ART 272 Spring 2009, Department of Art Theory & Practice, Northwestern University
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Raymond Williams, John Brenkman questions here:
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
When talking about the Bill Reading article we discussed culture as already being history and furthermore that the University was a system of re-learning. In Raymond Williams' article Young defines imitation to be works “wrought up out of pre-existing materials not their own”. Would all art then of the past and future be considered imitation then? Especially when considering the Tate flow chart and how the names of some artists are scattered in no man’s land b/c they are a part of multiple movements.
Going off of my last question, if art is then imitation then the significance does not lie in the artist as the artist fails to “read the open secret of the universe and rather “imitates the universal reality”. Furthermore According to T.S. Elliot the significance/talent lies in the material and not in the artist thus the work could contribute to a larger body of work and not be entrapped totally to individual expression. However, if all the medium does is imitate already known truths does the significance/talent still lie in the medium. If not where is it?
In Williams’ article, he speaks of “creative imagination” as the unifying trait of all artists (poets, painters, etc). By understanding that poets and painters possessed this same trait of “creative imagination,” it allowed the “artistic” community to understand and appreciate everyone else’s work. Art was truly for art’s sake, and was best understood by other artists. But what about today, when in our school systems this “creative imagination” is introduced to all students (at least in places where funding hasn’t been completely cut)? How is the artist’s role now different, and how has its implied audience different now, too? In today’s society, most would agree that introducing ideas of creative imagination and its expression is a good thing to do. But in Brenkman’s article, he claims that it is counter-productive for learning institutions to do so without letting its students understand ideas’ needs to be expressed out of their own experiences. William’s article expresses the need to understand art and its functions while Brenkman’s piece warns against its nullification by understanding for the masses (aka, its over-simplification). By the end of the two articles, we are left with: Does introducing ideas of imagination and expression to the masses enhance the artistic community or does it take away from its richness and sincerity?
In the Williams reading the Romantics and Classicists talk a lot about imitation and imagination, but where does imaginative imitation fit within their matrix? They condemn imitation, which seems commonly used with plenty of imagination (which they praise) today.
According to the Williams article, Wordsworth defines the calling of the artist as a conveyor of imaginative truth. The Romantic artists took a defensive position against a marketplace societal organization that they felt was "actively hostile to the necessary principles of art," yet their defensiveness seems antithetical to their definition of art. Can a societal organization stop the conveying of imaginative truth?
In Williams analysis of the changing ideas of art and the artist in the time of the Romantic poets, he discusses the change in the relationship between writer and readers as the system of publishing moved away from the system of patronage into commercial publishing. In this context, a different attitude toward the public established itself, one which differentiated between the mass of "public" subject to "popularity" and the more desirable "people" or the ideal reader. Does this relationship hold true in the modern art market, the way are is or is not treated as a commodity, and the integration of "artists" into other industries such as advertising? Is there still a division between the "people" and the "public" in the way art speaks to its audience?
Brenkman discusses forms of mass communication's serializing way of connecting needs to objects, subjects to one another, and groups to society. Subjects, he says, experience a schism between what they speak and the echo they hear back, such that they receive a message they would not speak, and thus cannot really communicate their needs. How does this serialized culture influence the way art can be produced and how it communicates? Is art effective in direct communication in ways that other forms of language and communication are not or is it simply another form subject to the same constraints?
1. Williams' article brings up a lot of issues concerning "mass" versus "elite" culture. Who decides what is "good" art today?
General Public 100%? Art Critics 100%? General Public 50% Art Critics 50%?
Who should decide what is "good" art today?
2. Brenkman argues that in our society "human beings cannot confront the social totality except as they experience the struggle to reclaim the articulation of their own demands and requests." What does this argument assume about the way different groups of people interact in and view the world and how does it relate to the public sphere?
1. In his article, Raymond Williams writes, "In this kind of argument, 'culture' became the normal antithesis to the market" (35). It interests me how methods to preserve 'culture' have changed over the years. At some points, rather than opposing the market by distancing itself, 'culture' critiques the market by reflecting it, as in Pop Art. What's responsible for these kinds of shifts?
2. John Brenkman write, "capitalism could not effectively secure the production and reproduction of its social relations by means of the cultural and political norms of bourgeois society. Mass culture and the mass-mediated public sphere have evolved, reactively, to take up this task" (103). This reminds me a lot of the New York Times' "Buzz" article posted on the blog. Media is largely responsible for defining what's important, and in this way, media outlets help define culture. The alarming thing is, newspapers and other media outlets are suffering. Newspaper staffs are constantly experiencing layoffs, and at least one major newspaper has closed down. Will we be able to support "social relations" and define what's important in our culture if the media disappears?
"...at a time when the artist is being described as just one more producer of a commodity for the market, he is describing himself as a specially endowed person, the guiding light of the common life." How much can the artist personally elevate himself before the public will no longer believe their work? IF one could create a chart (self-importance v. actual or perceived talent), when would the self-talent of the artist become hierarchical over the public? (Kanye West is famous for his talent, as well as his ridiculous blog posts and ranting and raving about how talented he is...)
"The point will become clearer in the later stages of our enquiry, where it will be a question of distinguishing between the idea of culture as art and the idea of culture as a whole way of life." Aren't the two easily interchangeable? Shouldn't they be? Why do we need the distinction between the two?
& I'm still somewhat confused about Habermas' idea of Oeffentlichkeit, or "The Public Sphere"... What exactly does this encompass? If the public sphere simply encompasses public knowledge or popular culture, why did the bourgeois and proletariat rise against it?
Williams underlying concern seems to be the change in the perception of the artist as a creative individual genius, as opposed to a skilled crafts-person. He greatly elaborates on the changing cultural conditions that enable the public and the industrialization of processes to differentiate between the idea of the artisan, as had been developed in previous centuries, to the concept of a more Romanticized and renaissance artist, who worked within the changing structure of the economy to act as a cultural barometer for the public perception of culture. One of the important points of this article is the identification of the artist as the creator of conceptual ideas, which is fundamental to contemporary art work today.
The Williams work was definitely written from a more objective perspective than the Brenkman article, which heavily questioned the role of 'late capitalism' and how it 'universalized the division between meaning and production.' This relates almost directly to Greenberg's 'Kitsch' essay, which also reworks Marxist theory to identify the way that capitalism alters culture. The notions of 'high brow v low brow' culture are fundamentally underlying each of these two arguments in that the question of how the upper class controls the flow of work is crucial to understanding how the work is interpreted. What interests me the most, perhaps, is the very idea of economics in art today, and how this debunks Brenkman's perspective. If the elite controls the perception of 'high art,' then why is that when the market dips, their importance dips equally with it and the general consumerism attempts to find novel ways of producing and showing art?
To carry off of Jessica's comment, the flow charts suggest that all art is the result of imitation. How does very different and radical art fit in, such as land art? Is anything being imitated? Theme, concepts, mediums, or is it something else? If it isn't imitation, how has such an art form come to be? Can it even be considered art? Or can only some people consider it to be art (such as other artists)?
Brenkman's statement on how mass media has evolved to take responsibility of defining our culture. Doesn't this put responsibility into the hands of the conglomerates controlling our mass media today? It is irresponsible of us relay such responsibility to these conglomerates? Is it hurting our culture?
This is going off of Jessica's question, but I am curious about a similar idea: William's mentions many different philosophies and definitions for "imitation" which made me think of contemporary art today. Thinking about how we've seen sculptures in class made from already used materials and other examples of postmodern art--is anything original today? One could even use the example of the flow chart at the Tate to support that argument that all art is linearly connected to something else. Would it be too bold for me to say that art has become cyclic? I can't really blame the artist though, because it is hard to invent something completely and totally new when everything is a "representation of what eternally exists."
Brenkman says, "capital has the power to restructure the forms of discourse and the situations in which communication can take place." If this is true, how has this affected contemporary art and art in the past? It seems necessary for the public sphere to exist for art's sake, but only in a capitalistic society. What are examples of art proliferating in a fascist society? Can this happen? Why or why not?
I'm still not sure how I feel about how to address art as a commodity. the irreversible merging of the private and public spheres demands that we really chew on this for a while, but (recent) countercultural movements kept coming up in my brain throughout this reading. the idea of "authentic experience" being sold back to us recalled memories of drinking PBR (the working-man's beer) in a trendy hipster bar. When we have gotten so good at taking something and turning it into a commodity, where do we go from here? what is next for us? What parts of your life that you expected to be private are going to be sold back to you? I'm really interested in exploring the relationships between separation, seriality, alienation, and association a little bit further before I ask a question about them... but it was in this vein of commodity that I saw the connection between the two readings. What does it mean for the goals of the artist if art becomes a commodity? who, then, is "permitted" or rather "qualified" to be an artist?
After correcting the misconception that romantic artists are removed from social and political concerns, Williams then emphasizes the paradox between the universal claims that romantic poetry makes about humanity, and the emerging specialization of the art sphere as well as other economic spheres in capitalism. What additional aspects of humanity are missing from the article, however, which not only color any individual's (or artist's) relationship to society, but also relate to the fallacy of romantic poetry's totalizing claims?
How do Williams and Brenhman differ in their discussions of the commodity? Are these discussions at all similar? Is there a parallel between Williams' assertion that an active relationship with art is needed to produce elevated feelings, and Brenkman's discussion of separation of consumption?
Does Brenkman's reading of Debord suggest a connection between Debord's situationism and America's often paranoid political vision? Who is, in fact, behind the media, behind the mediating force between powerless receivers and social action?
How do the defining qualities of Romantic art from TS Eliot's belief as to what is important in evaluating art, and where artistic criticism should focus?
According to Williams', while the romantic artist arose as the “emphasis on skill” took second place to the “emphasis on sensibility,” Wordsworth defines the poet through the “description of a skill” - that is, greater precision of expression. In this way, the art world became less accessible to the masses, as it was, like the bourgeois, designated for an elite assigned to such position by birth. If visual art and poetry are so closely related, why is art stripped of its reliance on skill, while poetry is defined by this? Similarly, as noted in Berkman's piece if “the bourgeois ideology of achievement. . .displaces the assignment of status according to the standard level of achievement from the market to the school system,” where does the contemporary artist fit if it is now typical and expect that an artist sell hermself to not only the art world, but increasingly to the general public through mass media communication?
1) William's first main point elaborates upon the the newly formed relationship between a writer and his readers, which he deems "subjection of art to the laws of the market." Though Williams notes benefits of such a functional relationship, such as the resulting independent status of "professional man" for the writer, he lays out, in a subtle manner, the questionable influence of the "literary market" upon the creative works of the artist. In introducing this point, I am now provoked to wonder, to what degree art is individualistic? Is art, then, a balance between fitting the artist's private interests to the desires and expectations of the loathed "public"? Is this conclusion inevitable (is separation between artistic creation and society's limits illogical?) or is there a way out which is completely subjective? And how can we be sure that the produced art is not tainted by the wants of "the public?"
2)In the last section of Brenkman's article, he articulates how a separation between the public and private sphere is made impossible by "the bourgeois right to accumulate capital." He goes on to state that "the 'private sphere' has always been socially determined," the same as in the instance of childrearing. If so, then in following with the above question arising from William's article, not only are artists, but are we, laypeople, as individuals, living in a superficial attempt to be independent and original? In this collectivist society with every aspect of individual expression predetermined by the effects of capitalism, how is any creative expression to be revealed? Are unique groups, such as those for women, gays, and minorities, as Brenkman mentions, then predestined to be irrelevant?
After reading the Williams text I couldn't help but relate it to public art today and how much some work really depends on public interaction with it. A lot of project based art would not be activated, be effective, or even have meaning without engaging with the public sphere. At the end of the article, he mentions that the specialization of art is what makes it isolated. If art is specialized, made inaccessible to the public but not to the intellectuals, I think it creates a large rift and does it render it less functional or influential? Does it attribute worth where there shouldn't be any? And if art is available to everyone everywhere, does it also reduce it's value? Where do you strike the balance? Where does all of this leave criticism in general? To relate this to the Brenkman reading, does the commodification of art impede the function of the artwork the same way mass culture and consumerism stops the proletariat from developing a collective public sphere?
In his writing, Williams cover the poets’ and artists’ change of attitude towards the 'public' displaying 'dissatisfaction' with the public, their understanding and the appreciation of arts. For example, Shelley called the public the 'simple minded'. The article also talks about growing idea that artists are ‘special kind of person’ who separates ones’ self from the imitations. How can we talk about artists like Jeff Koons who creates work for the mass public (particularity Pop Art) in the discussion of this article? In the contemporary art world is art open for the public or is it still for the elite class?
In the first article we read written by Jurgen Habermas, 'public sphere' is defined by the idea of individuals coming together with different ideas where as in Brenkman, he defines the public as a group separated by their economical statues in society. What is the ‘public sphere’ and which description is more relevant in discussing art and its audience?
17 comments:
When talking about the Bill Reading article we discussed culture as already being history and furthermore that the University was a system of re-learning. In Raymond Williams' article Young defines imitation to be works “wrought up out of pre-existing materials not their own”. Would all art then of the past and future be considered imitation then? Especially when considering the Tate flow chart and how the names of some artists are scattered in no man’s land b/c they are a part of multiple movements.
Going off of my last question, if art is then imitation then the significance does not lie in the artist as the artist fails to “read the open secret of the universe and rather “imitates the universal reality”. Furthermore According to T.S. Elliot the significance/talent lies in the material and not in the artist thus the work could contribute to a larger body of work and not be entrapped totally to individual expression. However, if all the medium does is imitate already known truths does the significance/talent still lie in the medium. If not where is it?
In Williams’ article, he speaks of “creative imagination” as the unifying trait of all artists (poets, painters, etc). By understanding that poets and painters possessed this same trait of “creative imagination,” it allowed the “artistic” community to understand and appreciate everyone else’s work. Art was truly for art’s sake, and was best understood by other artists. But what about today, when in our school systems this “creative imagination” is introduced to all students (at least in places where funding hasn’t been completely cut)? How is the artist’s role now different, and how has its implied audience different now, too? In today’s society, most would agree that introducing ideas of creative imagination and its expression is a good thing to do. But in Brenkman’s article, he claims that it is counter-productive for learning institutions to do so without letting its students understand ideas’ needs to be expressed out of their own experiences. William’s article expresses the need to understand art and its functions while Brenkman’s piece warns against its nullification by understanding for the masses (aka, its over-simplification). By the end of the two articles, we are left with: Does introducing ideas of imagination and expression to the masses enhance the artistic community or does it take away from its richness and sincerity?
In the Williams reading the Romantics and Classicists talk a lot about imitation and imagination, but where does imaginative imitation fit within their matrix? They condemn imitation, which seems commonly used with plenty of imagination (which they praise) today.
According to the Williams article, Wordsworth defines the calling of the artist as a conveyor of imaginative truth. The Romantic artists took a defensive position against a marketplace societal organization that they felt was "actively hostile to the necessary principles of art," yet their defensiveness seems antithetical to their definition of art. Can a societal organization stop the conveying of imaginative truth?
In Williams analysis of the changing ideas of art and the artist in the time of the Romantic poets, he discusses the change in the relationship between writer and readers as the system of publishing moved away from the system of patronage into commercial publishing. In this context, a different attitude toward the public established itself, one which differentiated between the mass of "public" subject to "popularity" and the more desirable "people" or the ideal reader. Does this relationship hold true in the modern art market, the way are is or is not treated as a commodity, and the integration of "artists" into other industries such as advertising? Is there still a division between the "people" and the "public" in the way art speaks to its audience?
Brenkman discusses forms of mass communication's serializing way of connecting needs to objects, subjects to one another, and groups to society. Subjects, he says, experience a schism between what they speak and the echo they hear back, such that they receive a message they would not speak, and thus cannot really communicate their needs. How does this serialized culture influence the way art can be produced and how it communicates? Is art effective in direct communication in ways that other forms of language and communication are not or is it simply another form subject to the same constraints?
1. Williams' article brings up a lot of issues concerning "mass" versus "elite" culture.
Who decides what is "good" art today?
General Public 100%? Art Critics 100%? General Public 50% Art Critics 50%?
Who should decide what is "good" art today?
2. Brenkman argues that in our society "human beings cannot confront the social totality except as they experience the struggle to reclaim the articulation of their own demands and requests." What does this argument assume about the way different groups of people interact in and view the world and how does it relate to the public sphere?
1. In his article, Raymond Williams writes, "In this kind of argument, 'culture' became the normal antithesis to the market" (35). It interests me how methods to preserve 'culture' have changed over the years. At some points, rather than opposing the market by distancing itself, 'culture' critiques the market by reflecting it, as in Pop Art. What's responsible for these kinds of shifts?
2. John Brenkman write, "capitalism could not effectively secure the production and reproduction of its social relations by means of the cultural and political norms of bourgeois society. Mass culture and the mass-mediated public sphere have evolved, reactively, to take up this task" (103). This reminds me a lot of the New York Times' "Buzz" article posted on the blog. Media is largely responsible for defining what's important, and in this way, media outlets help define culture. The alarming thing is, newspapers and other media outlets are suffering. Newspaper staffs are constantly experiencing layoffs, and at least one major newspaper has closed down. Will we be able to support "social relations" and define what's important in our culture if the media disappears?
"...at a time when the artist is being described as just one more producer of a commodity for the market, he is describing himself as a specially endowed person, the guiding light of the common life."
How much can the artist personally elevate himself before the public will no longer believe their work? IF one could create a chart (self-importance v. actual or perceived talent), when would the self-talent of the artist become hierarchical over the public? (Kanye West is famous for his talent, as well as his ridiculous blog posts and ranting and raving about how talented he is...)
"The point will become clearer in the later stages of our enquiry, where it will be a question of distinguishing between the idea of culture as art and the idea of culture as a whole way of life."
Aren't the two easily interchangeable? Shouldn't they be? Why do we need the distinction between the two?
& I'm still somewhat confused about Habermas' idea of Oeffentlichkeit, or "The Public Sphere"...
What exactly does this encompass? If the public sphere simply encompasses public knowledge or popular culture, why did the bourgeois and proletariat rise against it?
Williams underlying concern seems to be the change in the perception of the artist as a creative individual genius, as opposed to a skilled crafts-person. He greatly elaborates on the changing cultural conditions that enable the public and the industrialization of processes to differentiate between the idea of the artisan, as had been developed in previous centuries, to the concept of a more Romanticized and renaissance artist, who worked within the changing structure of the economy to act as a cultural barometer for the public perception of culture. One of the important points of this article is the identification of the artist as the creator of conceptual ideas, which is fundamental to contemporary art work today.
The Williams work was definitely written from a more objective perspective than the Brenkman article, which heavily questioned the role of 'late capitalism' and how it 'universalized the division between meaning and production.' This relates almost directly to Greenberg's 'Kitsch' essay, which also reworks Marxist theory to identify the way that capitalism alters culture. The notions of 'high brow v low brow' culture are fundamentally underlying each of these two arguments in that the question of how the upper class controls the flow of work is crucial to understanding how the work is interpreted. What interests me the most, perhaps, is the very idea of economics in art today, and how this debunks Brenkman's perspective. If the elite controls the perception of 'high art,' then why is that when the market dips, their importance dips equally with it and the general consumerism attempts to find novel ways of producing and showing art?
To carry off of Jessica's comment, the flow charts suggest that all art is the result of imitation. How does very different and radical art fit in, such as land art? Is anything being imitated? Theme, concepts, mediums, or is it something else? If it isn't imitation, how has such an art form come to be? Can it even be considered art? Or can only some people consider it to be art (such as other artists)?
Brenkman's statement on how mass media has evolved to take responsibility of defining our culture. Doesn't this put responsibility into the hands of the conglomerates controlling our mass media today? It is irresponsible of us relay such responsibility to these conglomerates? Is it hurting our culture?
This is going off of Jessica's question, but I am curious about a similar idea: William's mentions many different philosophies and definitions for "imitation" which made me think of contemporary art today. Thinking about how we've seen sculptures in class made from already used materials and other examples of postmodern art--is anything original today? One could even use the example of the flow chart at the Tate to support that argument that all art is linearly connected to something else. Would it be too bold for me to say that art has become cyclic? I can't really blame the artist though, because it is hard to invent something completely and totally new when everything is a "representation of what eternally exists."
Brenkman says, "capital has the power to restructure the forms of discourse and the situations in which communication can take place." If this is true, how has this affected contemporary art and art in the past? It seems necessary for the public sphere to exist for art's sake, but only in a capitalistic society. What are examples of art proliferating in a fascist society? Can this happen? Why or why not?
I'm still not sure how I feel about how to address art as a commodity. the irreversible merging of the private and public spheres demands that we really chew on this for a while, but (recent) countercultural movements kept coming up in my brain throughout this reading. the idea of "authentic experience" being sold back to us recalled memories of drinking PBR (the working-man's beer) in a trendy hipster bar. When we have gotten so good at taking something and turning it into a commodity, where do we go from here? what is next for us? What parts of your life that you expected to be private are going to be sold back to you?
I'm really interested in exploring the relationships between separation, seriality, alienation, and association a little bit further before I ask a question about them...
but it was in this vein of commodity that I saw the connection between the two readings. What does it mean for the goals of the artist if art becomes a commodity? who, then, is "permitted" or rather "qualified" to be an artist?
After correcting the misconception that romantic artists are removed from social and political concerns, Williams then emphasizes the paradox between the universal claims that romantic poetry makes about humanity, and the emerging specialization of the art sphere as well as other economic spheres in capitalism. What additional aspects of humanity are missing from the article, however, which not only color any individual's (or artist's) relationship to society, but also relate to the fallacy of romantic poetry's totalizing claims?
How do Williams and Brenhman differ in their discussions of the commodity? Are these discussions at all similar? Is there a parallel between Williams' assertion that an active relationship with art is needed to produce elevated feelings, and Brenkman's discussion of separation of consumption?
Does Brenkman's reading of Debord suggest a connection between Debord's situationism and America's often paranoid political vision? Who is, in fact, behind the media, behind the mediating force between powerless receivers and social action?
How do the defining qualities of Romantic art from TS Eliot's belief as to what is important in evaluating art, and where artistic criticism should focus?
According to Williams', while the romantic artist arose as the “emphasis on skill” took second place to the “emphasis on sensibility,” Wordsworth defines the poet through the “description of a skill” - that is, greater precision of expression. In this way, the art world became less accessible to the masses, as it was, like the bourgeois, designated for an elite assigned to such position by birth. If visual art and poetry are so closely related, why is art stripped of its reliance on skill, while poetry is defined by this?
Similarly, as noted in Berkman's piece if “the bourgeois ideology of achievement. . .displaces the assignment of status according to the standard level of achievement from the market to the school system,” where does the contemporary artist fit if it is now typical and expect that an artist sell hermself to not only the art world, but increasingly to the general public through mass media communication?
1) William's first main point elaborates upon the the newly formed relationship between a writer and his readers, which he deems "subjection of art to the laws of the market." Though Williams notes benefits of such a functional relationship, such as the resulting independent status of "professional man" for the writer, he lays out, in a subtle manner, the questionable influence of the "literary market" upon the creative works of the artist. In introducing this point, I am now provoked to wonder, to what degree art is individualistic? Is art, then, a balance between fitting the artist's private interests to the desires and expectations of the loathed "public"? Is this conclusion inevitable (is separation between artistic creation and society's limits illogical?) or is there a way out which is completely subjective? And how can we be sure that the produced art is not tainted by the wants of "the public?"
2)In the last section of Brenkman's article, he articulates how a separation between the public and private sphere is made impossible by "the bourgeois right to accumulate capital." He goes on to state that "the 'private sphere' has always been socially determined," the same as in the instance of childrearing. If so, then in following with the above question arising from William's article, not only are artists, but are we, laypeople, as individuals, living in a superficial attempt to be independent and original? In this collectivist society with every aspect of individual expression predetermined by the effects of capitalism, how is any creative expression to be revealed? Are unique groups, such as those for women, gays, and minorities, as Brenkman mentions, then predestined to be irrelevant?
After reading the Williams text I couldn't help but relate it to public art today and how much some work really depends on public interaction with it. A lot of project based art would not be activated, be effective, or even have meaning without engaging with the public sphere. At the end of the article, he mentions that the specialization of art is what makes it isolated. If art is specialized, made inaccessible to the public but not to the intellectuals, I think it creates a large rift and does it render it less functional or influential? Does it attribute worth where there shouldn't be any? And if art is available to everyone everywhere, does it also reduce it's value? Where do you strike the balance? Where does all of this leave criticism in general?
To relate this to the Brenkman reading, does the commodification of art impede the function of the artwork the same way mass culture and consumerism stops the proletariat from developing a collective public sphere?
In his writing, Williams cover the poets’ and artists’ change of attitude towards the 'public' displaying 'dissatisfaction' with the public, their understanding and the appreciation of arts. For example, Shelley called the public the 'simple minded'. The article also talks about growing idea that artists are ‘special kind of person’ who separates ones’ self from the imitations. How can we talk about artists like Jeff Koons who creates work for the mass public (particularity Pop Art) in the discussion of this article? In the contemporary art world is art open for the public or is it still for the elite class?
In the first article we read written by Jurgen Habermas, 'public sphere' is defined by the idea of individuals coming together with different ideas where as in Brenkman, he defines the public as a group separated by their economical statues in society. What is the ‘public sphere’ and which description is more relevant in discussing art and its audience?
Post a Comment