This weeks readings are around conceptual art and the relationship art has with philosophy. Now the book gave us a very unique look at who the artists involved with conceptual art are. Authoritatively concept art is actually a rather debated subject. It is clear that it emerged from Duchamp and Minimalism, post-war politics and positivist philosophy (as opposed to the existential dread). Several artists claim to be the originators of concept art: Kosuth, Buren, and Anastasi (the last of whom was not mentioned in the text). We talked about how minimalism was the beginnings of postmodernism, but concept art is now squarely in what Lyotard calls 'the postmodern condition'.
Think of Lawrence Wiener for this:
"you can make art, you can have art fabricated, you don't even have to make the work," type thinking. Or of artists who say things like, "I don't want to put more objects into the world, so my work will be documentation in the form of drawings, photographs and essays"....
Terms to think about in more depth:
1) deskilling (which is a slur, and negative connotations in the beginning)
2) institutional critique
3) epistemes (Foucault's term for the way societies organize their facts)
4) aesthetics vs. art (in terms of Kosuth's essay 'Art After Philosophy')
5) the house of muses (the museum)
6) and this statement by Clement Greenberg that, from my point of view, will end up being his one great legacy, that the world of high art has been attached to the ruling class (and the bourgeiosie) by an umbilical cord of gold.
I have added an image of some of Hans Haacke's recent work, when he was the Dean of Students, or whatever at Cooper Union in the city. (Hows that for institutional critique!) But Haacke is totally rad, I highly advise getting to know his work very well...
So tonight we go conceptual style,
Shafier of the Night Flowers of Utter Doom
2 comments:
ummm i hope that this is where i post...?
im not sure why i thought someone would answer me. ok-
in terms of philosophical art, my romate and i have heated debates all the time over the art side of the perspective v. the philosophical side.
Yesterday i was talking to her again about piero manzoni and the "artist feces in metal can" artwork. although its still hilarious- she began to ask me, What do other artists actually feel about what he is trying to do? Do they understand it? Do they support it? And overall what causes an art community to deem a philosophical concept of art an actual work of art?
Question- Without falling back on "it depends what your definition of art is" how can one justify that a philosophised concept can be a tangible work of art that has recognition?
also, seeing as all of this causes me to run laps in my head... art has gone through phase after phase and now can we say that we are now in the conceptual stage? maybe? after the canvases then the specific styles then the morphing of style then the purpose behind the work- what is next?
Question- now that we have tranferred our artwork off of anything tangible or viewable what do you think will be the next step?
Good questions. I know all the answers but I won't ever say...
and let's not forget, Conceptual practice although it is still alive today, is rather antiquated.
So now, what does the justification of a work of art do for society, the artist(s), the work of art, etc?
Post a Comment