Revisiting Art-Speak

[mbarrick]

I've been looking at my old art-school essays and laughing. I actually wrote this in all seriousness: "Language is a tautological system where in order for a paradigmatic order to exist wherein individual aspects can be arranged syntagmatically there must needs be at least two signifiers to relate paradigmatically and syntagmatically."

That, my friends, is art-speak for, "You can't talk about stuff without comparing it to other stuff."

Comments

[cheaza.livejournal.com]

ok i had to say something back to this cause i know alll about what youre saying in here. So i thought i would share with you one of my old essays, the last paragraph, Ok i was 17 only 17 when i wrote this but this was like what set me off on my path on leaving the church coming out, et al. and when i read this now i am like shit man i am fucking BRILLIANT!

How can man rationalize things like heaven and nirvana, enlightenment and salvation, when he or she has never experienced them? It is this doubt that breeds faith. Faith is a belief in something that cannot be explained and this personal faith is what makes your religious choice.

Oh and as for wordy over explanations for things like you posted here, my rebuttal-

Even though Greenberg denied any theatrics displayed, made Pollock’s work revolutionary was his touch as an artist, or lack there of. These paintings are not about the final product, rather a record of their creation. When the painting is broken down to it’s base elements, the only “subject matter” and the biggest sense of context are Pollock’s “brushstrokes.” Like the stage after a play, the marks on the canvas dictate every one of Pollock’s flings of paint, each movement of the artist across and back and forth over this huge piece. Yet only on a rare occasion does the painting show the actual physical touch of its creator. Pollock remains at a distance from his work. Although he does contribute some in how the paint hits the canvas, he is not under total control of it. He allows a force beyond himself, gravity mainly, to dictate the look of the mark.

(aka Pollock never painted anything that looks like anything he just threw paint and his trash on a canvas and called it art so therefore it is)

Pollock

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

Yup. I'm quite familiar with Pollock. His paintings were based in his understanding of theosophy and his major influence was Apache sand-painting (thus the method of painting on the horizontal canvases and dropping things like sand and broken glass into the wet paint). At least, that was with the painting Greenburg made famous - he did some figurative work earlier and later in his career. It was the later figurative work, in combination with the agenda that Greenburg and the MOMA had for him that was his undoing.

The MOMA set Pollock up as the quintessential American artist because his paintings were based in a uniquely American aesthetic (the Apache sand-art) and were the visual antithesis to what was going on in the Soviet Union at the time (Social Realism). Abstract expressionism was all about "freedom of expression" - or at least it was presented that way as counterpoint to the state sponsored "happy worker" imagery of Social Realism. Interestingly the board of directors at the MOMA were all "ex"-CIA and turned Pollock into a Cold War pawn. When he wanted to return to doing more mimetic figurative work the MOMA and Greenburg dropped him like a hot potato (since this diminished his usefulness as a propoganda tool) and it drove the already mentally unstable Pollock into serious depression and alcoholism, which lead to his death while drunk-driving.

Now watch... The "Oidballs" (morbioid and Reptoid) are probably going to jump on this and start their "Oooh, look! Atratus has a conpsiracy theory!" song and dance... *sigh*

D'oh

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

Of course a real conspiracy theorist would be more likely to spell "conspiracy" correctly.

Re: Pollock

[cheaza.livejournal.com]

well thats pretty much what my essay said too-- it was comparing his style to that of yves klein and the idea of the making of the art being the art its self.

I actually saw Autumn Rhythum number 35 when i was at the met last year this time. i was ohhing and awwing over it and this guy was standing there looking at it and looking at me raving about it so he asked me "You seem to be someone who would know this- what exactly is this painting about?" so i starting going into how it was about the act of painting itself and its links to the apache sand art and all and by the time i was done i had like a whole crowd of people around me listening to what i was saying. After a guard came up to me and said "i've been working in this wing for 15 yrs now and i have never understood that painting, and i have heard art historians and professors from harvard and critics try and explain it and i never got it til today and the way you explained it." and then she told me she would try and get me a job as a tour guide there if i wanted. WOOT WOOT! yay that was like a fucking good moment for the cheaza! ;op

You know i was an art history major for like 2 yrs right? And i have like no one to talk to about all this info i have in my brain... you and i should go and peek into some of the galleries downtown together and be overly critical. :o)