The end of art essay
The genre has almost become a matrix of the feminist novel in which the heroine arrives at a consciousness of who she is and what being a woman means.
And when, inthe Whitney compiled a Biennial consisting of works that really typified the way the art world had gone after the end of art, the outpouring of critical hostility--in which I am afraid I shared--was by an inestimable factor unprecedented in the history of Biennial polemics.
What question does Warhol's Brillo Box ask, or one of Beuys's multiples of a square of chocolate stuck to a piece of paper? Even if we agree with Danto that art has gone as far as it can in investigating what it means to be art, why rule out the possibility that art might embark upon a new narrative and find itself a new goal?
The end of art essay
What question does Warhol's Brillo Box ask, or one of Beuys's multiples of a square of chocolate stuck to a piece of paper? In The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art , he wrote: As Marx might say, you can be an abstractionist in the morning, a photorealist in the afternoon, a minimal minimalist in the evening. Non-conventional definitions take a concept like the aesthetic as an intrinsic characteristic in order to account for the phenomena of art. It was not my view that there would be no more art, which "death" certainly implies, but that whatever art there was to be would be made without benefit of a reassuring sort of narrative in which it was seen as the appropriate next stage in the story. It is a term something like "camp," which Susan Sontag transferred from gay idiolect into common discourse in a famous essay. For both Hegel and Danto, the end of art that each pinpointed was supposed to be followed by the opening up of an endless and unstructured chronicle. Vattimo , all published by Columbia University Press. But that is how it is with most concepts, stylistic or otherwise, and with recognitional capacities in human beings and in animals. The shift from "premodernist" to modernist art, if we follow Greenberg, was the shift from mimetic to nonmimetic features of painting. So the contemporary is, from one perspective, a period of information disorder, a condition of perfect aesthetic entropy. What had come to an end was that narrative but not the subject of the narrative. This was reason applied to itself, and having no other subject.
It was not my view that there would be no more art, which "death" certainly implies, but that whatever art there was to be would be made without benefit of a reassuring sort of narrative in which it was seen as the appropriate next stage in the story.
In my view, moreover, it designates less a period than what happens after there are no more periods in some master narrative of art, and less a style of making art than a style of using styles. Hal Foster writes: "A space for surrealism has opened up: an impense within the old narrative, it has become a privileged point for the contemporary critique of this narrative.
Kevin Roche brilliantly decided to duplicate the old Jewish Museum, and the eye is unable to tell a single difference. The shift from "premodernist" to modernist art, if we follow Greenberg, was the shift from mimetic to nonmimetic features of painting.
Art theory pdf
For him, maturity meant purity, in a sense of the term that connects exactly to what Kant meant by the term in the title of his Critique of Pure Reason. In fact, this tells us only that our starting principles were more about our own time and culture than we had guessed, and that art resists being summed up in any neat single narrative, and always contains a great many overlapping narratives of its own. That is because the basic perception of the contemporary spirit was formed on the principle of a museum in which all art has a rightful place, where there is no a priori criterion as to what that art must look like, and where there is no narrative into which the museum's contents must all fit. It is characteristic of contemporaneity--but not of modernity--that it should have begun insidiously, without slogan or logo, without anyone being greatly aware that it had happened. Today there is no longer any pale of history. I merely wish to alert the reader to my effort to draw a very strong distinction between "modern" and"contemporary. It happened, but it was not, significantly, part of the progress. What question does Warhol's Brillo Box ask, or one of Beuys's multiples of a square of chocolate stuck to a piece of paper? In this condition, where it is not possible to outline the meaning of art by examples, that is, as the outcome of a clear historical development, it is necessary to declare its end. Such a world is not, by the way, the easiest kind of world to live in, which explains why the political reality of the present seems to consist in drawing and defining boundaries wherever possible. But neither does it greatly matter, since we have no alternative way of thinking about them.
It is not that there were no selves before Descartes, but that the concept of the self did not define the entire activity of philosophy, as it came to do after he had revolutionized it and until reversion to language came to replace reversion to the self.
It meant that as far as appearances were concerned, anything could be a work of art, and it meant that if you were going to find out what art was, you had to turn from sense experience to thought.
This tended to put the Museum of Modern Art in a kind of bind no one had anticipated when it was the home of "our art. For art to end, then, is for art to be released.
What art is
In the modernist narrative, art beyond the pale either is no part of the sweep of history, or it is a reversion to some earlier form of art. Importance of art world In , Danto wrote an article, "The Artworld", which changed the debate on aesthetics and art forever. The era of art did not begin abruptly in , nor did it end sharply either, sometime before the mids when Belting's and my texts appeared respectively in German and in English. Hal Foster writes: "A space for surrealism has opened up: an impense within the old narrative, it has become a privileged point for the contemporary critique of this narrative. Contemporary art is too pluralistic in intention and realization to allow itself to be captured along a single dimension, and indeed an argument can be made that enough of it is incompatible with the constraints of the museum that an entirely different breed of curator is required, one who bypasses museum structures altogether in the interests of engaging the art directly with the lives of persons who have seen no reason to use the museum either as tresorium of beauty or sanctum of spiritual form. It was an architectural solution that had to have pleased the most conservative and nostalgic trustee, as well as the most avant-garde and contemporary one, but of course for quite different reasons. But now that the integument was broken, now that at least the glimpse of self-consciousness had been attained, that history was finished. And while there remains a place in the museum for painting contemporary with modernist art which is not itself modernist--for example, French academic painting, which acted as if Cezanne had never happened, or later, surrealism, which Greenberg did what he could to suppress or, to use the psychoanalytical language which has come naturally to Greenberg's critics, like Rosalind Krauss or Hal Foster, 13 "to repress"--there is no room for it in the great narrative of modernism which swept on past it, into what came to be known as "abstract expressionism" a label Greenberg disliked , and then color-field abstraction, where, though the narrative did not necessarily end, Greenberg himself stopped. The genre has almost become a matrix of the feminist novel in which the heroine arrives at a consciousness of who she is and what being a woman means. There is no a priori constraint on how works of art must look--they can look like anything at all. It had lost its way because nothing at all like a discernible direction seemed to be emerging. These were deep changes in the way painting represents the world, changes, one might say, in coloration and mood, and they develop out of and to some degree in reaction against their predecessors, as well as in response to all sorts of extra-artistic forces in history and in life. It could even be said, I suppose, that some modern art continued to be produced after that--art which remained under the stylistic imperatives of modernism--but that art would not really be contemporary, except again in the strictly temporal sense of the term.
Hegel and Danto believed that art ends under very specific conditions. Piero is certainly not a post-historical artist, but Bidlo is, and a skilled enough appropriationist as well, so that his Pieros and Piero's paintings could look as much alike as he cared to make them look--as much like Piero as his Morandis look like Morandis, his Picassos like Picassos, his Warhols like Warhols.
based on 113 review