On 24/04/13 15:34, Chris Jones wrote:
> This is probably vital; the complete disconnection between a formal
> practice and the theories of form, which appear as something else again.
Just adding another comment:
For artists formal considerations are vital, without this art will fail.
But it is more a question of the relations, social, political and
historical and formalist needs. The outside forces which impact on form
need to be accounted for in some way, even if it is possible to think
only in terms of formal problems. It can get difficult because there are
outside forces which are inside.
However, it is fairly clear that abstract expressionism which is purely
concerned only with the abstract application of paint to a surface runs
into a dead end. However, branching off before abstract expressionism is
pop art which, contra Arthur Danto's, continues the history of art. Andy
Warhol was well read in /Nietzsche/ and continued with an historic
modernism. In Australia, Jeffrey Smart continued a figurative again in
opposition to Abstract Expressionism. It is curious that the official
government position of art here, argued for an apolitical and
ahistorical abstract expressionist and purely formal position on art.
Hence, not even a purely formalist concern can espace political and
governmental concerns and become politicised in this way. This is
curious.. Conceptual art here did take on to a degree political
concerns... my involvement in the first gay mardi gras took off from my
interest in conceptual art as opposed to abstract expressionism. But I
guess you got to live through this....
--
BLOG http://abdevpoetics.blogspot.com.au/
|