The ideas present in John Rajchman's essay The Lightness of Theory were somewhat refreshing. I constantly find myself thinking in the back of my bad whilst looking at modern art or reading about it "Where can we go from here?". The art world seems so overstuffed with intense theory, money, and pretension that it seems like a tangible innovation is impossible. Rajchman points out that even understanding of previous theories have become blurred: "In fact, post-modernism is receding from us to the point where one may well wonder what it once was."(Kocur 388). Looking at previous art movements, the progressions seemed natural. How much more offensive can abject art be after G.G. Allin? How much more abstract can art be after Barnett Newman's color field paintings? How can theory advance anymore to allow for change?
Its rather overwhelming to consider producing ideas that stretch boundaries when theory has nearly maxed out every aspect of art. I think Rajchman's essay offers a much needed plea for art to break these confines and find a new direction for itself: "Time has come to reinvent theory...In the first place, we can afford to introduce a little uncertainty, a little lightness about ourselves or our 'identities'." (Kocur 393). Considering the date of publication for this article, that plea may have been answered. Personally, my knowledge of contemporary is indeed limited, so I honestly can't say for sure whether contemporary art and theory has unburdened itself. It probably hasn't.
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung. Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
I had a very similar response while reading this article. In Art History classes you usually learn about art movements through a specific time line. Beginning with ancient art and ending somewhere around the nineties does give the student a pattern through which to understand the progression of art; and it makes sense. For instance, if you present a person who is uninformed about art history with a Jackson Pollock painting they will probably say something like "What is that supposed to be? A kindergartener could do that!" However, if you teach them about what came before Pollock they will immediately gain some degree of higher appreciation for his painting. One can understand the progression of art up until today, but the question is, what comes next? What will the art of today be labeled ten, twenty, or thirty years from now? Are we relieved of the burden of years of theory and over-thinking? I think it is quite impossible to know for sure. It will be interesting to find out.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting question indeed, where can Art go from here? But this could be the very same question that generations of artists have asked before us. It's hard to say everything has been done when we only have the past and present as a reference. I do not have an answer to the question but it is sad to think that Art has reached the end of its road.
ReplyDelete