Obviously. What I mean is that art has no context, it is interpreted based on what it is. The whole point of displaying art in establishments like galleries and museums is to remove it from any particular context. It isn't part of any larger picture, but is set aside on its own to be interpreted free from any context beyond the label of “art.”
No, that's circumstantial. Art is highly contextual.
Circumstantial: In the west galleries have been really popular for a bit over 250 years, but even then they've only been home to a small portion of “art”. Even private collections.
Contextual: It's only art if your audience agrees that it is art, for a start. A gallery is one context, also a place of cultural reverence like the Sistine chapel There are other contexts involved: religious imagery, the media itself and attitudes towards it, style of representation, name of the artist, type of representation…
It goes on and all ties in with people's preconceptions and expectations as to what constitutes “art”.
when you put on Your thinking cap, it more resembles a “logic helmet” than does my thinking cap. Depending on the need, that can be a pro or con. Cutting out the fuzz cuts out possible influences that Could matter, or could be very beneficial by eliminating distraction. And so my use of the word “purity” was meant along those lines, regarding “essential”, “empirical”.
Hahaha, reductive logic? Yeah, I suppose that describes my way of reasoning there. :)
Secondly, I'm Not understanding what you're referring to with “whatever meaning is most readily understood by the most people”. All I'm picking up on is that something is really really good to a whole lot of people — and I don't think that's what you are really saying.
What I'm saying is that when talking about art in practice, people aren't going to understand me well if I'm being obscure.
Last: you chose to study art and to work within the art industry. I didn't. I am not therefore as entrenched in what “current” or “market” mores are when it comes to art. That I prescribe to theories that you, with your experience, can label “post-modern” amuses me since I'm not advocating for any school of thought if only because I'm not informed of what these schools espouse — I'm not versed in fashionable or contemporary opinion.
I'm not trying to label you, it's just that post-modernism encompasses the approaches you're describing.
I don't mean to say you follow fashions or repeat what others have said either.
They're obviously opinions you've arrived at yourself. Post modernism is very much a part of modern culture now (like modernism before it), so people in tune with modern culture naturally express views that can be said to fit within the current dominant cultural movement.
was a very essentialist way of looking at things: there was one single view that was important and all else was subject to it… art was dictated by the Artist, or the Idea, or the art itself, outside of context because context was irrelevant. -very Isukun here!
-It fitted into the post war, industrial world, in that old institutions, empires, and cultural hierarchies were being destroyed and rebuilt in a shiny new, advanced, modern, exciting new image, making a clean break with the baggage of the old world. There were also overtones of cultural dominance since they were primarily Western driven ideals helping to “advance” the rest of the word.
in contrast is pluralist and context sensitive. It acknowledges multiple perspectives, that the audience and their reception of the art is just as intrinsic to the understanding of the art as the art itself, and that different audiences will receive art in very different ways depending on their cultural, ethnic and class backgrounds, and so on.
-It comes out of the fact that the world is increasingly more connected, global, post-colonialist, and communities are multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Older ideas and ways of thinking receive acknowledgment just the same as new ones- good or important ideas can come from anywhere, any time. The idea that modern Western ideas are always dominant or that “progress” is the only way is out of favour.
Both of those apply to much more than “art” and neither is a very full description.
Just felt it was pertinent to the topic. I feel compelled to draw links to ozone's craftsman example. However, going along with my aforementioned point, the craftsman can simply “do,” but it takes an outside perspective to label it as art. Meaning, someone can create a special type of box, but if outsiders view it and appreciate it for more than just an ordinary box, then it becomes art. It's not just the fact that they're a craftsman of “x,” rather, it's the way in which they craft it.
My craftsman definition works only in it's own little universe. You're reconciling it with the common modern idea of “art”, which really just invalidates it. Like working out the physics behind magic lol!
I dunno how else to expand upon it without saying the same stuff: in the past “art” had a completely different meaning (more craft related), and it's an anachronistic definition that it tickles me to use privately…
It's outside of the modern cultural construction, which is what we're mainly talking about in this thread.
…So really, I probably shouldn't have bought it up. :(