"The "propositional nature of art" is grounded in the fact that art, as representation, conventionalizes the terms of correspondence between the work and the referent and in practice chooses, discards, rearranges the ways in which the correspondences are effected." (Brady)
But art can, just as reasonably, be said to un-conventionalize the terms of correspondence - so the "propositional nature of art" is grounded upon nothing more than the preference to think about things that way. So it's not "the nature of..", it's "the ideology of..." "Let's not forget that *every* work of art is, perforce, a new and creatively different exemplar. Otherwise, it would be a replica or duplicate of some earlier piece. A few works differ radically from what precedes them, and thus are regarded as mold-shattering, ground- breaking, or some other gerund, whereas many others offer very little that departs from their models and paradigms, and are called "trite," "derivative," or some other adjective. (Brady) Which was modified by Saul to read: "Let's say that *every* work of art is, perforce sets about to differentiate itself from other works, replicates the qualities of other works or seeks to be a creatively different - that is offer alternative views, approaches and understandings." (Saul) Get the difference? Saul changes the subject from what "every work of art is" to what "every work of art sets about to do" -- so that the discussion can be prescriptive -- i.e. one can, and presumably should, attempt to offer "alternative views, approaches and understandings." rather than merely "replicate the qualities of other works" Brady, then, happily signed on that revision (did he even recognize the difference?) and they both compiled a list of theorists who would agree (Greenberg,Reigel, Wolfflin, Panofsky) And that, in a nutshell, is the ideological foundation of the contemporary artworld. But does it work? I.e. -- does an emphasis on attempting to offer "alternative views, approaches and understandings." actually produce that result? Or does it result in the celebration of a mind-numbing conformity of visual mediocrity? (Koons, Warhol, Johns, Hirst) Is visual excellence/mediocrity even an issue in that ideology? Brady suggested that it was -- as he wrote " Each work is different from all the others, in big ways or small, ***while still upholding the quality of older works***" --- and Saul did not dispute that statement -- but perhaps he wasn't paying any attention to it. Because if the new work is "still upholding the quality of older works" it is replicating at least some of the qualities of other works - which Saul had distinguished from that which offers "alternative views, approaches and understandings. It would appear that some of the remnants of traditionalism are still clinging to Brady's unwashed mind - but if he continues to travel with Saul, eventually that error may be corrected. ____________________________________________________________ Protect yourself with the right Health Insurance plan. Click for coverage information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUOiYdOI17iNg10PZqKn7BAk SAFfsUsZOwHAwPh3JyzjN04mlO5pO/
