Many would say that there's very little thats actually 'Avant-garde' in contemporary art, if so then what are contemporary artists doing? Why does the public have such a distanced relationship to it?
My understanding was that certain but not all strains of postmodern practices were in opposition to modernism so they needed to reject some of the precepts of what the avant-garde stood for. That said, there was been a renewed interest in modernism and I think those more avant-garde aspects in works of art are making a return but they are deflated. What I mean by deflated is that there is a kind of celebration of failure.
Other activities of contemporary production that have been on the radar screen for a while are relational aesthetics, sensationalism, and alt-modernism is still something that is being explored among other things but this is another conversation.
The publics distance from contemporary art is that they don't feel like they are being included in the conversation of what art is. Part of the problem is that contemporary art intersects many different areas of knowledge that your average person is not well rounded enough to engage. To my experience and knowledge art is something that you are either exposed to early on in school or through parental influence - sometimes that is not always the case, but we live in a culture that in my opinion values commodity and not the experience for the sake of reflection. Another problem is that media has replaced going to the museum (people used to go to the museums for entertainment-this has not been the case for a long time). I think that curators have it tough when trying to figure out how to keep people coming back its not easy. Art in public school is something that is also a problem - many schools do not have art or even art history, we have George Bush II to thank for that.
This is cool but where is this discussion in New York? I will have to get out all my black clothing so I don't look "past it." Concerning the Avant-garde: The issue is finished as far as I can tell. POMO or not; theory or not. Art still needs to be smart and felt. I look at my daughter's band for a far off analogy: They do not make distinctions between the Clash and the Beatles. That says something. It is not 1980 anymore.
Terry Eagleton in his book After Theory, makes a similar argument in that even though theory has played itself out, there is much that can be used and gained from it. If we apply this in the same way that Eagleton sees theory we can apply it similarly to the production and reception of works of art. I agree, art needs to dig in it's heels - take some risks even fail if it needs to.
My understanding was that certain but not all strains of postmodern practices were in opposition to modernism so they needed to reject some of the precepts of what the avant-garde stood for. That said, there was been a renewed interest in modernism and I think those more avant-garde aspects in works of art are making a return but they are deflated. What I mean by deflated is that there is a kind of celebration of failure.
ReplyDeleteOther activities of contemporary production that have been on the radar screen for a while are relational aesthetics, sensationalism, and alt-modernism is still something that is being explored among other things but this is another conversation.
The publics distance from contemporary art is that they don't feel like they are being included in the conversation of what art is. Part of the problem is that contemporary art intersects many different areas of knowledge that your average person is not well rounded enough to engage. To my experience and knowledge art is something that you are either exposed to early on in school or through parental influence - sometimes that is not always the case, but we live in a culture that in my opinion values commodity and not the experience for the sake of reflection. Another problem is that media has replaced going to the museum (people used to go to the museums for entertainment-this has not been the case for a long time). I think that curators have it tough when trying to figure out how to keep people coming back its not easy. Art in public school is something that is also a problem - many schools do not have art or even art history, we have George Bush II to thank for that.
This is cool but where is this discussion in New York? I will have to get out all my black clothing so I don't look "past it." Concerning the Avant-garde: The issue is finished as far as I can tell. POMO or not; theory or not. Art still needs to be smart and felt. I look at my daughter's band for a far off analogy: They do not make distinctions between the Clash and the Beatles. That says something. It is not 1980 anymore.
ReplyDeletePocket's,
ReplyDeleteTerry Eagleton in his book After Theory, makes a similar argument in that even though theory has played itself out, there is much that can be used and gained from it. If we apply this in the same way that Eagleton sees theory we can apply it similarly to the production and reception of works of art. I agree, art needs to dig in it's heels - take some risks even fail if it needs to.