At the risk of asking a stupid question-I am more cautious than Miller-weren't a lot of things made which were based on assuming a social interaction which the artist hoped would happen because of what he did? Religious pictures, the big portrait of Louis xiv... the difference between this kind of interaction and the one which is popular now could be a little closer to shedding light on the two sorts of aesthetic. Kate Sullivan In a message dated 9/5/09 5:51:05 PM, [email protected] writes:
> 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.
