Angels fly. St George fought a dragon. I think that the position that rrepresentational art doesn't include anything that doesn't imitate nature is perhaps somehat narrower than it needs to be. One might say that 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. ." I wish you would expand your standard description of representational art. It is also interesting that you say theory comes first and then feel that those with clear theories are didactic bores, among other flaws. Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 11:05 am Subject: Re: representation and its sgnification What am I wrong on? I suppose I need to understand better your definition of representational art. Dragons, people flying...? My own quite standard definition is that representational art imitates nature and I plead "the Courbet" and say show me a flying person or dragon and I'll say it's nature and thus fit for representational art. The so-called fine arts don't exist anymore except as a historical classification. The other stuff you say makes little sense except as a personal expression of frustration about....what? OK, let's do the "archaeology of aesthetics. For me that will be a bleak undertaking, but I'm addicted to ideas and intellectual treasure hunts. My own view re Ranchire's vain hope that an archaeology of aesthetics can tell us what art can be and do today is that no-one can predict what art will be because that would amount to a prescription -- or, worse, a proscription -- and art cannot be foretold, cannot be made by rule, cannot be made on demand, like a fried egg. But that highlights the eternal struggle between theory and practice. Which comes first? Naturally, the word people, the theorists, like to think that their words define what is possible as art and lots of artists, not by any means the majority, like to think that their practices define art, at least in the "homeless" state, until the word-folks come along to tidy things up and hang the curtains. Personally, I tend to think that theory does come first, that art requires a context but I also think that context is loosely and quite imperfectly identified by artists' work. Thankfully, the good artists are not very thorough about theory; they get it all mixed up with their poor reasoning habits and solipsistic, narrow and misunderstood readings. Whenever you find an artist with a clear, coherent theory, you have found a bad artist, a practitioner of formula, an insister on intentionality, a didactic bore, a fool. Far better to let the word people have their perch, let them write their incomprehensible jargon, weave their golden fleece, wave mirrors before art, and do whatever mischief they can do to keep the lights on and the attention focussed on artworks that illustrate their theories. Artists like to think they alone really think, think hard, reason well, attain insights and all the rest of the stuff that supposedly happens when smart people get down to business. But what makes artists different from their theory-drunk pals with is their own intoxication with whatever we can mean by "allure". When allure beckons, so much the worse for theory. No better example of that can be found than in Delacroix's Journal where he relates his desperately struggling with his painting, not knowing what or how to do the next thing, but in this state of turmoil, gazing from his window, he is struck by the sight of a beautiful girl walking by. He immediately leaves the studio to make her acquaintance. There it is, "allure" the one irresistible temptation of the artist. When you are creating you are led by allure. It beckons. It trumps all. Baudelaire said as much in his "In Praise of Cosmetics". Don't laugh. Read that for some profound theory. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 9:04:16 AM Subject: Re: representation and its sgnification 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
