Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:31:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Howard Hastings <hhasting-AT-osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: A theory about theory [was Anyone get Gass?]



Brad!  I think there might be a misunderstanding in your disagreement
with G, hence my comments.

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, { brad brace } wrote:
> > From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
> > 
> > 5. Critics and theorists now and always have determined what "art" is, and
> > what constitutes the canon, and what  body of folk comprise the important
> > artists. It cannot be otherwise.
> 
> Not only can it be otherwise, but it is nearly _always_ otherwise. 
> Art-critics and theorists eternally fail to recognize significant
> contemporary art;

 1. Significant for whom--except another group of critics?   

    What looks like art critics and theorists "eternally failing" is
    actually the operation of critics within specific institutions at
    specific historical moments.  

    In today's museums, schools, and universities, art-critics and theorists 
    may present art of a past generation which was rejected by the critics
    and theorists of that generation.  However, this does not establish
    that critics and theorists do not determine what art is--at least in
    advanced capitalist societies.  It only establishes that in some cases
    they do so at a later date.  

    The flip side of this is art which is praised by the art institutions
    of past generations, but finds no "critics" or defenders today. Such
    art is selected out of classrooms and museums by those who control
    them in the present.

    None of this implies art outside critical institutions of some sort--
    including the market. 

 2. Yes critics DO fail to recognize contemporary art--and that is
    the history of literary criticism as well.   The really
    interesting question is--what reasons do they give for their rejection
    of yet-to-be-recognized art?

    If we were to review the history of aesthetic misjudgment in art,
    music, and literature over the last 200 years, would we find a lot
    of critics explicitly rejecting the new because it did not fit a
    "theory."  Or would we find a lot of appeals to "life," "nature,"
    "originality" and "true art" all conceived as if such transcended any
    particular system of classification?  

    Mightn't we find critics rejecting the new on the basis that it was
    painted or played or written to fit a theory?  And mightn't we find
    critics rejecting the art of recently past generations-- art once
    acclaimed for its "truth to life" by past critics--on the grounds that
    it was "academic" or "mannered" or stereotyped? 
    
    I think we will find many critics applying theories they do
    not recognize as theories, and rejecting as "theoretical" or
    "unnatural" what is or was presented as a reaction against theory
    and unnaturalness.

The question all this raises for me is, how well can we grapple with the
history of art or music or literature through a kind of positivist
paradigm which separates art "facts" from theories about art, as if we
could have some relation to works of art unmediated by our socialization
within historically and culturally specific institutions and traditions of
art.  If the history of aesthetic misjudment teaches us anything it should
be that our relation to art is never unmediated.

And what are the consequences of teaching "just the facts" of art, as if
they are not already mediated through any specific standards and
categories.

I think one consequence would be that a specific way of looking at the
world which selects some facts and not others and ranks some of those
selected above others selected gets presented as no specific way of
looking at all.

Another consequence would be that talk of the reproduction of a
specific class and cultural ideology via educational institutions would be
rather tiresome and best carried on outside the classroom so that the real
work of just presenting the facts can get on.

I.e., those who teach just the (pre-selected) facts would not see
themselves acting in the capacity of critics imposing theories or a
specific worldview on anyone.  Their theory is naturalized and does not appear to
even be a theory.  

Hence the confusion when it is asserted art critics etc. determine what
art is.  Few people see the teaching of art as an aspect of cultural
reproduction which validates some kinds of aesthetic production but not
others. "Theories" are what marxists and poststructuralists and
people like that have.  Only some people teach according to a theory. You
don't have to if you don't want to.

The rest of the time the artworks themselves somehow just prevail and
get taught and appreciated on their own merits.

hh




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---