2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I wasn't exactly sure how to blog about "Art Theory Contexts," since, obviously, it's more a series of bullet-points and ideas than a polished critique or argument. One thing I was wondering was what specific things (art pieces, essays, historical events, etc.) caused the shift between "modernism" and "postmodernism"? Was there a specific "death of modernism" to create "postmodernism"? When did this happen specifically, and why? What artists, critics, and events caused this change?

I found interesting the idea of "intertextuality," or art being interpreted in the context of prior or concurrent work. Perhaps a work of art can only be understood in the context of prior or concurrent work. However, how does one know what art works to use as references to a particular piece, so as to make that piece intelligible? What are the particular art works involved in this "network of presupposed prior and contemporary works through which anything is interpreted"? And who determines this network of referential works? Interestingly, Kristera's definition of "intertextuality" as "(a text which is intelligible only through) a mosaic of references and quotations that have lost their origins" recalls Barthes' definition of a text as "a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash...a tissure of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture."

I liked the idea that "the interpretation of an art work will always take the form of another work." In this way, art works can beget other art works, and more art is being made, even if it is made only as an interpretation, a reaction, to other work. In my opinion, the more art being made, the better. Also, I found the chart at the end of "Art Theory Contexts" to be very useful in terms of organizing and comparing "modern," "postmodern," and "post-postmodern" art in a variety of different contexts (economics, galleries, materials, artists, theory, and culture), and I'm sure I'll refer to the chart repeatedly.

I am coming out of a background with little to no art theory. I am also so young that I was born into “post-post modernism� so haven’t even gotten to live through any other movement and I know I’m not the only one. This outline clarified some details to help me further understand the relationship between modernism, post-modernism and today. Fortunately, I read over these charts and information a week or two ago, but I almost wish it was given to us the very first night of class just to get some of us who are less experienced on a similar page to everyone else.

Upon reading the bulleted point on intertextuality, I immediately recall the many discussions I’ve heard about appropriation. It is a hot topic these days, as it is frequently used, but often for the wrong reasons. The common consensus seems to be that appropriation of images is okay to do, as long as it is done for a specific reason that relates back to the concept of the piece. As the chart states, “interpreting in contexts of prior work, traditions, codes and values.� This also relates to the idea of “new works as interpretations of prior or contemporary works.�

It is interesting for me to read about the economics of all three periods. Even when the art market expands, it seems that there is still a hierarchy in galleries and private collectors. I wonder how many years it will take before the art market becomes more accessible to a different range of social groups.

My favorite bullet-point on this list is: “An anti-triumphalism triumphalism…�
Such ridiculous turns of phrase become necessary as we spiral through the revolving doors that lead back and forth between the courtyard of self-awareness and the lobby of meta-self-awareness without ever quite daring to enter the elevator that may or may not take us to our appointment in the 52nd floor offices at art-world industrial park.
I’m joking of course. There’s just something about typing responses on a blog while reading about the “professionalization of artworld careers� that makes my hands tingle with the onset of stress-related tendonitis, so I have to say something silly in order to breathe again.

This outline is a helpful overview of the shifting intellectual landscape of late 20th century art theory. I’m glad Irvine chose to point out the considerable economic factors that play into art-world culture, as well as the intellectual factors. Although a chart like this is helpful in general terms, it’s obviously reductive to define whole decades in terms of a few dominant trends. Perhaps the endless urge to classify ‘isms’ and assign dominance grows out of that very “professionalization of artworld careers� that I mentioned. This heightened art-world self-awareness must contribute toward the trend toward conscious intertextuality and even ‘semiosis.’ There’s a sort of feedback loop in which critics, artists, and curators identify and write about theoretical trends; artists self-consciously frame their own work in relation to this now-accepted paradigm, often making work that is explicitly about other art as a result.

I think that art-making is essentially a process of dialog, and it’s good to be aware of one’s context and influences. However, when this awareness leads to a process of making work that only exists to comment on other work (or even on itself), then I think that social engagement has been bypassed in favor of self-stimulation. It’s at this point that I long for an anti-triumphalism triumphalism...

My favorite bullet-point on this list is: “An anti-triumphalism triumphalism…�
Such ridiculous turns of phrase become necessary as we spiral through the revolving doors that lead back and forth between the courtyard of self-awareness and the lobby of meta-self-awareness without ever quite daring to enter the elevator that may or may not take us to our appointment in the 52nd floor offices at art-world industrial park.
I’m joking of course. There’s just something about typing responses on a blog while reading about the “professionalization of artworld careers� that makes my hands tingle with the onset of stress-related tendonitis, so I have to say something silly in order to breathe again.

This outline is a helpful overview of the shifting intellectual landscape of late 20th century art theory. I’m glad Irvine chose to point out the considerable economic factors that play into art-world culture, as well as the intellectual factors. Although a chart like this is helpful in general terms, it’s obviously reductive to define whole decades in terms of a few dominant trends. Perhaps the endless urge to classify ‘isms’ and assign dominance grows out of that very “professionalization of artworld careers� that I mentioned. This heightened art-world self-awareness must contribute toward the trend toward conscious intertextuality and even ‘semiosis.’ There’s a sort of feedback loop in which critics, artists, and curators identify and write about theoretical trends; artists self-consciously frame their own work in relation to this now-accepted paradigm, often making work that is explicitly about other art as a result.

I think that art-making is essentially a process of dialog, and it’s good to be aware of one’s context and influences. However, when this awareness leads to a process of making work that only exists to comment on other work (or even on itself), then I think that social engagement has been bypassed in favor of self-stimulation. It’s at this point that I long for an anti-triumphalism triumphalism...

As Rowan has stated I too was not sure how to write about this hand out. Don't get me wrong it is extremely helpful, but it is really more of an aid than a actual text. One of the first bullets refers to the "so-called culture wars". What is to question about the existence of this cultural division? It seams to me that the whole Neo-Con mode of thought that characterizes our current administration is an extreme backlash to the cultural changes that took place in the 60s and 70s.

The question of the "status/role/function of the material art object in a digital and post - Internet world" is one I keep coming back to. Should art try and communicate with as many people as possible or is it okay to be elitist? If reaching a broad audience is a goal, the internet and other forms of mass communication are obvious choices. I am still however, extremely drawn to physical art objects but I often wonder how effective they are in today's culture. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think a painting can't just be pleasant. It is serving a function by being enjoyable to look at. For myself however, I struggle with the idea of what arts role is. Does the act of making an art object for a gallery audience, that speaks of the issues we are talking about, actually change anything? I know for myself making work about issues that bug me is a form of cathartic release but I'm not sure if it does much else. My work doesn't reflect this yet but I am drawn to the idea of art that functions. Art that interacts with it's surroundings in a positive effective way. An example of this is Mel Chins "Revival Field" (http://channel.creative-capital.org/project_220.html). For those of you that haven't heard of this piece before, it is basically a sculptural installation in the form of a garden that is located on a superfund sight in St. Paul. The plants in the garden extract the pollutants from soil.

I wasn't even aware that there was a "Post-Post-Modern". I'm not sure if I buy the idea that there is enough difference in thought to warrant the marking of a new era. It really just seams like a continuation of postmodernism. That being said if it sticks I'm assuming they are still working on a name. That's what the question mark is for right? Maybe someone should hire a firm to do a naming ideation.

Ben, I'm interested in your questions about art's function and our role as artist's in today's culture. I often question what my place as an artist is, especially when a number of my friends are becoming doctors and teachers. I am not in any way doubting my choice, I just wonder if my contributions to society can ever be as important as theirs. Is or should art be headed in the direction of function for the greater masses? Is the age of gallery art and the art object coming to an end and the age of performances and interaction taking over? Or will there always be a place for the gallery artist?

Robin, I think this can only be answered by asking yourself about your relationship to art. What happens to you when you have an experience with a piece? Does that have value for you and how?

Your value as a contributor to society does not rest only in your choice of profession. We contribute to society every day in so many ways. Exploring the multi faceted dimensions of being human and expressing, sharing, revealing, owning, loving, disliking...... take your pick, that is the artists job, our profession, I think, and Im glad you are NOT questioning that you are one.

I like the charts and the easy reading of the Art Theory Contexts. I think that art has a context. It has a history and I am trying more and more to absorb on a conscious level this information so that it is informing me, in the mind, on a level which can add another dimensionality to my work. Just as if someone came to you and said hey I made this thing and I think it could be great and you look at it and say, yeah, we call it a wheel. I want to use the wheel, I like the wheel and seeing what happens when I hook it up to other things.
I do find that it is a language thing though. This labeling and identifying. I know through my art practice that learning about my tool takes time and that after time comes the ability to use that tool as an extension of my ability to imagine, feel, and think. So it is fun to wonder about what will be the next boxes on that chart.

I found Martin Irvine's “Art Theory Context� helpful to review over my general understanding of modernism and what happened after. Although I still think that there is no clear line between each movements (I don't think there will ever be) and that I am careless about how things are categorized in context of modernism, I see how categorization and simplification may help you understand A PERSPECTIVE of the general flow of complicated multi-dimensional movements.

I may be going off the track here, but I think this is a good opportunity to mention my perspective of generalization. I keep emphasizing the uniqueness of each ideologies because I believe that no single ideologies can be shared among multiple of individuals. For example, if a story of Cinderella is told by two people, there will be two different versions of Cinderella. One may be summarized into; a lady worked hard met magic and married prince, while other could be summarized as; a prince met a lady, lost her and found her again.

Irvine summarized his version of “story� about modernism in his “Art Theory Context�. I was rather skeptical about these “stories� and accused them for being different than my own version, but after reading a few of these versions I am starting to realize and appreciate the fact that reading different versions would only enhance and add depth to my own version of the story. I appreciate Irvine's short and concise writing that helped me realize this and cleared my frustrations.