There was a point to this type of writing, when it started (1970s) 'deconstruction' was seen as the art writer's main role. Writers were trying to build a language that could deal with the way different meanings could be not just picked out by a viewer, but how paintings and other art could be "read as texts", a phrase which itself now sounds very 'IAE'. Like most things this type of writing was a reaction to what went before. Art writing in the 1950s tended to be very flowery and made claims for an art of the time that were overly romantic and completely unrealistic.
Picking up an issue from the previous post though, one problem is mimesis. We are hard wired to copy what others do, especially if we aspire to their position in life. Therefore if this type of language is spoken amongst the international art gallery set, and you want to be seen as the type of artist that would fit in, you will begin to echo 'IAE' in the phrases that you use. The writer Pierre Bourdieu explained how this happens in his book 'Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste' which is well worth a read if you want to develop an argument as to how someone might develop such a thing as 'taste'.
See also:
Some say that mimesis is the closest we can get to describing art. my intention is to use drawing and visually represent through the use of mimesis. I will be using my own figurative photograph to work from.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem i'm pondering is..... where does mimesis site when it comes to finding the balance between realism and abstraction. How much information do I give to the new copy ?
Photo realism, too much abstraction and symbolic gestures are something I'm trying to avoid. How much information= resemblance. Tricky!
An interesting question, there are several approaches to this, so I'll attempt to break these down in the next couple of posts.
ReplyDelete