Out of curiosity, Dr Desmond, could you articulate what you take the difference between the way a philosopher thinks and how artists, graphic designers, educators and art historians think? I'm none of the above, and the idea that they may think in a significantly different way intrigues me.
Many thanks -- and welcome On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:30 PM, kathleen desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Yep! You pegged me. I am an art historian and an aesthetician only as > supports thinking about art and its vague meanings. You make interesting > points. I am completely involved in writing, editing, grading and teaching > and in strategic plans for our department of art and design, at the moment, > where I am reminded about how artists and illustrators, graphic designers, > interior designers, art educators and art historians (but not philosophers) > think. I hope to contribute to the discussions when I can. Thanks. > > kkd > > > That sounds like standard art history, suited more to a syllabi than to >> reality. the distinction between modern and post modern has never been >> defined for the arts generally, except artificially. It's hard to find where >> the line is crossed. Is it when artists began a new examination of irony, >> or with appropriation and restatements of modernist imagery; Duchamp? How >> does one separate Johns from any of that? Contemporary artists are those >> who are "contributing to curtrent global ideas and issues"? That's very >> vague. One of the issues may be the continuing relevance of modernist >> impulses beginning with Kandinsky. After all, ideas don't die but just go >> astray for a while, always finding their way back to the path, and hailed as >> newcomers. I'll need a better definition of contemporary than what you >> offer. Otherwise, it makes most sense to say all living and working artists >> are contemporary, just like today, this very day, is contemporary. >> >> A relevant issue? See my commentary in the little journal Prompt, to be >> published next month. I look at Trotsky and Breton's manefesto "Toward a >> New Revoloutionary Art and find it very relevant today. >> >> The linear or progress notions of art history: modern, post modern, >> contemporary seem irrelevant to me. >> >> Anyway, I am happy you are joining in the discussions. Let's get to it. >> >> WC >> >> >> >> >> --- On Sat, 9/13/08, kathleen desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> From: kathleen desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 2:20 PM >>> I was going to comment on Chuck Close not being a >>> contemporary >>> artist, either, actually, even though I continue to admire >>> and >>> appreciate the work of both Johns and Close. Since we are >>> no longer >>> in a modern era, but a postmodern one, I guess that's >>> what I use as >>> the "dividing line." Jasper Johns certainly >>> contributed to the >>> contemporary avant-garde of the 1950s and 60s along with >>> >> > John Cage, >> > Merce Cunningham and Robert Rauschenberg and moved to Pop >> > Art making >> > the way for the postmodern art of Damien Hirst and other >> > Young >> > British Artists, as well as the array of global artists >> >>> involved in >>> Intermedia, Installation and multimedia. I think of >>> contemporary >>> artists as those who are contributing to current global >>> issues and >>> ideas. I don't know about presumptions of confronting >>> relevant >>> issues. What relevant issues? >>> >>> kkd >>> >>> >I wonder why you don't consider Jasper Johns a >>> contemporary artist. >>> >Where, exactly, is the dividing line between, say. >>> modern, and >>> >contemporary? Johns is still making work and we may >>> presume he is >>> >still confronting relevant issues. Is a contemporary >>> artist one >>> >whose work is not yet widely influential? >>> > >>> >WC >>> > >>> > >>> >--- On Sat, 9/13/08, kathleen desmond >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> From: kathleen desmond >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> Subject: It's Hirst and Dickinson >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 1:33 PM >>> >> I couldn't help notice the inaccurate >>> spelling of the >>> >> names Damien >>> >> Hirst and Emily Dickinson, the inaccuracy of >>> calling Jasper >>> >> Johns a >>> >> contemporary artist, and the lack of context in >>> using these >>> >> artists >>> >> for comparison. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >To join William in reading between the lines >>> of the >>> >> > >> Sendak interview -- we >> >>> >> >might notice that the names he places into >>> the iconic >>> >> artist club are all >>> >> >writers or composers. (Mozart, Melville, >>> Dickenson etc) >>> >> > >>> >> >I.e. -- Sendak is not giving ground to any >>> visual >>> >> artists -- and I suspect >>> >> >that he feels (as I do) that his memorable, >>> poignant, >>> >> narrative vision is a >>> >> >greater achievement than the work of >>> contemporary >>> >> iconic visual artists like >>> >> >Jasper Johns and Chuck Close. (and >>> way-way-way greater >>> >> than the billionaire >>> >> >joke artists like Damien Hurst) >>> >> > >>> >> >Either way -- only the obsessive mind of >>> Cheerskep >>> >> would find him nourishing >>> >> >the Platonic forms of "illustrator" >>> or >>> >> > >> "artist" >> > >> >> > > --
