Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
- HANDSON
- Posts: 181
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm
Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
The idea has served us well in many instances. Expressionism and Surrealism brought us in touch with our psychological make-up through visualizations of the subconscious, dream-states and emotions. Consider Edvard Munch's work:
As modernism progresses toward a post-modern sensibility that essentially discounts the efficacy of the Avant-garde and introduces the concept of the anti-aesthetic we see a move toward art activities which stretch the boundaries of what art can be, obscuring traditional forms by combining variations of language/visuals/sound/theater.
In addition we see artists combining elements of popular culture and unconventional art means and materials and offering their works in nontraditional venues such as building walls (graffiti) and other public spaces. Consider Jenny Holzser's Times Square billboard:
This not-so-new work suggests a couple of interesting considerations:
1. How do we know when we're seeing art? And does it matter? Might the object before us be simply the remnants of an unfinished construction project? Might the beautiful color and form we see be the accidental juxtaposition of a produce sellers fruit against the backdrop of verdant city park?
2. When we view something as art we view it differently than we observe things outside the art context. What compels us to implement our aesthetic response?
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
By my thinking then, postmodernism cannot actually achieve its ultimate end, nor does it need to. Its value lies in what it implicates, and why such institutions should be implicated. To me, postmodernism is therapy. It can be strong and as objectionable as an emitic, but it forces an issue (when successful) that anyone who appreciates art should eventually face.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
1. The object before us might be a natural, found , object I(e.g. an unfinished construction project) which starts us thinking about its symbolic meaning for us, or how it exemplifies a truth or a beauty, a fact or a feeling. The found object is never called 'a work of art' but it might fulfil one of the functions of a work of expressive art, which is to get us to meet the challenge of meaning for which the found object, equally with the work of art is a catalyst. One of my personal favourites for this activity has been decomposing leaves making their peculiar repeat patterns and scents as they are lying on a riverside path.1. How do we know when we're seeing art? And does it matter? Might the object before us be simply the remnants of an unfinished construction project? Might the beautiful color and form we see be the accidental juxtaposition of a produce sellers fruit against the backdrop of verdant city park?
2. When we view something as art we view it differently than we observe things outside the art context. What compels us to implement our aesthetic response?
2. The work of art proper always involves selection on the part of the artist. Which colours, which musical form, which metals and precious stones, what to represent. Selecting is not a property of the found object which is randomly formed, as far as its meaning is concerned. The artist's selection may be banal like a urinal or an unmade bed and I wonder if such artists are relying overmuch on the social context of the art gallery to frame the work of art.
The context of the work of art can allow for more, or less, audience participation. The proscenium, or the open stage are for less, or more, audience participation. The frame is more than proscenium arch or wooden surround for a picture. It is also the social setting which influences how the work is perceived.An unmade bed in a great art gallery is thought about differently from the same in someone's flat.The art gallery setting implies that the artist has selected the form so as to convey meaning.
I think that what compels us to implement our aesthetic response is familiarity with the idiom or curiosity about an idiom that is new to us. I doubt if a work of art must always be aesthetically pleasing, depending on what 'aesthetically pleasing' means. Beauty is not beauty unless it is truthful, and truth is beautiful according as it is truthful.
- HANDSON
- Posts: 181
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
Nicely summarized. This recalls the artist wannabe friend who can't find his medium/means of expression. As a post-modern art consumer the significance of his participation is greatly increased.A Poster He or I wrote:Postmodernism and, more broadly, any sort of deconstructionism, should they ever achieve their ultimate ends, would leave art as a completely subjective experience to the exclusion of all else. Any semblance of art as an institution, cultural statement (even an iconoclastic statement) would be invalid in principle. Even art as personal expression would be questionable: to my mind the artist would be irrelevent; only the work would have credence, and the credence could be granted exclusively by the experience of the viewer.
By my thinking then, postmodernism cannot actually achieve its ultimate end, nor does it need to. Its value lies in what it implicates, and why such institutions should be implicated. To me, postmodernism is therapy. It can be strong and as objectionable as an emitic, but it forces an issue (when successful) that anyone who appreciates art should eventually face.
imo, post-modernism represents a democratization of art, taking the art object/activity out of gallery/museum setting and reducing the intimidation factor by de-emphasizing the mystique of the artistic personality as well as the notion of masterful skill. This art imposes itself (for better or worse) on a neutral public many of whom are non-art patrons. My optimistic nature embraces the potential good of this.
I don't see this post-modern activity as an end to art as we know it. There will, imo, always be a place for the creative artist as we presently understand the idea.
-- Updated September 13th, 2012, 9:47 am to add the following --
I particularly like your example of leaves on the river path. Odors definitely contribute to the aesthetic experience.Belinda wrote:
1. The object before us might be a natural, found , object I(e.g. an unfinished construction project) which starts us thinking about its symbolic meaning for us, or how it exemplifies a truth or a beauty, a fact or a feeling. The found object is never called 'a work of art' but it might fulfil one of the functions of a work of expressive art, which is to get us to meet the challenge of meaning for which the found object, equally with the work of art is a catalyst. One of my personal favourites for this activity has been decomposing leaves making their peculiar repeat patterns and scents as they are lying on a riverside path.
2. The work of art proper always involves selection on the part of the artist. Which colours, which musical form, which metals and precious stones, what to represent. Selecting is not a property of the found object which is randomly formed, as far as its meaning is concerned. The artist's selection may be banal like a urinal or an unmade bed and I wonder if such artists are relying overmuch on the social context of the art gallery to frame the work of art.
The context of the work of art can allow for more, or less, audience participation. The proscenium, or the open stage are for less, or more, audience participation. The frame is more than proscenium arch or wooden surround for a picture. It is also the social setting which influences how the work is perceived.An unmade bed in a great art gallery is thought about differently from the same in someone's flat.The art gallery setting implies that the artist has selected the form so as to convey meaning.
I think that what compels us to implement our aesthetic response is familiarity with the idiom or curiosity about an idiom that is new to us. I doubt if a work of art must always be aesthetically pleasing, depending on what 'aesthetically pleasing' means. Beauty is not beauty unless it is truthful, and truth is beautiful according as it is truthful.
I don't think I was clear on my second consideration: As we perceive the world around us something changes within our cognitive faculty when we become aware that what we are seeing is 'ART' rather than our common mundane surroundings. I wonder what and why that is.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
1) The “individual” is the important unit of society. He uses culture (science, art, etc.) to express himself and improve the world.
(Postmodernist response) The individual is created by his culture, and cannot divorce himself from it. It could equally be said that the culture expresses itself through the individual.
2) Knowledge and science are progressive, and build from a foundation upward.
(PM response) There are limits to progress, and knowledge is always related to a particular perspective or point of view.
3) The whole consists of its parts, and can be explained by the nature of its parts.
(PM response) – The whole is often more than the sum of its parts, and cannot necessarily be reduced to them.
4) Language, art, and other symbols represent “reality”; they can be more or less “authentic” in the accuracy of their representation.
(PM response) – We create our own reality through language, art and other symbols. There is no "authentic" reality beyond what we have created (or, if there is, we do not have access to it).
I’ve barely touched the surface here. But whether or not postmodernism offers a coherent approach to philosophy or art, its critique of modernism is (in many ways, if not all) successful.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
The way you say this, Handson, elicits the response from me that 'ART' is defined for most people as something apart from everyday, by the form that the work takes , as opposed to the meaning of the work. However sometimes the form merges into meaning and is so immediate that the form and its effect upon the audience isI don't think I was clear on my second consideration: As we perceive the world around us something changes within our cognitive faculty when we become aware that what we are seeing is 'ART' rather than our common mundane surroundings. I wonder what and why that is.
the meaning.I hope the following goes some way to illustrate what it is that changes within our cognitive faculty.
The why this is , is human nature itself, and how it changes over time according to social needs. Some meanings e.g. personal feelongs are important to us at somem points in history and place, and other meanings e.g. power matter more in other times and places. Ecurb wrotePM response) There are limits to progress, and knowledge is always related to a particular perspective or point of view.
In some cases such as The Angel of the North sculpture which is on a hill top and appears to motorists approaching the North East of England, the scupture's location is integral to its form. The meaning is one of feeling induced by the setting as well as by the scale and the rusty look of the metal,the old-time 'angel' motif and the feeling is one of affection and respect for the spirit of the people of the one-time industrial North East. The form blends into the meaning in such a way as the form is the meaning, which is personal even altjought he sculpture is in a public place.Ecurb wrote: (PM response) – The whole is often more than the sum of its parts, and cannot necessarily be reduced to them.
Other works of art were painted especially for displaying in public places of social control such as great houses , art galleries, town halls. I am thinking of aristocratic family groups and individuals, group portraits and pictures of battles.Although great skill in execution is evident and this gives some pleasure, the meaning is entirely related to the social setting, usually one of power, and the social setting i.e. the frame, is an important aspect of the form. The newish statue of David Hume is situated in his birth place and main place of work, Edinburgh. The sculptor opted for classical draperies instead of eithteenth century breeches for the image. This is because although David Hume had very shapely legs, the sculptor considered that the symbolic meaning of the classical draperies was paramount.Moreover David Hume sits on his plinth outstaring his opposite John Knox Ecurb wrote this which describes modern as opposed to post modern: 1) The “individual” is the important unit of society. He uses culture (science, art, etc.) to express himself and improve the world. Aristocratic family groups are modern in the sense that they underline the individual as important unit even although which individuals are persons worthy of consideration changes over time and place.
Other works of art such as Tracy Emin's 'My Bed' installation have no intrinsic artistic form (unless the artist can see something that eludes me) except insofar as the installation is set up in an art gallery in which case the meaning is "this is art looking at itself".Audiences are forced to ask 'what is art?' And to get the experience of a rapid flicker of attention between guessing at the artist's meaning and trying to fix a meaning of their own. I am ready to be taught differently but this is my take on it, to date.Ecurb wrote: (PM response) – We create our own reality through language, art and other symbols. There is no "authentic" reality beyond what we have created (or, if there is, we do not have access to it).
Thanks to Handson and Ecurb for making me think
- HANDSON
- Posts: 181
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
But suppose in our post-modernist world our environment becomes so permeated with art works such as Jenny Holzer's billbd. as well as subtler constructs, that we find it difficult to separate them out from our mundane perceptions.Belinda wrote: The way you say this, Handson, elicits the response from me that 'ART' is defined for most people as something apart from everyday, by the form that the work takes , as opposed to the meaning of the work. However sometimes the form merges into meaning and is so immediate that the form and its effect upon the audience is
the meaning.I hope the following goes some way to illustrate what it is that changes within our cognitive faculty.
Do we then, once we are aware of the 'where's Waldo' nature of our daily experience start to look for hidden meanings and art everywhere? Does an aesthetic response supervene on everything we see?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
I have been told that people did this, once, and still do in what we would perhaps call supersitious ways.Do we then, once we are aware of the 'where's Waldo' nature of our daily experience start to look for hidden meanings and art everywhere? Does an aesthetic response supervene on everything we see?
I think that signs are separable from symbols but that on occasion the significance and the symbolism get mixed up for botht he transmitter of the artefact and the receiver of the artefact. This applies I guess across the spectrum of found objects, through half finished projects, through functional designs , to very conventional works of art.
Personally I like symbolism but others dont go in for it. I cannot imagine a time in our present world when the symbolic would be the universal response to a stimulus.NB by symbols, I don't mean public ikons such as the Kaaba , a crucifix, Nazi flags and regalia,or the more snobbish trappings of the art gallery, I mean expression of feelings of more free individuals.Thus the shop window full of luxuries is an ikon for me tempted by desire for the luxuries, but is a symbol if I recall that I could resist being a pawn of consumerism. The relationship between the artefact and the receiver is where the meaning is.
A work of art may be such that the form is the meaning when the form bypasses conceptualisations to produce a physiological response. I think of music and scents particularly in this regard. BTW I do dislike op art. It makes me feel used but not in an enjoyable way.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
- HANDSON
- Posts: 181
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
It would appear from your statement you respond to art emotionally; you know it when you see it; a perfectly fine way to consume artwork. One might ask, though, how exactly you would characterize a 'damn good painting or sculpture'.Fleetfootphil wrote:If we think too much about art we won't be able to recognize it when we see it. No matter what the current aesthetic tells me to admire, I still respond favorably to the work of a damn good painter or sculptor and unfavorably to someone who drags a bunch of manure into a gallery and tells me to think about it.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
...know what you mean! But sometimes things grow in manure that's worth contemplating meaning forcing you to think whether you like it or not. There's always time to decide.Fleetfootphil wrote:If we think too much about art we won't be able to recognize it when we see it. No matter what the current aesthetic tells me to admire, I still respond favorably to the work of a damn good painter or sculptor and unfavorably to someone who drags a bunch of manure into a gallery and tells me to think about it.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
A damn good painter orsculptor is someone who can manipulate materials in a way that allows me to understand their point of view, with which I often disagree, to an extent better than my own feeble skills might allow others to understand me. The world is a big place and there are many ideas. All I really ask is that when "artists" speak, they do so in a way I can understand. I'll take it from there.
-- Updated December 5th, 2012, 10:32 pm to add the following --
Critic of bs.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
I do know that I am unskilled in areas where others can understand what is beyond my powers. I also know that the only way to know whether or not an artist is a charlatan is to raise my ability to the level at which I can understand alternatives.
I don't want an artist to patronise me if that means that the art will be compromised. I mean ,if I were blind I would like a guide dog, but I would not want to believe that being blind with a guide dog was as good as having normal vision.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Avant-garde, post-modernism and meaning
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023