Canadian Art Quote #3
Kevin Dowler
Dowler is writing here about the controversies that arose when the National Gallery of Canada purchased Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" in 1990, and then again when they exhibited Jana Sterbak's "Vanitas" (aka. meat dress) in 1991.
From the "In Defense of the Realm: Public Controversy and the Apologetics of Art" published in the anthologoy Theory Rules published by YYZ Books and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996. pg.82
The collapse of the distinction between, on the one hand, the sphere of aesthetic production and reception and, on the other, the spheres of everyday social and political interaction, even if only brief, can produce some interesting and unanticipated consequences. Until recently, the uselessness of art, its pure negativity, ensured its freedom to function as critique, since it rested beyond (and therefore was incapable of infecting) the horizon of everday life. However, with the erosion of the autonomy of aesthetic practice and the broadening of the scope of reception (once encouraged by the avant-garde), art can no longer hold the priviledged position that was the sign of both its freedom from constraint and its lack of utility.
Ironically, the occasions which do seem to produce some social effects and which would indicate a certain success as regards the claim for the centrality of aesthetic experience have led instead to a shrill rhetoric in defense of artistic (and, concomitantly, institutional) freedom. This appears to run into a contradiction that emerges in relation to both aesthetic practices and discourses: the persistent desire, first expressed by the avant-garde, to reunite aesthetic experience with quotidian experience, and the insistence that art remain immune to the social and political criticism of its contents.
V. interesting, and timely for you to be posting this quote now.
What's your opinion on this Sal? Or are you posting this more as an interesting observation than as a pov?
I find "the insistence that art remain immune to the social and political criticism of its contents" is a construct. It's completely intellectualized, it's trying to intellectualize aesthetic form and within a critical rhetoric. And its unsustainable for any extended length of time.
In my view, art right now is not concerned with intense critical analysis, not that critical thought isn't present, it's just not foremost. Art is in a stage of "do" more than "think". This is also unsustainable and not desirable for any extended length of time.
I predict that in the future, art will flow once more to a more intellectual realm but without as much stiffling rhetoric that pretty much swallowed it completely in the 1980s.
You are asking me a very pointed question, and I am still struggling with this one. I love Kevin Dowler's essay for pointing out an inherent contradiction: If art is to follow the trajectory of the avant-garde and re-intersect with life, then art will be challenged according to the same criteria that we apply to other social matters. If not, and we re-resign ourselves to art-for-arts-sake, then art can burble along happily in its own little bubble, hitting no roadblocks, but by the same token, achieving very little impact. Unfortunately, those of us who advocate for art (myself included) often hop between the two positions, which only further alienates the "public" and further isolates the art. I'm not sure if there's a middle ground between the two. I think maybe I (we) have tried at times to forge that territory. Or maybe there's other options that I'm just not seeing. But if it comes down to just the two positions, I think I lean towards art being an effective part of social interaction, subject to the same crass judgements as entertainment and politics, than relegated to a safe but ineffectual isolation chamber. On the other hand, I feel very strongly that we need a place to act out our weird stuff, and if art-for-art's sake makes a zone for unthinkable thoughts to exist and possibly affect some leakage into mainstream society, then I'm all for it. All that said, I agree with your prediction. And maybe predictions are more potent than preferences.
...proposed 80% cut in municipal funding by the City of Ottawa to the arts, culture and heritage sector.
...Regina's Dunlop Art Gallery closing
is this what you mean by "timely"?
Sal, re: your comments from 2-26. I struggle with this issue too, but oddly, not when I am making art, just when I am evaluating every choice that has led to how I make work right now. The central question for me, for years now, is how to participate in the world and be an artist at the same time. (And in being an artist, I imply that I want the independence to leak out the unthinkable, to paraphrase you. But I would expand the term "unthinkable" to "unthoughtof" or "asyetunseenbutIknowitisthere", as that would encompass more than transgression and refer to the complex motivations for our actions)
Hey LM, maybe the reason so many artists are interested in quantum theory is cause we are already completely familiar with the fundamental role of observation in changing/creating meaning.
buy valium paypal valium biological half-life - order valium online legal
|
Canadian Art Quote #3
Kevin Dowler
Dowler is writing here about the controversies that arose when the National Gallery of Canada purchased Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" in 1990, and then again when they exhibited Jana Sterbak's "Vanitas" (aka. meat dress) in 1991.
From the "In Defense of the Realm: Public Controversy and the Apologetics of Art" published in the anthologoy Theory Rules published by YYZ Books and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996. pg.82
The collapse of the distinction between, on the one hand, the sphere of aesthetic production and reception and, on the other, the spheres of everyday social and political interaction, even if only brief, can produce some interesting and unanticipated consequences. Until recently, the uselessness of art, its pure negativity, ensured its freedom to function as critique, since it rested beyond (and therefore was incapable of infecting) the horizon of everday life. However, with the erosion of the autonomy of aesthetic practice and the broadening of the scope of reception (once encouraged by the avant-garde), art can no longer hold the priviledged position that was the sign of both its freedom from constraint and its lack of utility.
Ironically, the occasions which do seem to produce some social effects and which would indicate a certain success as regards the claim for the centrality of aesthetic experience have led instead to a shrill rhetoric in defense of artistic (and, concomitantly, institutional) freedom. This appears to run into a contradiction that emerges in relation to both aesthetic practices and discourses: the persistent desire, first expressed by the avant-garde, to reunite aesthetic experience with quotidian experience, and the insistence that art remain immune to the social and political criticism of its contents.
- sally mckay 2-16-2004 6:39 am
V. interesting, and timely for you to be posting this quote now.
What's your opinion on this Sal? Or are you posting this more as an interesting observation than as a pov?
I find "the insistence that art remain immune to the social and political criticism of its contents" is a construct. It's completely intellectualized, it's trying to intellectualize aesthetic form and within a critical rhetoric. And its unsustainable for any extended length of time.
In my view, art right now is not concerned with intense critical analysis, not that critical thought isn't present, it's just not foremost. Art is in a stage of "do" more than "think". This is also unsustainable and not desirable for any extended length of time.
I predict that in the future, art will flow once more to a more intellectual realm but without as much stiffling rhetoric that pretty much swallowed it completely in the 1980s.
- x-lola 2-16-2004 5:44 pm
You are asking me a very pointed question, and I am still struggling with this one. I love Kevin Dowler's essay for pointing out an inherent contradiction: If art is to follow the trajectory of the avant-garde and re-intersect with life, then art will be challenged according to the same criteria that we apply to other social matters. If not, and we re-resign ourselves to art-for-arts-sake, then art can burble along happily in its own little bubble, hitting no roadblocks, but by the same token, achieving very little impact. Unfortunately, those of us who advocate for art (myself included) often hop between the two positions, which only further alienates the "public" and further isolates the art. I'm not sure if there's a middle ground between the two. I think maybe I (we) have tried at times to forge that territory. Or maybe there's other options that I'm just not seeing. But if it comes down to just the two positions, I think I lean towards art being an effective part of social interaction, subject to the same crass judgements as entertainment and politics, than relegated to a safe but ineffectual isolation chamber. On the other hand, I feel very strongly that we need a place to act out our weird stuff, and if art-for-art's sake makes a zone for unthinkable thoughts to exist and possibly affect some leakage into mainstream society, then I'm all for it. All that said, I agree with your prediction. And maybe predictions are more potent than preferences.
- sally mckay 2-17-2004 6:19 am
...proposed 80% cut in municipal funding by the City of Ottawa to the arts, culture and heritage sector.
...Regina's Dunlop Art Gallery closing
is this what you mean by "timely"?
- sally mckay 2-18-2004 8:21 pm
Sal, re: your comments from 2-26. I struggle with this issue too, but oddly, not when I am making art, just when I am evaluating every choice that has led to how I make work right now. The central question for me, for years now, is how to participate in the world and be an artist at the same time. (And in being an artist, I imply that I want the independence to leak out the unthinkable, to paraphrase you. But I would expand the term "unthinkable" to "unthoughtof" or "asyetunseenbutIknowitisthere", as that would encompass more than transgression and refer to the complex motivations for our actions)
- LM (guest) 2-22-2004 11:20 pm
Hey LM, maybe the reason so many artists are interested in quantum theory is cause we are already completely familiar with the fundamental role of observation in changing/creating meaning.
- sally mckay 2-23-2004 5:25 pm
buy valium paypal valium biological half-life - order valium online legal
- dbjqgSj (guest) 5-14-2014 5:58 pm