With this article, it seems the art philosophers and art historians have finally made an attempt to catch up with the postmodern era. This class started out focused on defining the mystical qualities of aesthetic, with each author redefining aesthetic as the styles of the times changed. Then comes the middle of the 20th century and suddenly art itself takes on a new purpose, and aesthetic is no longer necessarily the goal. As Ben mentioned in his blog, the question of whether the art comes first or the language becomes very relevant. The authors are evidently continuing to try to get into the heads of the artists in order to explain the phenomenon of radical change. Foster’s dissection of the Lacan gaze and the image screen seems to be an attempt to place the art or perhaps even the artist in some position relative to the viewer. While I am sure that the artist may be aware of the viewer’s perspective as they create art, the analysis seems to border on the absurd. Isn’t it enough that some artists simply create with their own unique ideation of the perspectives of the viewers?
Foster uses the Cindy Sherman example, progressing from her early work to her later abjective style, and places the 3 distinct styles of Cindy’s work into a construct of viewer, gaze, screen and then explains that “In this scheme of things the impulse to erode the subject and to tear at the screen has driven Sherman from her early work....” etc. I really don’t know about this kind of assumption. Is that what Cindy was thinking when she made her work? Really? These kinds of assumptions tend to populate the writings of many of the historians/philosophers we have sampled from and it immediately makes their work invalid. Rather than trying to get into the heads of the artists, wouldn’t the time be better spent enjoying the art?
No comments:
Post a Comment