modernism

[David Morris]

On Nov 16, 2007 12:51 PM, Mr Haney <bonhommie-man at live.com> wrote:
>
> > 2. Avant Garde - a strategy for continous radical breaking away from the past.
> >
>
> not really a "difficulty", but at least a "problem": who, then, constitutes the avant garde at a particular juncture?
>
> problem could be addressed by the market (top sellers, or, at least, those able to command top price), by the government (those chosen by the commissar or the gauleiter or the New Dealer, or the GSA procurement office, or DHS), or even by posterity (those whose work seems best to the historian;  and/or those whose work is most influential and/or lasting...) -- anyway, a defined position to be striven for, which does constitute  a means of facilitating change



These questions are precisely what the art world has been grappling
with for the last 40 years, after a kind of blind faith in "That which
is Modern," per se, had lost its focus, and these questions are at the
core of what is (has been?) post-modernism.

See Damien Hirst's Diamond Skull, with its "selling point" of being
the most expensively-made art object in the world to date.  A pretty
grand take on the consumer-values trumps all statement pioneered by
Andy Warhol.  For me these takes are extremely pessimistic/cynical,
and though I understand them, I don't LIKE them.  In this regard, I
guess I fall in with Gaddis' Recognitions lament:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/02/damien-hirsts-diamon.html

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1779919,00.html

http://www.supertouchblog.com/2007/06/01/londonhirst-unveils-98-million-diamond-skull/

David Morris


> what is to be said for "post-modernism"? -  are certain sequelae to the modernist characteristics so inevitable as not to need any definition other than positioning them after modernism?