As philosopher and art historian, Thierry de Duve examines and questions our view of modernist and contemporary art, with a particular agenda for rethinking aesthetics. In his 1994 article, “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” he takes a particular overview of the philosophical positions at stake toward art practice as reflected through its instruction within institutions. His conclusion that today’s currency for deconstruction, with its relativistic logic, tends toward undermining art production with its pre-emptive suspicions, finds some sympathy with me. While there is merit in examining what a work assumes, deconstruction applied too early, as de Duve points out, before ‘an artistic culture’ has been developed within the individual (30) or, as discussed in group, before creative play and experimentation has been explored, or even before applying oneself to a particular technique – a pre-modernist notion within these terms – is paralyzing and destructive. Creative play is hopefully a continuous part of ones practice, but it suffers when there are too many doubts about how the ‘other’ attends the work (de Duve, 31).
Painting and theory have a history of being in competition, as de Duve hightlights in an Artforum article ‘The mourning after’ (Mar 2003). He was, in fact, referring to Conceptual art – with its claim on theory – winning the paradigmatic position of the 80s. Painting, yet again, was to die: this time at the hands of the Conceptualists and the ‘critic as theorist’ (9).
David Read, in the same Artforum article, makes the comment, however, that painting has always had a ‘symbiotic relationship with various belief systems, religious and political’ (8). I wondered about this ‘symbiosis’ in relation to criticisms I faced in employing Klein-based analysis to place the register of my work: where it could seem that I was illustrating Kleinian theory, rather than articulating painterly ideas through an activation of site. Taking on board these criticisms it would appear the symbiosis with this theory had become a too co-dependent one, too smothering. Employing theoretical ideas as a painter is difficult if they end up prescribing that practice, and yet painting survives today as a conceptual site, because deconstruction demands clear signifiers that are usually found in other practices.
David Read describes painting’s absorption of influences from other disciplines as both its ‘virtue’ and ‘debasement’ (Artforum, 8). He connects this to the medium’s continuing validity: ‘photography and other media of mechanical reproduction have been like a vampire’s kiss that makes painting immortal’ (8). Likewise, it would seem that the rise of theory with Conceptual art – read this to mean ‘French theory’ (de Duve, 28) of which deconstruction is a part – has not doomed painting. It may appear more shadowy, like an un-dead thing, its zombie-materiality ready to feed on the current demand for conceptual ‘brains’. Yet painting’s symbiosis with any theory cannot be allowed to subsume it.
Citations
De Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude – And Beyond” (1994). Theory In contemporary art since 1945. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 19-31.
“The mourning after”. Artforum. Vol. 41, Iss. 7 (March 2003): p. 206. ProQuest Database. University of Auckland Library Web. 25 March 2011
<http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/pqdweb?index=0&did=3264…>
Hi there Glen
ReplyDeleteI agree that employing theoretical ideas to any practice is difficult if they end up prescribing that practice. In the struggle to adhere to a theoretical idea or concept within the confines of a tertiary program the inevitable consequence can be compromise or worse, homogeneity. There are times when you can be so paralysed with the notion of justifying the work within a theoretical framework that either nothing gets produced or nothing progresses except the creeping fear of “ failure”. Strength of practice should mean the ability to use the theory as a support not as a hammer and allow art to breathe.
Hi Glen
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to read your opinion in regards to conceptualism and painting. The idea that painting is dead or has died or is dying seems to be continuous and yet contradictory, as painting is definitely not dead. The history and sentiment of painting I feel gives it solid ground. Outside of the immediate art world people still appreciate painting and even if they do not understand all the ideas connected with the work, there is still an access point for the viewer to connect with and relate to whether it be aesthetic or skill. Compared to conceptual works, which although bask in being confronting it is also often misunderstood or inaccessible, it is not a likely commodity and therefore can only really survive in one realm the art realm.
As you mentioned theory has become part of a painters practice and an emphasis on the conceptual aspect has also been undertaken. As art students we have also been required to consider this and apply it to our work.
As discussed in our group the battle between painting vs conceptualism is very much current and well in force as even in the four years I have been at Elam there has been a noticeable fight almost against conceptual art and painters coming together in force to prove that painting is still valid and very much current.
It seems a very strange concept to kill off an entire medium especially a medium which carries centuries of knowledge and development and is used as a tool for many conceptual artists. Long live painting I say!
Denise and Sian have both raised interesting points in relation to your writing Glen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Denise that theory should be used as support and not as a "hammer and allow art to breathe". This in itself is a nice theory and one that can be used to justify painting by saying "yes I understand the arguments for and against painting and I'm still going to stick to painting". Theory shouldn't be used to stop someone from using a medium. And anyway theories come and go, as do artists and art movements but we are the new generation of artists coming through and we have a right to shape the art market rather than let it shape us. That means even fighting against the art institution which may attempt to convince artists to move away from painting. I was a painter myself and I miss it but in the end I couldn't have been good enough at it to really stick to it. My interests changing to filmmaking and I'm Ok with that. But I also think it's awesome what Sian said that there is a real push back from painters to defend their medium. And I do think that theory is being put to good use in this defence. Maybe if I'd stuck to painting I'd have a greater understanding of it now and the language needed to defend it. But it's been too long and as a painter I am too insecure and so I do understand what Denise said about theory being needed to support the art and not to stop it from "growing".
Theory is difficult and sometimes disorienting, but I believe that if you open up your practice and allow theory to support your ideas both your knowledge and your practice will expand beyond your wildest dreams! Yeah sure the Institution tries to bog you down deconstructing what you believe in but in the end you will do what you want to do anyway! As Alicia said "theory comes and goes just like artists and art movements. I think as artists we are very critical on ourselves and our practice this is what makes us who we are but it would be a shame to give it all up because of this crazy thing called theory? There is an old saying I like to remember when theory gets the better of me - take what you like and leave the rest - or as John Bywaters says "give yourself permission to let it go!"
ReplyDelete