I think that a quick look back at representational painting shows a lot of dragons, people flying,opulent scenes etc which could be classed as escape and entertainment, and whose present incarnations aren't taken seriously,by artists and critics in what we accept as the fine arts. There is not much of that in conceptual and fine art either,Mathew Barney being an exception. It's rather like fine arts music at present, where they never write simple love songs and pride themselves on their knowledge of Schubert. I think Conger is wrong on this and we do need t examine the archaeology of aesthetics.
-----Original Message----- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 18, 2011 6:57 pm Subject: Re: representation and its sgnification I tried to suggest that, on the contrary, this inquiry points to the tensions and contradictions which at once sustain the dynamic of artistic creation and aesthetic efficiency and prevent it from ever fusing in one and the same community of sense. The archaeology of the aesthetic regime of art is not a matter of romantic nostalgia. Instead I think that it can help us to set up in a more accurate way the issue of what art can be and can do today. Jacques Rancihre June 2006
