book larnin'

As it happens, when I saw the announcement of the MIT conference a few days ago I was in the midst of trying to put together a post in mild defense of all that (no-longer-so) newfangled academic theorizin' in the arts that so often bugs people.  Obviously, in light of the posts I did write, it bugs me, too, or it can.  On the other hand, this is the sort of stuff I cut my teeth on in various graduate seminars in continental philosophy (most aesthetics and political theory) back in the day.  So at times I get a little protective of it, which can lead me to defend or criticize a particular instance, as the case may be.

All of this was rolling around in my mind due to a recent article from the Guardian attacking the new Art Since 1900 textbook from Rosalind Krauss and company.  I have no trouble at all believing the book irritating and heavy-handed, especially to an already-knowledgable reader.  It is meant, after all, as a pedagogical tool, and it will undoubtedly chafe those not in need of instruction.  Philip Larkin, according to his biographer, after completing his version of The Oxford Book of Twentieth-Century Verse and hearing a rumor that Kingsley Amis might be asked to do a companion of light verse, remarked, "We shall have stamped our taste on the age between us in the end."  Krauss and company have the same aim, just in a different field, and minus the artistry.

Jonathan Jones, the author of the Guardian's article, makes a number of solid points about art criticism.  That its validity rests upon illuminating something in the work - so that we understand and, knowing, say "I see" - is certainly true.  That all too often contemporary "theoretical" approaches rely on implicit arguments from authority also has been widely noticed and rightly deplored.  It's this fact that always bothered me about appropriations of continental philosophy in other disciplines, generally under the rubric of "theory."  For there was no "theory", there were theories, not all of which were consistent with each other, and the point was to decide which, if any of them, were true (or at least accurate.)

If there's a single flaw I can point to in Jones' assault, it's his rhetorical reliance upon empiricism as a point from which to criticize the book.  British empiricism is a fine and noble thing, but in the arts it does not have the happiest history.  Far too often it has been a cudgel with which to beat any artist who fails to paint horses that look like horses.  All glory to those who do, but we don't want to stop there.  Jones connects the style and arguments of Art Since 1900 to Bruce Naumann's exhibit at the Tate.  The latter may be unbearable, I have no idea.  But as much as I love the happy little aesthetic rut I've dug for myself, I get uncomfortable when I see more experimental work simply ruled out.  If it's bad, fine; but Jones' empiricism, for all its emphasis on the work, doesn't seem capable of coming to grips with that particular one.  Chris was getting at a similar point the other day, I think, when in disappointment with MIT's Black Sabbath tribute "Regarding Evil" conference he remarked that more experimental intellectual work is "at its finest when it allows us to reflect on the limits of knowledge, of language, of method and to use this insight in production of knowledge."

On a different note, I got the link for the Guardian from Tyler, who when posting it referred back to his own account of a conference on Dan Flavin held at the National Gallery during last year's exhibit there.  He did not have a lot positive to say at that time, and again, I have no reason to doubt the event was as fatuous as he makes it sound.  It's disappointing, too, for as he notes, there were some good, smart people there.  I think I do disagree with him on the relationship between academics and contemporary art, at least to some degree, but that's another post.  I just want to point out that, like some of those speaking at the time, I've been known to invoke "the dialectic" from time to time.  I find it useful and, in fact, at times unavoidable.  Ideas and art wrap around one another quite often, and a fair amount of the mumbo-jumbo spouted by eggheads finds fruitful ground in artistic practice.  And sometimes, it doesn't.  To cease this long-winded yet still vague post (or should I say discourse?), let me once again emphasize that tact is among the most important yet least considered aspects of interpretation, historical or aesthetic.  That, and anyone in or with access to New York is sick of theorizing and wants some serious sensuality in art, go here now.  I haven't been (it takes a lot to get me out of New England), but she'll be having a show at Holy Cross later this year and I can't wait.

Comments

[MMcM]

I found the WSJ's hatchet job against the October gang's book more perversely entertaining.

[Dan]

That WSJ piece goes along rather sedately for most of it, hitting all the major anti-Theory points—deriding Duchamp's stature, quoting the goofball "jargon," protesting the insidious Marxist underpinning. (I think Gibson should have a chat with Roger Kimball, however, as regards the so-called "mainstreaming of postmodernism"; hopefully the Rog can set him straight to the fact that hegemonic postmoderism is already a preeminent corrupting influence in society.)

It pulls off the gloves, though, and just unhinges in the final paragraph:

It's appalling to think that a book like this may enter classrooms and inflict itself on young minds with little or no acquaintance with art history. So I have a suggestion for parents of high-school students: Find out whether the college that your child hopes to attend plans to assign "Art Since 1900" in its art-history courses. If so, apply elsewhere.

Practical advise, that.

[Dan]

err, "practical advice"

[Mark Westphal]

I'm wondering if anybody from this blog actually went to this "evil" conference. While I hate to admit it, given my critcism of the event before it ever happened, I found it to be an exciting and well rounded day. Cisneros clearly was capitalizing on the tradition of futurist assembly, or the Stravinsky effect as we experienced with Boyd's performance. This was a freshening of situationist imperitives that should be encouraged given the "limits" of colloquia. Ron Jones delivered an impressive presentation and Jodi Dean had her politics buttoned down. Did anybody go? There were about 400 people in there for 6 hours straight. I may all have some problems with this whole thing.... but thats impressive.

[MS]

Well, there is only one person at this site, and I didn't go. Even if I had been inclined (which I wasn't), I only learned of it a week before it happened and already had other committments. I had some misgivings about posting about it given that I knew I wouldn't be there, and tried to build those into my posts at least a bit even as I mocked the event.

It's hard for me to respond further to your comment, as without having been there I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with your assessment. But while I'm sure my opinions would have been modified to some degree if I had gone, I doubt they would have changed all that much.