Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code

Mandy Martin, Puritjarra 2, 2005. For further information on MANDY MARTIN, refer here: http://www.mandy-martin.com/
If there are diverse kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing place, then we need to learn to value the different ways each of us sees a single place that is significant, but differently so, for each perspective.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Thinkers/Critics/etc
WEBLOGS
Australian Weblogs
Critical commentary
Visual blogs
CULTURE
ART
PHOTOGRAPHY
DESIGN/STREET ART
ARCHITECTURE/CITY
Film
MUSIC
Sexuality
FOOD & WiNE
Other
www.thought-factory.net
looking for something firm in a world of chaotic flux

Kruspit + post art « Previous | |Next »
March 20, 2009

In The End of Art Donald Kuspit argues that art is over because it has lost its aesthetic import. Kuspit is a follower of a conservative apotheosis of modernist abstraction theorised and championed by the influential American art critic Clement Greenberg. Art has taken a wrong turn, gone off the rails. Kuspit's view that modernism good, postmodernism bad is similar to that of Hilton Kramer at The New Criterion.

Art, Kruspit argues, has been replaced by ‘postart’, a term invented by Alan Kaprow, as a new visual category that elevates the banal over the enigmatic, the scatological over the sacred, cleverness over creativity. Tracing the demise of aesthetic experience to the works and theory of Marcel Duchamp and Barnett Newman, Kuspit argues that devaluation is inseparable from the entropic character of modern art, and that anti-aesthetic postmodern art is its final state. In contrast to modern art, which expressed the universal human unconscious, postmodern art degenerates into an expression of narrow ideological interests.

'Postart' -is a visual-arts category devised by Allan Kaprow, which Kuspit uses to pejoratively describe artworks (invariably postmodern) that express a rejection of the forms, methods, inspirations and aspirations of classical and modern art and therefore can no longer be called artworks in the true sense. Crucially, postart is art that blurs the distinction between everyday life and art. He says about the concept of “postart” simply put,

involves the “blurring of the boundary between art and life,” to use the title of his collection of essays. I would add, based on his idea that life is much more interesting than art, at the expense of art. I think postart is the gist of postmodernism, as the view that it involves the blurring of the boundary between avant-garde and kitsch suggests.

Kuspit adds that the integration of thinking and feeling remains a general issue of selfhood, all the more so in modernity, when the split is celebrated and thinking elevated over feeling. This occurs in art with the split between minimal-conceptual art and expressionism, with the former regarded as inherently superior to the latter.

If the visual arts are to be saved, then according to Kuspit the New Old Masters - a group that includes Lucien Freud and Jenny Saville - will be their saviours. The New Old Masters embody values that simultaneously evoke the spirituality and humanism of the Old Masters and the innovation and criticality of the New Masters, enabling them to transcend the suicidal intellectualism and socio-political fixations of postart.

So we have the claim that the rampant irony of post-modern art, combined with its obsessive navel-gazing, has turned it into a suffocatingly hermetic and an almost irrelevant enterprise. Missing from this is any ? From the this is postmodern theory's ideas of metaphor, deconstruction, transposition, recombination, and bricolage.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:30 AM | | Comments (2)
Comments

Comments

Kuspit traces the genealogy of the postart aesthetic from Marcel Duchamp's announcement of an ‘entropic split' between intellectual expression and animal expression (which led to the reification of concept over form, and from there to a nihilistic pessimism) through Warhol's commercialism (which blurred the line between art and business) to Hirst's installations (which reflect postmodernism's preoccupation with the banal objects and situations of our everyday lives).

Kuspit’s concept of creativity is centred on a romantic notion of genius of the nineteenth century. In Kuspit’s romantic-aestheticist model it is the genius who produces the extra-ordinary aesthetic object and the especially sensitive individual (like Kuspit) who is capable of appreciating it, due to a capacity for the aesthetic experience. He is happy for art to remain on a pedestal secured within the hermetically sealed sanctum of the museum and the straightjacket of the art historian canon.

It is part of a more general conservative argument the current abundance of objects
identified as art issues from the loss of standards on the part of artists and of critics. Because beauty s no longer the object of artistic production, an art object no longer has the power to move the properly conditioned and initiated observer to a new plane of self-awareness. The aesthetic function of images has, it is claimed, been displaced by a commercial or political agenda. Art no longer stands above the worldly; it is polluted by its association with commerce or its proximity to the everyday.

Art, can, and should be, revived.