[Previous entry: "IN AMERICANSTYLE"] [Next entry: "TETRO: The Luxury of Cinema"]

08/31/2009: "Theory and Criticism"

For a long time a battle has been waging amongst art historians and critics. While it may not be apparent to the general public, it has affected the art community greatly, resulting in confusion and disagreement. It centers on the parameters of modernism and postmodernism. When you take an Art History survey class and ask about this dilemma your professor will almost certainly avoid the debate. You’ll probably get an answer that’s vague and insinuates that modernism ended in the 1960s. This type of response is a great disservice to the issue.

I personally began to think about this issue a few days ago when I was confronted about a prior article that I wrote, Graffiti, Abstract Expressionism, & Fabulous Auction Returns. Asserting that the criticism in the post was incomplete, he complained that I overlooked key issues. Specifically focusing on Dash Snow, he said that I failed to note that the artist had given up family fortune and fame (Snow hailed from the de Menil family) and had chosen to live a life on the streets.



He, of course was right. This information makes all of Snow’s work highly personal, and some would argue completely personal. Because of this, each piece not only becomes testimony on the human condition or urban life; it’s a chronicle of Snow’s individual life and running evidence of a disassociation to privilege. Snow specifically chooses to ignore high-society (at least visually), elitist background of his family, instead opting to live on the fringes of society. And yet, even after I conceded these points, I wasn’t willing to admit that the piece I wrote was wrong critically. One of the main reasons was that I was simply trying to put a little historical perspective on graffiti. The second reason was because I really believe there are shared truths like the “urban plight” evidenced in Snow’s work. I think that the personal background does not preclude a piece from having what I often jokingly refer to as visual archetypes. My friend’s approach to the work was a traditional, postmodernist critique.

As I began to more deeply consider my own point of view, it struck me that this sort of logic was a little controversial; at least in the realm of art criticism. The vast majority of critics today take a post-modernist approach. It is my conjecture, however, that neither the modernist nor post modernist approach is fitting for artwork created within the past five years. I believe that a sort of highbred, global, approach is necessary due to tremendous changes in communication and the common impact of the global economic crisis. Historians and critics must begin reconcile some of the ideas set forth by modernism and postmodernism. Neither has to be mutually exclusive, and key ideas from both are necessary to create a more relevant critical approach. Postmodernism’s popularity has contributed to the downfall of recent criticism. With the elimination of universal truths and an inability to decisively determine what is good or bad, postmodernism has effectively take the criticism out of the critical approach. Ironically this has happened at a time when individuals are more inextricably linked than ever before. Communication innovation, social networking, and online news outlets have managed to make global conditions part of the human condition. For this reason, both modernism and postmodernism are outmoded.

Replies: 9 Comments

on Monday, September 14th, 3d pop art said

This is a much needed critique of modernism and post modernism, as well as of art critics in general. I also think that Adrian's comment is particularly fitting, especially when he asks why art cannot be just for art's sake. It is unfortunate that elites and other individuals seek to dominate the scene and sometimes do their best to prevent people from just enjoying what is before them in their own way.

on Monday, September 14th, Tiffany Necklaces said

Paradoxically it still looks as if its necessary to have these critiques set up to determine movements in art...but francly speaking i think that these themselves along with any movement is unnecessary.

on Wednesday, September 9th, Q. Isabeau said

Matilda,

You might be right. To some modernism and postmodernism may no longer be in fashion. But who listens to critics anyway unless it is constructive? Yes, we'll hear them, whether we want to or not, but do we have to listen? A brilliant quote by J. Sibelius that fits reads: "Pay no attention to what critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic.". Sure, new generations will naturally want to experiment and try out new techniques and materials. To me and many others with me art will never go out of style or be forgotten. Art, regardless of which era it belongs, will always prevail. How can it not? Don't we love things that make life beautiful and generous?

on Monday, September 7th, rachel said

nice post... keep it up...

on Monday, September 7th, Olga STefan said

No categorization is absolute - they are just parameters that better help us understand history. It's exactly like trying to determine when the Renaissance began and ended and what came afterwards. there is no actual date, but characteristics that exists for each period.

http://www.olgaistefan.wordpress.com

on Saturday, September 5th, olga said

well said, Andrew

on Friday, September 4th, Andrew said

Dash Snow as a trust fund kid cannot be the street person he seeks to be. It is not that he gives up the tresses and ornaments of the ultra rich...it is that he uses them to establish his own identity, the essence of which is that he's a silver spoon boy. Modernism or Post Modernism, these are words that create value within the marketplace, more than being definitions of a region within the art world. One cannot be a Post Modernist without spending huge amounts of money to belong to that group. This is not the stuff of anyone but trust fund kids.

on Friday, September 4th, fatima said

Blogs are a good source of transfering knowledge and its fun to be part of it.

on Thursday, September 3rd, Adrian said

I would probably be considered an ignorant because I can't follow the arts history to the extent of academia that you are refering to. Maybe because I'm not the academic type who does'nt speak in the appropriate way. I still see this as the self perpetuated seperation between art appreciation by the general public and the so-called art critics who so whole heartedly claim to know their art history. Why cant art just be art for arts sake. Why is it in the hands of an art elite who are cloistered in their little bubbles of art critique, to determine what art history is? It still smells of exploitation and control of the arts. Paradoxically it still looks as if its necessary to have these critiques set up to determine movements in art...but francly speaking i think that these themselves along with any movement is unnecessary.