Bret Schneider's long foggy ramble shows what can happen when the microphone falls into the hands of someone who has a tireless tongue but lacks the required head to cope with his own blurry but reifying abstraction-terms. Exhibit One: His first sentence is: "'Autonomy' has crept into the lexicon of contemporary art." 'Autonomy' is then the verbal motif sounded throughout his piece. And yet at no time does it occur to him he should convey what he has in mind with the word. The number one concern of any worthy writer has to be the notions his words are likely to occasion in his readers' minds. Schneider's attention appears to be concerned only with his own (suspect until proven otherwise) notions. Another motif throughout the piece is 'misinterpretation'. Sounds very apt for this piece.
In a message dated 10/13/12 10:18:32 AM, [email protected] writes: > Sent from my iPhone > Please excuse grammar and spelling errors > Expect everything - fear nothing - or did I get that backwards > Saul ostrow > 646 528 8537 > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Art&Education" <[email protected]> > > Date: October 13, 2012 6:00:12 AM EDT > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Papers: "Aesthetic Autonomy Reconsidered" by Bret Schneider > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > > October 13, 2012 > > > > Performance view from Hanging Times Athens, Calla Henkel and Max > Pitegoff. > 2012 courtesy the artists and T293. > > Art&Education Papers > > Aesthetic Autonomy Reconsidered > > > > Bret Schneider > > Share this: Facebook | Twitter > > 'Autonomy' has crept into the lexicon of contemporary art. As > contemporary > art is a field vaguely founded upon the theoretical rejection of aesthetic > autonomy, its recent theorization is fraught with particular > manifestations of > abuse. On one hand, autonomy has become a dirty insult, used pejoratively. > On > the other, it is construed as the restoration of art in an era of its > impossibility. In the former scenario, art-activists and political > artists, > ideological critics, and philosophers see the 'pure form', which is now > conflated with autonomy as extraneous and perhaps even decadent when > understood in a social context of profound social injustice. It is > 'merely' > aesthetic. In the latter, art is expressly valued for its myopic focus on > 'aesthetics' alone, which in turn is valued for its projected apolitical > nature, as something that does not take part in the torpor of contemporary > politics. In other words, left politics is considered so miserable today > that > it drives otherwise political thinkers into depoliticized art. Neither of > these sentiments are explicit, however. The 'pure art' vs. 'political art' > debate is itself antiquatedbit was understood as passC) even a century > agoband today it does not debate autonomy, but the terms of debate > indicate > something else entirely: aesthetic autonomy's absence as a meaningful > category. It indicates not a discussion of aesthetic autonomy, or even > politics, but rather the reconstitution, in a curiously distorted form, of > a > classical debate from the nineteenth century that by the early 1920s was > mooted by advanced social conditions. This critical framework of necessary > misinterpretation is one of the defining categorical features of > contemporary > art. Before our time, we sense, there were notions of the autonomy of art > in > modernity that dabbled in no such simple bifurcation of 'political or > apolitical', which are antidotes to conservative times, imparted by > conservative times. The very separation of 'political' or 'apolitical' > into > 'formal' and 'informal' indicates regressionbor at least a mild > transfiguration without consciousness of that transfigurationbin terms of > how we now determine the social situation of art, which isn't to say the > quality of the art itself. I.e. the meaning of how and why it is > misunderstood > today demands newfound clarity as a possibly critical misinterpretation. > The > mode of the era is misinterpretation. Autonomy is necessarily > misunderstood, > but it may ultimately be for the sake of clarifying what autonomous art > was > trying to convey, but could not in its own moment. > > > > *** > > > > Autonomy and Society > > The construction of 'autonomy' has origins in philosophical and social > conditions extrinsic to art, but that art was theorized as critical for > developing. 'Philosophical' and 'social' conditions were not initially > perceived as separate, though they were not understood as unified either, > not > in the sense we'd understandbtheir separation is posthumous in a way that > misunderstands autonomy, and in particular ways does so. These extrinsic, > or > heterogeneous conditions, beginning with the French Revolution and German > philosophy, have been theorized retrospectively by a number of art > historians, > philosophers, and political thinkers who perceive the situation of > autonomy as > 'dead', perhaps in the sense that it can be seen clearly anew. Our distant > vantage point is an otherness to the moment of autonomy, but not the > otherness > that autonomous artworks proposed. Seeing this historical development > requires > a certain imagination. For instance, T.J. Clark imagines Jacques Louis > David's > Death of Marat (1793) becoming unhinged from the walls of patronage and > joining the newly articulate masses in the streets of the French > Revolution. > Imagery becomes synthetic, open to interpretation, and abstract when > representing new conditions of social possibility. Idealism and > Romanticism > were direct reactions to the failure of the French Revolution to > sufficiently > 'achieve' liberty; aesthetics emerges because art becomes a mirror not of > concrete reality, but of reality in the image it wants to be, of what is > embryonic within it. Art in modernity is the representation of > efflorescence. > This project of the hypothetical, so to speak, led German Romantics to > develop > an individuation that is in tension with universals that are no longer > given; > a universal which is critically incomplete, and which has necessary > manifestations in different particulars that cannot add up to a singular > whole, but is a totality nonetheless. Marx articulated this developmental > process when he said that with modernity, "all that is solid melts into > air", > which may sound today like an indictment of modernity as being chaotic, > meaningless, or even nihilistic, but what was originally meant was that > this > dynamism registers the mutability and transformability of social > conditions. > > > > This new social world co-developed, and was refined by a philosophy of > autonomy: the development of a philosophical program of > "self-determination". > Autonomy to its foundational theorist, Kant, is summed up in his paper, > Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment? His well-known answer is > that > it is "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity". It is > "emergent" > because humanity for the first time becomes free to think without > affirming > predetermined values and predetermined institutions. That is, free to > think > critically, to think through the limits of reflection, and to develop this > autonomy historically and within a new concept of the public. Marx's For A > Ruthless Critique of Everything Existing further developed the necessity > of > this projectba thesis on how critique can productively bring about > dynamic > change by understanding that everything, which exists is incompletely > free. In > the context of a free but undetermined public, art becomes about its own > self-determining reconstitution, free from having to reinforce the social > mores or religious values to which it was once lawfully bound. For > example, in > the nineteenth century, Baudelaire criticized the regressive tendencies of > artists who were still cloaking themselves in the past, urging them to > paint > modern life in all its contradictions. Art's inveterate self-criticism and > adaptability to problematic contradictions is the reason it survives. In a > sense, artworks continue because they critically recognize their possible > death, imitating death, so to speak, and thereby living. Art's newfound > problematic characterbits critical limitationsbis its origin. > > > > Read the full article on Art&Education.b(> b(> > > > > > > Ongoing Call for Papers > > A free contributor-driven platform, Art&Education Papers seeks to expand > publication opportunities for art historians, theorists, curators, and > artists, and to make papers more easily available to the public. As AE > Papers > continues to grow, we are reiterating our call for new and existing > scholarly > articles from around the world.b(> Texts should be research-based articles > pertaining to art history or contemporary art, and can be culled from > conference papers, seminar papers, dissertation chapters, etc. We ask that > you > submit pieces anywhere from 2,000 to approximately 7,500 words and include > a > 100-word abstract and full contact information (or publication information > for > previously published texts). All submissions are welcome and will be > reviewed > and considered for publication on the website. Please submit articles by > email > to [email protected]. > > > > News Announcements Papers About Subscribe Contact RSS > > Unsubscribe
