Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:57:07 -0600
Subject: Re: the new avant-garde
From: David Westling <dwestling-AT-sbcglobal.net>


> not big and small meaning object size, but big or small meaning--is it
> artworld-art, does it think it is addressing the 20 or so big people in
> centralized (NY, London) artworld and thus taking a place or position 
> in
> art-historical continuum, or is it say culturally small scale that is
> addressing an audience in a particular place, dealing with much more
> general ideas of visuality and meaning? Actually big art, being
> culturally marginalized, is small, and small art, being more connected
> to multiple streams of dailiness, is big, but hey . . .
> AK
>
The old esoteric vs. exoteric slant?  I am in no quandary concerning 
that question myself, I decided long ago that the ideal public is the 
only public.  One can't worry about being "culturally marginalized" and 
at the same time do something that operates in the tradition of the 
great critique.  I know, that position is itself in disfavor nowadays 
with a lot of the "poetry of the everyday" crowd.  Funny how Marcel 
Duchamp morphed into Bob Rauschenberg, how can we undo that?

David Westling



     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---