December 9, 2008

Another Evil Twin

Adminstrator’s Note: A reader of this site recently commented on a piece I wrote earlier this year (“Nice post”) and there was a link attached to a site called “AutoRewrite.” For a fee, this site provides a service whereby one can basically “disguise” an essay through a re-write (use of synonyms, rearranged syntax, alternate grammatical structure) to produce a “new” essay. Obviously, such sites fill a need, however suspect. As an investigative inquiry, I submitted an old essay to the service and have posted the result here, verbatim, as I received it – apologies please for the grammatical errors, misspellings, etc. [Curious changes were made, for instance, “curator” was changed to “conservative”.] I encourage you to “check” their re-write with my original (use the link below) and I welcome your comments.

Obviously, bloggers create in the vaporous Ethernet and have no idea where our words might end up. One can only hope that the small protections of rights such as Creative Commons will deter unscrupulous individuals from plagiarizing or stealing our intellectual property. However, this new wrinkle gives one pause – if anyone can simply copy a post, run it through a filter and generate “new” writing, what does this mean for the future? I will ponder this over the long winter break and may have to reconsider how to proceed with this blog.


A few weeks ago a young conservative asked my opinion on how to determine a work of art worthy of purchase. Although the context of our conversation in question reported the collection of art, I realized this week after re-reading Suzi Gablik? S? Pluralism: the tyranny of freedom? an omnipresent subjectivity that pervades both the collection and exhibition of art. My personal response to your question about the nature of the art collection is undoubtedly influenced by my own judgments of taste. However, this thought was caused by the Gablik test, you must make art (and the collection of art) adhere to any narrative art history?

A narrative of progressive art is of particular interest to Modernism. One can trace a solid theoretical and the story line, assuming that the Post-Impressionism Impressionism, from Suprematism to abstract expressionism. However, it is right around 1956 that the modernist narrative seems to grind to a halt as Pop Art interruptions of the grand narrative of art as a progressive development of the individual artist? S? The free expression. (1)

Impersonation of staff and exultations additions to the free expression with the wholesale? Loans? appropriated media images, Pop Art used the media reproductions of mass culture as a reference point and significant for social and cultural conditions. As an art movement or style, Pop could easily be cast as? Postmodern? as its approach to the content has less to do with the artist? s individual need to express the legitimate and more to do with the movement of the image. Later, this was enthusiastically supported by Guy Debord? S ideas of the image as a spectacle, replacing the? Authentic? social life of people with? social relationship [s] among people, mediated by images. (2)

It may be pure conjecture, but an alternative and simultaneously postmodern narrative could be traced from Pop Art via the photo-text works from the 1970s to full-bloom of Appropriations for the 1980s. We could also include? Post-sculpture? and? simulationist? artists like Jorge Pardo, Franz West, Haim Steinbach and RM Fisher, who either transform various commodities in the new items? exposure value? or create your own objects that intentionally blur the distinction between art and design.

If we return to the central issue? art must enforce the description of art history? We can see that other art historical narratives are thus running simultaneously. Assuming that matter, how do you do then is to determine what credibility description, value and authenticity?

If we refer to the Gablik testing, we can see that in 1984 there was a problem with postmodernism? S eclecticism and its ownership of the art historical models. She criticizes postmodernism? S ability to assimilate? All forms of style and genre? and is presented as postmodernism? tolerant of pluralism and conflicting values. (3) However, these precepts of postmodernism, and as a postmodernist art historical narrative, could also be seen as successes and strengths, rather than failures and weaknesses.

For example, one of the ideas of post-structural linguistics is the suspicion that the binary. Clear distinction between opposites, that is, true and false, were questioned through explorations into the meaning of the language. This aversion to the binary helped establish the tolerance of diversity and? Conflicting values? in language, and also to the empowerment of postmodern artists. Which would help explain the postmodernism? S as the eclectic? Trend in architecture and decorative arts to mix different historical styles with modern elements with the aim to combine the virtues of many styles, or to increase the content allusive. (4)

The current situation in the visual arts to suggest that a plurality of visual styles is not only rampant but encouraged by today? S art market. Figurative art, abstraction, realism, conceptualism, minimalism, new media, installation and video are equally valued, exhibited and collected. The socio-economic triumvirate of institutional critique-gallery-collector positions of artists in various styles for multiple validations regardless of conflict theorists of art.

Gablik suggests that pluralism has potential: In many ways, abandoning ideology in favor of a pluralistic situation appears to offer a colossal and unprecedented opportunities for all kinds of artistic expression, it seems, in addition to being a news release exclusion and intolerance of the avant-garde imperative of constant innovation. (5) Therefore, the modernist tropes of exclusivity and elitism would be eliminated in the pluralistic world? overoptioned? styles. However, she argues that this still? They threaten our art with the stamp of meaninglessness. (6)

Critics of postmodernist theory, a position he often with the use of double standard that represents the question of meaning as a belief in? Meaninglessness. By contrast, the definition of the meaning of being postmodern? Infinitely deferred? has the fullness of the latter possibility, with a multiplicity of meanings the opening of all systems of representation (including artwork) to infinity meanings.

Our proposal postmodernist alternative to a modernist (call it the 'Evil Twin? Narrative) could reveal Gablik? S reluctance to recognize the importance of conceptual art when he says:? Almost all art today is the product of the energy released from directly or social obligation. (7) Gablik forget that the original conceptual art of the 1970s a fully committed social? value in use? for his art. Kosuth, Lewitt, Weiner and others refused to continue making precious objects as commodities, rather than choosing to imbue art with its definition, the idea and language. In fact, the relationship of art to language (and the world of commodity production) are contrary to the spirit of the modernist ideology. As Avant-GARDIAN topics, these foreshadow conceptual art, and yet they have become our postmodern tropes.


1. Coincidentally, Jackson Pollock and James Dean killed in car crashes that year (September 55 August? 56) and Charlie Parker heroin overdose six months earlier (March 55).

2. Debord, Guy. ? Society of the spectacle?, Black and Red, 1967, 7.

3. Gablik, Suzi. Modernism has failed?, New York, 1984, 73.


5. Op. Cit., 75.

6. Op. Cit., 75.

7. Op. Cit., 74.

No comments: