![]() ![]() Already we can open a can of worms and begin to annihilate our moral tradition that the artist and art work have more integrity that that. And we could say that this is true, since most writing that I identify as being about art is not criticism at all but descriptive, emotional economic supportive material, we could even struggle to call it journalism, by which the art work is the equivalent to the sensitive guest on some chat show, or is on the bandwagon of the usual press junkits that define most media interactions these days. This is where candidates taking a Doctoral research degree develop their practice over the 3-5 year programme whilst also developing writing alongside this as part of a thesis.) My abstract points to the relationship between art criticism and art, and I try to focus here on the problem that writing about art, that task of representation has been given such a bad name that any commentary on the art work seems to be charged with an automatic conservatism. (I want to think specifically as well about the increasing culture of writing that is emerging from artists and this is not just the writing of artists' statements, manifestos and reflections on their own work but also a type of writing that has been more or less institutionalised or at least advocated by the institution in the wake of a European culture of the PhD in arts practice. This short paper seeks to establish a few questions that aim to tackle that awkward relation between art criticism and artistic practice. This essay is a sketch leading toward a longer, non-linear, counter-history of the art school. They also include references to the nineteenth-century UK Schools of Design, Socialist Realism, Greenbergian Modernism, Althusserian ideology critique, and the Bauhaus. These scenes roughly cover the period from the formation of the Royal Academy in 1768 to the art school protests in 1968. The scenes in this article map the transition from what Rancière calls the 'representative regime' to the 'aesthetic regime' on to the historical, pedagogical, ideological, and political evolution of the modern art school. He is specifically interested in the transition between different 'regimes of art'. His strategy in this book is to juxtapose 'the event' of an artwork against 'the interpretive network which gives it meaning' (2013, ix). This is Rancière's most sustained exposition of the 'aesthetic regime of art'. The title is taken from Jacques Rancière's (2013) Aisthesis. The following essay proceeds through twenty-one visual and textual 'scenes' from the complex history of the art school, as a contribution to debates about its political character. ![]() This paper reexamines these significant exhibitions in order to consider Sylvester's, and by extension Britain's, place at the forefront of the subsequent rise in international exhibitions devoted to drawing practice. Sylvester's analysis arose from the particular socio-cultural sensitivities of 1940s and 1950s Britain about the role and obligations of creativity. ![]() Many years before Lawrence Alloway's celebrated essay on Sol LeWitt (Artforum, 1975) inspired an international audience to reappraise drawing in light of conceptualism, Sylvester harnessed drawing to speak to the limitations of modernism and individualism. Sylvester's exhibitions place him among the international vanguard for his use of drawing theory as a tool to explore the role of the artistic individual within her practice, a perspective that points toward the role drawing took in process art and conceptualism in the ensuing decades. Drawing for Pictures (Arts Council, 1953), Recent British Drawings (ICA 1954) and Drawing Towards Painting (Arts Council, 1962) all steered public engagement with the eclectic and often private practices of drawing at a volatile moment for art institutional structures in Britain. Critic and curator David Sylvester played a pivotal role shaping the intellectual as well as the actual consumption of avant-garde art in the post-Second World War period and yet a key series of exhibitions he curated, focusing on the practice of drawing in the 1950s and early 1960s, has been all but ignored. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |