Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Art, Artist, Culture


William Rubin, director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York said, "there is no single definition of art." The art historian Robert Rosenblum believes that "the idea of defining art is so remote [today]" that he doesn't think "anyone would dare to do it."

In the late 60s and early 70s of the past century, conceptual art emerged
to place art beyond limitations and definitions, to break the stranglehold of bourgeois formalist art history and criticism. The important thing was the "making" and the manipulation of materials. The final object became secondary and often temporary (Christo, for example).

We have been taught that art is important. We're unwilling to face up to the recently revealed insight that art in fact has no "essence."

"Art" remains significant to human beings. The idea that now anything can be art, and that no form of art is truer than any other, strikes us as unacceptable.

No comments: