i agree with everything josh says or will say on the issue of "anti art". jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: > >Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:31:07 -0700 >From: "Josh Ronsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FLUXLIST: RE: Questions (anti-art) > >A day after I posted my question, I came across the following passage in >"Rationalizing Culture: IRCAM, Boulez and the Institutionalization of the Musical >Avant-Garde" by Georgina Born: > >However much an avant-garde attempts to produce work that is unclassifiable, >shockingly different, it is a truism that in order to be meaningful [sic!] it must, >by definition, ultimately be classifiable as "art" by an audience; or it may be >understood as the negation of art -- the reaction that the avant-garde typically sets >out to provoke in the "Philistine" audience. The latter "against art" classification >appears, historically, to be particularly permeable, so that by the intervention of >critics, "against art" comes eventually to be undersood as "part of art." There >remains some avant-garde art that is unacceptable to all but small and "knowing" >audience. But as long as "anti-" or avant-garde art is recognized as legitimately >"part of art" by the dominant institutional apparatuses, it is granted the status of >art and becomes a negational statement within the field of art: a powerful agrument >for the ontological priority of the institutional over the aesthetic. > >So there. > >But what can she mean by meaning can only be found in art? > >- -Josh Ronsen >http://www.nd.org/jronsen > > >
