dear josie
thanks for this addition. the article of Lidija Merenik i was laterally aware of
and i will certainly consider it more in future elaborations. I think it is
important to place such discussions in a historic context.
dear josefine b
hope you dont mind being answered in the same email. my posting was not directly
related to the discussion that you triggered. however, here's my 2 cents, which
is actually a quote (its quoting season, back to school and such):
'Conceptual artists have argued that theory is not the exclusive domnain of
philosophers and scientists, and that the written word, or the language of
mathematics, for that matter, are not the sole legitimate forms of theoretical
exegesis. It is insufficient to say that works of art can be plastic
embodiment of philosophical, scientific or other theories. In both written texts
and works of art (which, again, are not mutually exclusive categories),
contemporary artists have proclaimed their work to be not just highly
theoretical but to be theory itself. p. 16
Joseph Kosuth has idnetified a "bias against artists who write" and "this
concervative mechanism is being exploited for the purposes of discrediting [my]
authenticity as an artist ... Artists are expected to 'stay in their place' and
keep the model of the artist which has been internalized within modernism: the
Expressionist, producer of enigmas." Edward Shanken in Telematic Embrace,
footnote 11, quoting Kosuth. p. 16
tata
armin
---------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.easynetdial.co.uk
|