All ends previous have...ended. Realism created instead of reflected ('of course'-we think now). Modernism became a tradition and a system of authority while seeking to escape tradition and authority(and some argue postmodernism has followed suit). All movements championing a Truth have been admired for their progress beyond their predecessor, but condemned for their various discriminations and failings. And now, though we have abandoned our measurements of progress, we have not abandoned progress itself.
Art is now only considered art if it is dissenting, if it is critiquing hegemony, hierarchy or whatever. Art "for the sake of art" is still critiquing the hegemonic tradition that art must be dissenting, and dissenting this tradition. The art that does not do this is called advertising, although many ads do seek minimal subversion, if only between brands. (see adbusters-a "successful" voice of dissent)
So in practice, we are not post-anything, it is only in theory that we have moved beyond the old meta-narratives. Art that is "new", avant-garde, or whatever is still privileged. Perhaps a more appropriate reaction from a movement that claims egalitarianism and social transformation as its cause would be to abandon ranks and values, because stating "this piece of art is the most critical of our current social order" is a terribly misleading statement which only reinforces the social structures it claims to critique.
Braden!
ReplyDeleteI am sad to make art now :( But I really dig the idea that now art is considered art if dissenting. I also dig your critique on post modernism, if I understand it correctly, I agree that while they reject meta-narratives and old concepts but ignores the social value they put in art that is dissenting or avande-garde or new. Post-bullshit I think we needs to be call em. It seems like a really tricky thing to unravel, how does one abandon value and ranks and still function is a capitalist society? Post modern is a cool theory and cool thought process but outside of it’s theoretical framework it seems almost impossible to be able to function outside the academic research and essays, and not defeat on some level.
Ramble ramble ramble.