The death of art has been discussed for centuries and still continues to do so. A cyclic path that leads to almost continuous sentences, or recitations of the death of art, first by philosophers, and finally the artists themselves, finally passing through the critics.
Art today has taken on new meanings and varied, and often incomprehensible at first glance but the result of an evolution that led her to reflect the split subversive critic of order everyday, the usual and established.
Among the first passage of the declamatory, Plato, with his famous condemnation of painting and poetry: Plato not merely imitative art criticism (painting and sculpture), but even condemned the poetry and the tragedy for their psychological function, capable of arousing emotions.
Some philosophers have condemned the artistic intuition as too weak and insufficient in the face to form a more complete understanding of what philosophy. Hegel, for example, speaks of a future "death of art" in his thesis on the absolute and the projection of thumb, where the philosophy becomes the only one that can grasp the most advanced and absolute knowledge.
The ruling changed hands at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Dada, one of the first artistic movement itself, becomes a carrier of enzymes nihilistic and destructive to the art movement designed to Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich trying to fight art with art itself, or with an 'anti-art representation which is the opposite, rejection of traditional culture and aesthetics.
Today the endogenous origin of the death sentence is pronounced by the critic. He charge the art of death because it is part, in a systematic way, so it is able to modify it and conditioned to your liking. The art is weak and is a vehicle, it is said, for the critic Celant , the father of 'Arte Povera , even the art today is only meant to reassure, becoming a "vehicle anti-anxiety."
Notice genetic mutations in the branched system, which would lead to a loss of virulence critical power and subversion of the complaint, to obedience to the customs, although they give signs of disturbance and disorder. We can say that today art has become condescending? In late? A vehicle of the exotic, promotion? Without its predictive role, it remains an instrument of the magnificence of the new generations of powerful? It is a sign of the new frontier of cultural colonialism in Russia, China, UAE, to celebrate a new power? It is systematic, losing all prophetic function and breakage?
The artist works together with experts of the interpretation of his own work, then paints, carves, cuts, assembles only the present? The artist has undergone over the centuries a metamorphosis, evolving, which transformed it from a master of the court, fought over and pampered, individualistic seconded to intimate and personal. The bohemian artist and visionary without any dependence on the power to free themselves from bondage and make the most of his art. This pattern becomes progressively more free.
with the latest trends, the focus of art and artist unhinges: artistic ego is the highest peak, and then become important action, gesture, and the genesis of the conception of the work to the detriment of meticulous technique, of 'aesthetic formalized correctness.
She points to a success story Picasso in his studio one day to meet him when he was a keen admirer of the artist who wanted his work to include in the collection. Picasso takes a sheet and a piece of charcoal, is a design and delivery to the collector who, disappointed with the speed of implementation and little technical, began to challenge the high price demanded by Picasso for the work very simple. Picasso's response was that that work was the result of years of experience.
The great artists of the last century, including Duchamp, Fountain , Dubuffet, Burri, Spoerri, until at the present Maurizio Cattelan testify that the overview can not be done, the death and claim for art, but by mistake (whose?) in mere appearance.
Who? Who then, can not read the rigid rules, criteria punctiform, scattered but systematic connections of the new artistic Genome currently observed?
Art is the end.
The philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer reveals that it is never, as ever more of the same type of art, and yet today, perhaps the art is more art than it has ever been, a real spark shot from transcendence .
expected a fire and you are not the spark, eternal. The fire, the scene, the grandeur, the size, the breaking of the shouting and is currently the territory of other substitutes, formerly rating: curators and gallery owners and public scream makeup artist himself.
Perhaps the real problem of art today showed Glenn O'Brien responding a letter on the "fabulous Seventies", a magazine by chance and vanity fair, where Glenn asserts that "our society has taken a big turn for the worse." It is no longer a problem to understand whether or not a work of great patrons or patrons, critics and dealers, investors and collectors, art movements, or stylistic changes. The problem is age, in the domain of waste and supervolumi of carelessness and superficiality, oblivious to the real value , or worse, leave the real thing on the premises of the inner memory - whether and where there is - and not pronounce it is announced. The same artists
are not paid and are naked and raw meal of academics, collectors, brokers, critics, curators, visitors, fans, and countless other seconds that they decide to go outside the ring of truth fighting box [cf. AB Oliva ]. Artists oppressed, are suppressed.
right, according to the thesis that claimed Enrico Baj in an article in 1992 (the artist's death, and survival of the critic, "Micromega 5 / 92), where he says that artists are asked only about marginal issues, them, real creators of the system, space, speech and expression.
"Mors mea your life, here's what's new, the eternal adage of new "death of art."
(Guido Faggion) [feat. jovenal ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment