"When you insist that postmodern is not a philosophical definition and signifies the absence of quality you are making an assertion but don't support it with any evidence or reasoned argument. You add nothing by citing one of Hilton Kramer's colorful and reactionary art quips."
How about Turner Prize winners, for years; about quality to start with. We cannot make reasonable argument about unreasonable. You do not make it ether. The whole thing is a self indulgent, banal activity with mediocre agenda, even when sometimes very crafty. Kramers statement well formulates what I concluded for myself before I read it. I do not see anything reactionary in it, and I idolize nobody. I have my material deconstructing postmodern philosophy of art enough for a small book. It is interesting that in literature postmodern experts address everything of 'cutting edge' as modernist work. This is how screwed up it is. Red square is a red square in all its decorative beauty. It carries no communicable metaphor. BTW, Kramer would like your work. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 07:46:24 -0700 (PDT) When you insist that postmodern is not a philosophical definition and signifies the absence of quality you are making an assertion but don't support it with any evidence or reasoned argument. You add nothing by citing one of Hilton Kramer's colorful and reactionary art quips. I am not making a case for the quality of either modernism or postmodernism. For instance, my own work comfortably fits in the heritage of modernism partly because I am a product of its mid-century era. But if the shift from modernism to postmodernism can be envisioned by degrees, I might be closer to a midline between the two simply because I am am an active, engaged artist, keenly aware of and interested in contemporary art practice. And since hindsight reveals that modernism was affected by postmodern ideas and practices as early as c. 1918 or so, it's only natural that my work should represent a kind of hybrid modernism, if that's possible. While it is still possible for a contemporary artist to paint, say, a red square that looks like one by Mondrian or Malevich, I don't think it's possible to embody the same values or qualities those artists aimed to express. Nowadays a painted red square can only hint at its heart-felt utopian genealogy and is instead a mute thing, like a manufactured toy shape, released from duty to modernist revolution and social reformation. That release from duty, however, permits a new freedom and new embodiment of the human spirit. To see what contemporary modernism is like, go watch schoolchildren at recess. See how they delight in play and freedom yet remain mindful of their being "at school". When it comes to a philosophical examination of aesthetic spheres -- modern and postmodern -- one should, I think, try to understand them and try to avoid passing on witty depredations, such as the one you quote by Hilton Kramer, as if they were serious arguments. Yet In fairness to Kramer, from time to time he has risen above the journalistic muckraking you cite. WC ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 11:34:16 PM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings I defined modern. You are talking Modern period in art history made up in the West. You are correct it is only time frame in a quality European art- not philosophical definition. So called Postmodern is only time frame, with no quality, commonalities or any kind of creative order, which is a must for art. H. Kramer was right, it is a revenge of the philistines for being to late to dig Modern period, which happened to be a phenomenal success. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:10:54 -0700 (PDT) I suppose you can define the terms modern and postmodern to suit your fancy but in current philosophy and art theory the two terms have general definitions, if not closely defined. In the widely accepted sense, modernism is not simply another word for historical continuum. It has a specific time frame in our culture and while not at all at an end, certainly, the postmodern has been forming since the advent of pop art., or better, Dada, wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 10:44:14 PM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings The subject William raised is important one, which is of many confusing and, in my view, unnecessary embroideries by contemporary theoreticians. Modernism existed in old China hundreds years ego. They called the latest trends as such. For me, it is every new element in the form of presentation based on the past, and the foundation of the future forms of presentation. It is perpetual, and to say that there is post modern is like to say something is post time or space or post evolution. So, for me, so called postmodern- is a another chain of modern. It's survival depends on the ability to sustain. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 14:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Miller's grabbing for straws. When Miller reduces his views of aesthetics to a solipsistic. "either you get it your you don't" we might as well conclude that the aesthetics list is a sham and a waste of time. If all topics can be simplified to the most naive level which is then simply proclaimed a universal truth, we are in a ludicrous situation. The only way to get past pointless assertions of subjectivity in aesthetics, without any argued position, is to engage in the dialogue surrounding one or two serious contributors, I mean recognized philosophers who have published extensive papers on some aspect of aesthetics. All positions have strengths and weaknesses. Or, one might make a divide, separating modernist aesthetics --the product of the Enlightenment and the search for rational truth -- from postmodernism -- the situational approach to aesthetics. We have to know what side we are talking about in any instance, or at least we need to know what the implications and limits of the chosen premises are. If you argue that art is embodied in the object, then you are arguing a modernist aesthetic whether or not you choose it to be centered in idea of form. If you argue that art is not in the object but in some relation between an audience, individual or societal, and uses of symbols, then you are more engaged in postmodern aesthetics. Nowadays, many artists are interested in relational aesthetics in which the art "object" is some sort of social interaction prompted (loosely or meticulously) by the 'artist". That's a developing sort of postmodernism. Although the path from modernism to postmodernism may be unbroken, we do need to realize that at some point we have passed from one sphere to another. The same aesthetic will not fully serve both. Thankfully, despite Miller's despairing retreat to solipsism, there is much to discuss. WC ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 10:06:59 AM Subject: dead photos- alive paintings According to William, both paintings and photographs "obscure some information that is "filled in" by the viewer", and if we questioned him a bit further, I'm sure he would admit that the human mind does some "filling in" when looking at anything. Is more being "filled in" when viewing a room, a photograph of same, or a painting by either Meissonier or Monticelli? How can such a thing be measured? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the viewing and what they are looking for? This issue has nothing to do with either aesthetic value or the difference between painting and photography.
