i don't have time to write about this really, but i want to notch it here so i remember to come back to it later. okay, so: i've been talking a lot lately with close ones about my frustration when people assume art is weak or bad because it isn't "rejectable" like scientific contribution. like, i've had numerous discussions now with a reading group of kids who take it as given that since stuff like, say, piss in a beaker photographed has been considered art, art is broken. that is, anything--ANYTHING!--can be and is art, so what's the point of talking about it, kinda.
see, i disagree with this bigtime. i talked to j about it and i should post excerpts when i get a chance, it's more lucid than i am right now...but basically the point that people aren't entirely passive or absolutely receptive. there's a filter going on, and it isn't just based purely on coincidence. there is art or expression that fails. this proves crucial for me when you get into the problems with marxism and why i love gramsci's transculturalism and dialectic models so much as a response to marxism's early flaws. foucault's great but the opposing force, that consideration should always be pushing against such critical...eh, tendencies to create a sharper view. they can actually work in tandem that way and it's important that they do. (at least, i think so.) i want to give people more credit than a lot of critical theory initially did, and the challenge to the aforementioned assumption plays a major role in that.
so the big problem here is, how can you possibly point out examples of art that fails if, uh, it failed? i mean failed in terms of not capturing any mood floating around in its context, and thus failing to be received or noted. didn't strike any chord whatsoever.
i know there's ways to whittle and do this somewhat from my art history courses. but i'm stumped for the ultimate tool to find and evaluate such pieces, since yeah. the criteria itself is that they weren't picked up. and this is a problem for any statement that these works existed and exist.
gaaarh. sorry if this all comes off as more rambly wanking. it's just bugging me a lot. i haven't had a soothing shower all week because it pops up in my mind as i'm soaping up my hair.
(dork)
see, i disagree with this bigtime. i talked to j about it and i should post excerpts when i get a chance, it's more lucid than i am right now...but basically the point that people aren't entirely passive or absolutely receptive. there's a filter going on, and it isn't just based purely on coincidence. there is art or expression that fails. this proves crucial for me when you get into the problems with marxism and why i love gramsci's transculturalism and dialectic models so much as a response to marxism's early flaws. foucault's great but the opposing force, that consideration should always be pushing against such critical...eh, tendencies to create a sharper view. they can actually work in tandem that way and it's important that they do. (at least, i think so.) i want to give people more credit than a lot of critical theory initially did, and the challenge to the aforementioned assumption plays a major role in that.
so the big problem here is, how can you possibly point out examples of art that fails if, uh, it failed? i mean failed in terms of not capturing any mood floating around in its context, and thus failing to be received or noted. didn't strike any chord whatsoever.
i know there's ways to whittle and do this somewhat from my art history courses. but i'm stumped for the ultimate tool to find and evaluate such pieces, since yeah. the criteria itself is that they weren't picked up. and this is a problem for any statement that these works existed and exist.
gaaarh. sorry if this all comes off as more rambly wanking. it's just bugging me a lot. i haven't had a soothing shower all week because it pops up in my mind as i'm soaping up my hair.
(dork)