The first difference I see is that the 1936 "map" separates non-Western from Western Art, whereas the 2006 chronology does not. Non-Western artistic influences on Barr's map are red instead of black, and lack the geographic and dating specifics the Western art movements are given. Objects like "Japanese prints" function outside of concrete time and place, they are only artistic influences on Western art, instead of art in their own right. In contrast, the 2006 chronology has "mexican muralists" written the exact same way as "surrealism", both black, with notable artists of the style included.
Just based on what I can see in the picture (I tried looking for this online and couldn't find it; links would be great!), the current Tate display has a more global approach to artistic influences. The fact that they are including Mexican art, for example, ties the history more into ideas of de-Westernized art. They're also focusing less on the idea of 'the other,' since Barr delineated the difference between Western art and other influences with color.
As we discussed in class, the Tate "map" is much more open than the Barr "map." The Barr map offers a rather rigid interpretation of the tradition's evolution. Art movements systematically stem from and lead to one another forward through time. The Tate "map," on the other hand, leaves the names of art movements floating. There is no clear linkage between any two elements, and there is no distinct movement forward.
The Tate "map" is much more realistic in contemporary art. It resembles a common artistic process of drawing from many separate mediums and movements, not always in a linear progression. I've realized this in my landscape photography. I now think about my work not only in terms contemporary photographic processes, but in relationship to earlier examinations of human/nature interaction--specifically, the "earthworks" of the 1960s.
I'm not really buying Peterson's claim of highbrow and lowbrow culture converging into one omnivorous culture. It doesn’t make sense where the stereotypical “hipster” comes from. This type of hipster will subscribe themselves to listening to music that no one else has heard of and then completely abandon that band once they start becoming more popular. They refuse to adopt what is popular, which therefore what is middle- or low- brow.
Considering Andrew’s point that the elite might simply have more ties with low- and middle-brow culture, what does it say about these hipsters? Do they abandon things as soon as they develop more weak ties with other people? Is that progress? Would it be more beneficial for us all for them to continue enjoying the music they had once enjoyed and maintain those weak ties rather than abandoning them?
I’m also curious how Granovetter’s idea of networks applies to the Barr’s diagram of the history of abstract art. Can the network idea be applied to how art has developed? Could certain types of art been never created had it not been for the sharing of ideas? Where did those floating art forms without any connections to previous art forms in the 2006 diagram develop?
4 comments:
The first difference I see is that the 1936 "map" separates non-Western from Western Art, whereas the 2006 chronology does not. Non-Western artistic influences on Barr's map are red instead of black, and lack the geographic and dating specifics the Western art movements are given. Objects like "Japanese prints" function outside of concrete time and place, they are only artistic influences on Western art, instead of art in their own right. In contrast, the 2006 chronology has "mexican muralists" written the exact same way as "surrealism", both black, with notable artists of the style included.
Just based on what I can see in the picture (I tried looking for this online and couldn't find it; links would be great!), the current Tate display has a more global approach to artistic influences. The fact that they are including Mexican art, for example, ties the history more into ideas of de-Westernized art. They're also focusing less on the idea of 'the other,' since Barr delineated the difference between Western art and other influences with color.
As we discussed in class, the Tate "map" is much more open than the Barr "map." The Barr map offers a rather rigid interpretation of the tradition's evolution. Art movements systematically stem from and lead to one another forward through time. The Tate "map," on the other hand, leaves the names of art movements floating. There is no clear linkage between any two elements, and there is no distinct movement forward.
The Tate "map" is much more realistic in contemporary art. It resembles a common artistic process of drawing from many separate mediums and movements, not always in a linear progression. I've realized this in my landscape photography. I now think about my work not only in terms contemporary photographic processes, but in relationship to earlier examinations of human/nature interaction--specifically, the "earthworks" of the 1960s.
I'm not really buying Peterson's claim of highbrow and lowbrow culture converging into one omnivorous culture. It doesn’t make sense where the stereotypical “hipster” comes from. This type of hipster will subscribe themselves to listening to music that no one else has heard of and then completely abandon that band once they start becoming more popular. They refuse to adopt what is popular, which therefore what is middle- or low- brow.
Considering Andrew’s point that the elite might simply have more ties with low- and middle-brow culture, what does it say about these hipsters? Do they abandon things as soon as they develop more weak ties with other people? Is that progress? Would it be more beneficial for us all for them to continue enjoying the music they had once enjoyed and maintain those weak ties rather than abandoning them?
I’m also curious how Granovetter’s idea of networks applies to the Barr’s diagram of the history of abstract art. Can the network idea be applied to how art has developed? Could certain types of art been never created had it not been for the sharing of ideas? Where did those floating art forms without any connections to previous art forms in the 2006 diagram develop?
Post a Comment