Avid & other Art Critics
You're interest in trying to extend the understanding of static patterns
and tackling one of the most difficult, Art, is commendable.
If I understand, you are proposing that the following theory is one which has
universal application to defining "What is Art?" and is possibly a model for a
broader understanding of SPQ's in general.
[Avid]
> Art theories are divided into two kinds:
> 1. Theories that attribute quality to a certain ingredient in Art
> 2. Theories which suggest that quality in Art is due to a relationship
> between the artist, the art work, and the context.
> Among theories of the second kind is.. one.. called The Institutional
> Theory of Art...it claims that in Art, the question what is Art is a fusion
> of 4 elements:
> 1. Artist - An agent that created Art work , according to an Art theory, for an Art audience.
> 2. Artwork - A work created by the Artist, according to an Art theory, for
> an Art audience.
> 3. Art theory - A set of rules that constituted Artwork, made by the Artist , and is judged by an Art audience [aware of the particular art theory involved].
> 4. Art audience - An educated group of people [knowing the particular art
> theory involved], appreciating the Artwork, made by the Artist, by the Art
> theory.
> The revolution of this theory is that it says THAT IT HOLDS QUALITY ONLY IF
> ALL 4 ELEMENTS ARE FUSED, namely holding the cycle together [you must have
> noticed that we have here circular definitions, so according to Dickie, the
> quality is there as long the cycle is there
[Dave]
If I'm not mistaken this theory arrived on the scene in the middle of the so
called "Modern Art" period when "abstract" art was in full bloom. I ran across
a similar discussion years ago in "American Masters" by Brian O'Dourghty in
his review of artists such as Hopper, Rothko, Pollock, Rauchenberg, DeKooning,
etc. He introduced one other element into the theory, the "Art Critic",
maintaining the critic was a necessary agent who transmitted the "Art Theory"
and the artist's myth from the artist to the art audience. My recollection of
his point of view was that this theory became necessary because individual
works, each in and of themselves, failed to convey the total experience or
message because the artists were exploring areas, such a series, which could
only be understood in the context of other work, either by themselves or other artists.
Now I don't believe you will get an argument from anyone that today many
static patterns of the institutionalization of art exists, and that many
follow, in general, the theory you outline. The question is, does this theory
universally define "Art"? My experience suggests it does not. Why?
Item 4 states- "An educated group of people [knowing the particular art theory involved]"
This flies in the face of both historical and my personal experience. If true
it would mean that one, could not and would not, be able to appreciate any art
except those produced by their own culture unless first being trained in the
particular "art theories" of other cultures.
Over 2000 years ago contact and trade between East and West started and yet
even as I write neither group still has a clear understanding of the
culture(s) of the other. Yet art has been traded and appreciated, each by the
other, continuously for all that time. How can it be (under this theory) that
the Victoria and Albert Museum is filled with Chinese ceramics collected in
the 19th century, prized, called "Art", and institutionalized, when in a
majority of cases the artist was unknown, let alone "knowing" his/her theory?
How could this Western "art audience" be reasonably expected to be
"knowledgeable of the particular art theory involved" when they were clueless
to the general culture of the artist or possibly, at that time, even where
China was located?
Thirty or so years ago on a brief stop over in Japan I was captured by some
cheap reproductions of classic antique Japanese wood block prints. They hang
on my walls today and I still enjoy them as much as I did in Japan. At the
time I purchased them I had no exposure to any "art theory" concerning
Japanese printmaking or for that matter much understanding of Japanese
culture. Under this theory, what I am experiencing as I gaze across the room
is not "Art"?
So while this theory may shed some light on how art is institionalized in
modern society it does not IMHO define: "What is Art?"
All this being said, I still think your inquiry into the form and functioning
of static patterns is an important one in the further understanding and
development of the MoQ. Would suggest that you try some substitions such as
below, then analyze and clean up to see if anything of value remains.
1. An Agent[a stable pattern of 4 levels of value] - creating an
object[stablized pattern of DQ?], according to a WT [morals? values?]for a
perceiving and judging [valuing] audience [a collection of stable patterns 4
levels of value].
Dave
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST