PLURALISM

In “Learning to Live with Pluralism”, we take a journey through the years of how art is viewed. Pluralism in art is a fundamental transformation of self consciousness with many different theories of interpretation. One way of understanding pluralism is that not one time period is “the” correct style of art, but all time periods have art forms that are valid.
There is no historically correct opinion - no one way of producing art has priority over another. There is no correct or incorrect art form. I agree with Andy Warhol’s statement in 1963: “How can you say one style is better than another? You ought to be able to be an Abstract Expressionist next week, or a Pop Artist, or a Realist without feeling that you have given up something.”
We have grown up in a time of freedom of style and medium. We are able to combine different concepts and incorporate them into new interpretations without justifying them.
Imagine if the great artists of the past were able to work in this type of environment what their art work would have been.

hers

grind her wheels

After reading Clement Greenberg’s article, “Modernist Painting 1909”, I could understand his perspective of where the art would had come from and where it was headed. Greenberg stated that he had to simplify and exaggerate the rational of the modernist movement in art. He felt that modernism equaled the whole and what is truly alive in the culture (which I agree with).
Clement Greenberg also felt that modernism uses art to call attention to art, which is also very true today. Greenberg realized that modernism was not meant to break away from the past, but to unravel tradition. I feel that it is the changing of ideas, material and medium that keeps art interesting and challenging for both the viewer and the artist today.
Modernistic art makes all theoretical possibilities possible, with still having appreciation for the masters of the past, growing together and moving with culture.

February 4, 2010

In the article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin, (1892-1940), brings up many interesting observations during the early nineteen hundreds. He questions how the reproduction of art work will impact the public. His concern: Will the reproduction of art change the original intent of the artist if the masses, (some uneducated), view it? He questions whether it may make a difference if we view works of art in large groups, or if you can not trace the art work’s ownership.
Walter Benjamin realizes that early art work was used in rituals, and then also in religious worship. What he is concerned about in his article is if art is mass produced, will it lose these original intentions?
In film, Benjamin is concerned that we will not have enough time to study a frame, and the camera man will be determining what we should think instead of forming our own opinion of the framed picture.
For me, it is hard to understand why he feels the privileged should only be able to view art and original art as well. It is presumptuous to think that the uneducated can not see the same beauty or meaning in a work of art as the wealthy educated class. Another question he addresses is: Does mass producing of a piece of art cheapen the original work, or is there value in mass producing art works? Benjamin leans toward that it indeed cheapens the art works and is not therefore beneficial.
I think as a student it is valuable to see as much art as possible, and even if mass produced reproductions do have some flaws, (they may not have the exact scale, color and textures), if it was not for these reproductions, many people would not ever even experience what the artist had created. But, of-course, seeing as many of the original art works will leave you with no doubt as to what the piece really is.

encased in glass, a large blue pixel is set in a white gold ring setting in a dark blue Tiffany jewery box challenging the viewer.