Could you elaborate upon the tension you see between Bernstein and Adorno, Mr Miller? I am not sure I see it, myself. I do not think either I or Bernstein would deny that a work by De Hooch is fundamentally different from a work by Vermeer. The problem you point to seems to be one of interpretation and criticism (and here, I think Bernstein has a tendency to dissolve the singularity of an artwork into the universality of concept, in such a way, that he seems to take the former to be identical with the latter; a fine form of Hegelian thinking, to be sure, but not without its problems), rather than a point about ways of seeing and experience.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > A fascinating response from Imago Asthetik. > > On the one hand, from reading Adorno, he has learned to emphasize " the > non- > or anti-discursive > character of visual art and music, in connection with its 'bodily' > presence". > > An excellent prescription - and a fine example of "changing my mind about > the > way I look at art". Although, one wouldn't necessarily need to read > Adorno, > or even be literate, to adopt this approach. > > But, on the other hand, he wants to follow J. M. Bernstein's discourse when > looking at 17th C. Dutch paintings: > > "De Hooch can paint the world because the world depicted is the constant > crossing of nature as matter and order, and culture as matter and order. De > Hooch's painterly materialism continually works to dissolve any permanent > boundary between nature and culture, between subjective lilves ant the > material conditions of those lives, without > ever denying the difference between them." > > So, it seems that he has already forgotten Adorno's wise lesson. > > "Matter", "nature", "order", and "culture" are all part of Bernstein's > discourse. (and perhaps we should all read "Against Voluptuous Bodies" to > examine them) > > The various paintings by De Hooch, Vermeer, etc are something completely > different. > > ***************************************************************** > > >I must finish a few things, so I cannot spend too much time on this > message. > But let me offer a fast outline of 'changing my mind.' > In calling attention to both the manner in which De hooch uses his paint > (e.g. painting a brick wall), and the choice of subject, Bernstein's > argument transformed the way I actually look at Dutch painting in General > (Greenaways recent film, Nightwatching had a similar effect for me viz > Rembrant's Night Watch). I would not say that it licensed me to > disregard some set of prejudices I entertained prior to seeing Dutch > painting, but it did call my attention to a set of concerns which were not > apparent to me, and which, once entertained, produce a completely different > way of seeing, and a different aesthetic experience. > > Adornos work on aesthetics has had a rather profound effect on the way I > relate to art, and it would be difficult for me to summarize all of the > transformations, tensions, and contradictions, his work has generated for > me. Suffice it to say, his emphasis of the non- or anti-discursive > character of visual art and music, in connection with its 'bodily' presence > (the orchestration and interpretation involved in performance, the > thing-like character of an artwork that, in its stubborn refusal to express > some concept, some purpose or use-value, escapes the category of 'thing,' > the letter and syntax of the text, the weight of paint upon a canvas), > involves a particular kind of comportment towards art, which I have not > seen > very many theorists or artists address, and which now seem to me to be > fundamental to any encounter with it. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for quotes on adjustable mortgages. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQs3kBUoXGFNCCNRT7ltCETF > OVNqdVTYW9PtaMBxbezDIFedrs8q0/
