Some of you might be interested in following this on the netnews. However,
we could begin a discussion of it here, and copy to the initiator (not me).
Thanks. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.artcom
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!gheimdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Georg Heimdal <gheimdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: POLITICS AND POSTMODERNISM
Message-ID: <9303221606.AA03115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:06:43 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Lines: 38
Let me try this one more time.
I think there is somebody out there who can shed some new light on this issue.
I just heard a lecture by Thomas McEvilley (art history prof. from Rice who
received this years Distinguished Critic Award from C.A.A.). I think he was
saying that the evolution from modernism to postmodernism was historically
inevitable (a classic modernist stance). If I understood him correctly he
maintains that the esthetic foundation of modernism i.e. the preciousness of
the discrete art object, the logical evolution of art history, etc. was
actually an extension (possibly even a tool) of colonialist Europe. White,
male Europeans (7% of the world's population) could not have set about
capturing 80% of the world's wealth and resources without convincing themselves
that they possesed the true vision of the big picture. Their world view
(including their art) had to be incredibly focused.
As colonialism collapsed, or rolled back, this focused vision became blurred
and outsider images began creeping in.
Although the United States did not play a major role in this particular
colonialist adventure/conspiricy, we did have our own version of focused
vision and "true" art (what McEvilley likens to looking down a tube) during the
height of the Cold War. McEvilley maintains that the dominance of Abstract
Expressionism during the 1950's was possibly more of a contrived propaganda
ploy sponsored by the State Department than simply the emergence of a superior
esthetic.
After the lecture, I started thinking about the possibilities implied in
McEvilley's thesis. Maybe the artworld is more connected to the maneuverings
of world political powers than I had assumed. Sure, I know about socialist
realism and the Mexican muralists etc., etc. I'm talking about something else
here. I don't know exactly what it is, that's why I'm throwing it out there to
readers of artcom.
Is it merely curious that both ends of the twentieth century are characterized
by multicultural/multimedia visual art AND political/social turmoil in Russia?
How many more curious coincidences are there throughout history? Is this
already a thoroughly explored topic that I've been unaware of?
we could begin a discussion of it here, and copy to the initiator (not me).
Thanks. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.artcom
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!gheimdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Georg Heimdal <gheimdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: POLITICS AND POSTMODERNISM
Message-ID: <9303221606.AA03115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:06:43 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Lines: 38
Let me try this one more time.
I think there is somebody out there who can shed some new light on this issue.
I just heard a lecture by Thomas McEvilley (art history prof. from Rice who
received this years Distinguished Critic Award from C.A.A.). I think he was
saying that the evolution from modernism to postmodernism was historically
inevitable (a classic modernist stance). If I understood him correctly he
maintains that the esthetic foundation of modernism i.e. the preciousness of
the discrete art object, the logical evolution of art history, etc. was
actually an extension (possibly even a tool) of colonialist Europe. White,
male Europeans (7% of the world's population) could not have set about
capturing 80% of the world's wealth and resources without convincing themselves
that they possesed the true vision of the big picture. Their world view
(including their art) had to be incredibly focused.
As colonialism collapsed, or rolled back, this focused vision became blurred
and outsider images began creeping in.
Although the United States did not play a major role in this particular
colonialist adventure/conspiricy, we did have our own version of focused
vision and "true" art (what McEvilley likens to looking down a tube) during the
height of the Cold War. McEvilley maintains that the dominance of Abstract
Expressionism during the 1950's was possibly more of a contrived propaganda
ploy sponsored by the State Department than simply the emergence of a superior
esthetic.
After the lecture, I started thinking about the possibilities implied in
McEvilley's thesis. Maybe the artworld is more connected to the maneuverings
of world political powers than I had assumed. Sure, I know about socialist
realism and the Mexican muralists etc., etc. I'm talking about something else
here. I don't know exactly what it is, that's why I'm throwing it out there to
readers of artcom.
Is it merely curious that both ends of the twentieth century are characterized
by multicultural/multimedia visual art AND political/social turmoil in Russia?
How many more curious coincidences are there throughout history? Is this
already a thoroughly explored topic that I've been unaware of?