Postmodernism and the canon (is Re: PO-PO-mo-JO

[jbor]

An interesting "story", but I think that part of, for want of a better 
phrase, the broadening of the canon in postmodernism is also a direct result
of the rise of the various politically-engaged aesthetic systems -- most
prominently feminist and Marxist criticism (and art), but also
post-colonialism, pop culture, indigenous art, queer studies etc, and the
art which has been generated under each of these umbrellas -- as well as the
rise of inter-disciplinary studies within the academy.

Once the artificiality(ies) of the canon(s) as it has existed is identified
(its phallogocentrism, say, by Virginia Woolf in 'A Room of One's Own' for
example), and the socio-historical circumstances which permitted the
perpetuation of DWM art over and above all others have been revealed, then
multiple, and pro-active "stories of art" began to appear. Of course, it is
because of the historical primacy of the DWM canon/s that these alternative
"stories" couldn't be sustained. The female, Marxist, black, queer, "tribal"
artist working within Western culture could (and can) hardly avoid the canon
as it already existed(s). Thus, postmodernism recognises that the canon as
it already exist can't be rejected or resisted, but what can be done is
undermine the privileged position which the canon has traditionally
occupied, and restore a modicum of equanimity to alternative aesthetic and
critical perspectives which *could have* existed, and do now exist. I think
that part of Pynchon's interest in alternative, and lost, history(ies) --
and herstories -- is tied in with postmodernist ethos, most notably perhaps
the longing for "the fork in the road America never took" in *GR*. The
reclamation of the subjunctive mood in *M&D* is another exemplification of
this attribute of Pynchon's fiction which marks it as postmodern imo.

The recent film *Artemisia* might be interesting in this context. I also
think that "cutting edge" artists nowadays are increasingly moving into the
realms of public and studio art to escape or subvert that influence on, or,
indeed, dominance over art and art stories which "the curator" and his kin
have attained in recent decades.

best

----------
>From: "James Kyllo" <jkyllo at clara.net>
>To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: PO-PO-mo-JO (was PO's Vision)
>Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000, 10:42 AM
>

snip
> An artist is now a curator. An artist is now much more seen as a connector
> of things, a person who scans the enormous field of possible places for
> artistic attention, and says, What I am going to do is draw your attention
> to this sequence of things. If you read art history up until 25 or 30 years
> ago, you'd find there was this supposition of succession: from Verrocchio,
> through Giotto, Primaticcio, Titian, and so on, as if a crown passes down
> through the generations. But in the 20th century, instead of that straight
> kingly line, there's suddenly a broad field of things that get called art,
> including vernacular things, things from other cultures, things using new
> technologies like photo and film. It's difficult to make any simple linear
> connection through them.
>
> Now, the response of early modern art history was to say, Oh, OK. All we do
> is broaden the line to include more of the things we now find ourselves
> regarding as art. So there's still a line, but it's much broader. But what
> postmodernist thinking is suggesting is that there isn't one line, there's
> just a field, a field through which different people negotiate differently.
> Thus there is no longer such a thing as "art history" but there are multiple
> "art stories." Your story might involve foot-binding, Indonesian medicine
> rituals, and late Haydn string quartets, something like that. You have made
> what seems to you a meaningful pattern in this field of possibilities.
> You've drawn your own line. This is why the curator, the editor, the
> compiler, and the anthologist have become such big figures. They are all
> people whose job it is to digest things, and to connect them together