I think Kuspit's project has been to examine how modernism has produced the art it has and whether or not it is capable of sustaining the central ideas of modernism ....autonomy for art and artists and through their freedom and spiritual efforts, the same for society. That's really the Kandinsky approach to modernism and it persisted until....? He is not saying what art is but he clearly argues what it is not (using the modernist template as his guide). He thinks that the most serious and best art of our time continues the modernist tradition. He has a special interest in what he calls the "new old masters" by which he means some contemporary figure painters but generally those who are committed to a personal engagement with practice as an expression of autonomous unconscious spiritual identity, as freedom.
That's not advancing a theory or is it philosophy for itself, but it is a close, and well argued, examination of modernism's promise and outcome. His view is marginalized in today's postart (his term) reality but so is Malraux's. K would likely admire M., but I don't know. One thing for sure: Revision is one its way. Sooner or later real artists always reject the suffocation of blending with the culture (as some 19C artists never did, including your favorite worst). On the fringe is where the reality is most clear. Personally I don't care at all about Warhol and what his work represents. It's just not serious enough, deep enough, visual enough, scary enough for me. Whatever that sort of art does, ironically or cynically, was well understood by any smart 10 yr. old kid during WWII. (Sat matinee movies for kids showed newsreels of Nazi bombings and crumpled dead bodies just before screening the Disney cartoons and the cowboy serials) Who could grow up without a twisted sense of irony?) Warhol, etc. It's still bad, silly illustration or comic book stuff for me. It belongs to the shallow ones, the ones who rule the world today. WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I say art theorist I also mean art philosopher. > But I often > prefer the phrase 'art theorist' because what I look > for essentially > is a full blown theory of art - not in the sense of > how to go about > doing a painting of course but in the sense of what > art is. > > The phrase philosophy of art sometimes bothers me > (1) because it tends > to imply that art theory is a branch of philosophy > which I would > dispute and (2) the philosophy of art often tries to > get by without > any particular theory of art - ie it is happy to > focus on some side > issue such as beauty etc. > > DA > > PS what a pity no one seems interested in pursuing > the music issue. > > Kuspit is not an art theorist. He's an art > > critic/philosopher/art historian. (Full > disclosure: > > Kuspit will provide a major catalog essay for my > > forthcoming retrospective in early 2009). I've > had a > > few contacts with him over 25 years. Re his > > influence, let's say he's my Malraux. > > > > My grim view of graduate level M.F.A. study (I > exclude > > many wonderful undergrad programs but they are > being > > narrowed as the new breed takes over) is probably > a > > little overstated. I have in mind the most > > influential programs at top art schools and > > universities, the places that need stars and lots > of > > money to stay on top. Yet, although my view as > stated > > here is too strong to merit attention in academic > > terms, it does convey the problem generally. To do > it > > justice in writing I'd have to tone it down a > little > > and bring in vast supporting evidence. It's all > there > > but I don't have time to do the job. > > WC > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
