Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atari 2600
The whole philosophy of postmodernism (as opposed to modernism) is merely a case of the lunatics running the asylum and is all a bunch of doublespeak bullshit because the critics ran out of words to creatively describe art. The rise of conceptualist art in the late '60s-early '70s threw them for a loop, you see; some called it "neo-dadism" at first. At any rate, Duchamp was crowned in effect by these esoteric snobs as art's last true visionary. And it was decided that everything after Duchamp is merely a kitschy hodgepodge of the art that came beforehand. And while this orientation often holds true, it still doesn't make it an absolute truth. It's really more of a guideline than a gospel...
....Furthermore, postmodernism is obviously flawed as a "philosophy" because it maintains that there will never be any more artistic visionaries. This is ludicrous as there are many art forms ("art" is not only visual arts and painting) where visionary (i.e., avant-garde) truly forward-thinking work is being accomplished to this day.
|
you seem better read in art criticism than i am, and strange things happen when ideas are borrowed from other fields (a "postmodern" idea in itself - the trope or détournement). for example, while most people see postmodernism as a rejection of history, or at least the idea of history, postmodernist architecture is deeply historicist, primarily a reaction against modernist ideologues rejecting all forms of ornamentation as decadent (from which emerged the stark white "international style" most people associate with "modern" architecture). and deconstructivist architecture has so little to do with deconstruction that derrida disowned it, once refusing to speak at a conference on the subject (featuring famous architect and bow-tie wearing wank peter eisenman, with whom he'd already broken off his working relationship) sending in his stead a tape recorded statement detailing his disagreements with the whole idea. the term deconstructivist acknowledges this and more acurately describes the architecture, referencing as it does the russian constructivists.
anyway, my point is that while i agree with a lot of what you have to say about art, it is disturbing that you dismiss the philosophy of postmodernism so readily and so completly. the epistemological implications of the information revolution are quite distinct from the aesthetic concerns you are discussing. and while it is true that a lot of late twentieth century continental philosophy makes heavy use of rhetorical methods traditionally considered to be vices, which could accurately be described as double-speak (particularly catachresis, relying as it does on the slippage of the signifier), that hardly makes it bullshit. deconstruction can be a powerful analytical method, and poststructuralist thought in general has a lot of valuable insight into linguistics. lacanian psychoanalysis picks up on these and examines how language operates at an unconscious level. all are handy tools, despite not being perfectly suited to every job. (ie art criticsim, music criticism, architecture theory) but what tool is? that's why you have a toolbox. ...if i had to critique the idea of the cartesian cogito, i'd hardly pick up some clement greenburg... likewise, just because deleuze and guattari didn't help you describe a painting doesn't mean it's groundless gibberish.
[edit] to answer the question, my understanding of the term avant-garde is primarily the historical one. the collection of movements than begins roughly with the salon des refusés of 1863... actually wrote a paper in undergrad titled "Is an avant-garde act still possible?" ...don't remember what my argument was, though.