Emily Ralph

Sandler asserts throughout the text that the original intentions of postmodernism were never realized in the art market. In order to gain power both critics and artists manipulated postmodern theories to fit into their means for success. The most popular book of the eighties was ‘Looking out for number One." This motto seems to characterize the artists and critics Sandler explores after his discussion of Greenberg’s formalists. The front lines of the art world continue to be replaced by other men in different uniforms. Modernism and Postmodernism are exclusive in that they do not include artist’s own ideas for art but attempt to place them neatly according to what the popular discourse of the era.

On page 11 Sandler lays out a chart of the major differences between modernism and postmodernism; these terms are useful to understanding the fundamental differences in the theories of the two movements, however, they do not reflect the actual practice of these theories in art.

Modernism Postmodernism

Form (conjunctive/closed) Antiform (disjunctive, open)…

Design Process/Performance/Happening

Art Object/Finished Work Decreation/Deconstruction

Creation/Totalization Dispersal

Centering Combination

Selection

Irving Sandler begins his introduction with a quote from Don Delillo’s book White Noise, "The world is full of abandoned meanings. In the commonplace I find unexpected themes and intensities"(Sandler 1). I relate to this quote because it describes the feeling of not knowing or believing in anything absolutely except small truths that we discover in our daily lives. I think that this quote reflects a major part of what postmodern thought was attempting to say. According to Irving Sandler, "Modernists demanded that art be universal and transcendent; postmodernists wanted art to engage in a specific social context"(Sandler 2). In other words instead of universal truths or priceless objects in art postmodernism argues that the specific thing happening at the moment is the only truth we can know. Modernism and Postmodernism in practice both fail to dismantle the idea that one type of art is ‘high art’ or superior art. Even though there are fundamental differences between modernism and postmodernism ultimately the critics, artists and capitalism ruins postmodern theories in the practical world.

Sandler continues, "postmodernists and their supporters branded art-as-object as outmoded, hopelessly retrogressive-in a word dead"(Sandler 3). Modernists in art are considered formalist, sculptures, color-field abstractions, and anyone else supported by Clement Greenberg. The artists that he championed were, "Morris Louis, Kenneth Noland and Jules Olitski. Greenberg is quoted as stating that; "Modernist with a capital M" is defined by "the ‘simple’ aspiration to quality, to aesthetic value and excellence for its own sake, as an end in itself. Art for art’s sake…nothing else"(Sandler 2). Sandler explains that Greenberg bases his conception of modern art on the theories of Immanuel Kant. Kant’s approach argues that, "art of quality is international, universal, and transcendent." In opposition to these conceptions of art were Kitsch, pop art, and photography. As a result the postmodernists defined themselves by what they were not and that was any type of art perpetuated by Clement Greenberg.

Sandler states, "it was never clear whether postmodernism constituted a radical break with what came before or was a continuation…moreover modernism and postmodernism were such ambiguous and slippery terms, and had been applied to such a diversity of styles, as to vitiate their usefulness as analytic tools" (Sandler 4). Sandler argues that the problem with these terms is that their definitions differ depending on who one asks. Sandler struggles with most of my problem with college as well here in that the divide between theory and practice seems impossible to cross.

Postmodern theory refers to sociological topics that generated after the industrial society of the modern era. Modern conceptions of dichotomies between high and low art or for Greenberg ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ were challenged by, "Postmodernist art professionals who insisted that the broader psychological, social, national, and cultural matrix of art could no longer be ignored" (Sandler 7). The idea of artistic progress was undermined by postmodernism however Sandler states, "The modernist era was over; it had become history—and had been replaced by a ‘postmodern condition’"(Sandler 7).

Sandler argues that historical events influenced the conceptions and purpose of art’s shift from modern to postmodern. Robert Morris, referring to the Holocaust, states that, "It is from this charred source that all postenlightnment appeals to Truth and Reason become covered with ashes." He is referring to the irrationalities of the Holocaust that made humanity question what there was to believe in. The loss of faith was perpetuated by the Vietnam war which made people have, "a disgust with the past, coupled with a loss of faith in the future that caused disaffected young people to look only to the present…the meaning of life is here and now, in this experience, in my head now." At Shabbat dinner the other night one kid said that she was thankful for, "Being able to just live in the moment man." In postmodernism time is not a universal progression towards the future like modernism maintains but instead becomes a complex nonlinear experience focusing on the ‘here and now’. In the art world this is found in the so-called time-bound process art of postmodernism that is contrasted with the timeless object-art of modernism.

Sandler asserts that in order to gain money, prestige, and power postmodern artists gave up their original intentions. Art critic Hilton Kramer defined the postmodern movement in art at the time as critical of, "the entire social system—not only museums, but galleries, critics, art journals, collectors, the mass media, etc.—that now decisively intervenes between the production of a work of art and its meaningful consumption." Here Hilton lists the original ideals of postmodern art. Sandler continues to argue throughout the text that, "art that initially looked counterculture, even irredeemably perverse, appeared increasingly formal and aesthetic zed. Such was the fate of all radical art."

Modernism and Postmodernism do have differing theoretical bases. In theory these terms can be used in opposition to one another but as is the central problems with most theories: they are not actualized in practice. Modernism is characterized by a timeless progression towards the future shown in the value of art’s aesthetics, autonomy, form, and as found in object-art. Postmodernism is associated with time as ‘in the moment’ and is found in process art that is placed in its sociocultural context. According to Sandler, while the movements might have started out with good intentions, both terms fail to be inclusive because they depend on the critic’s interpretation of which art meets the criteria. These terms seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum but in reality they meet somewhere in the middle. Therefore postmodernism is an extension of the story of modernism in that both attempt to use theories to define art that is actually made by people. In practice art cannot fit into a neat theoretical framework. Thus both modernism and postmodernism are exclusive theories that ultimately limit creation that can only happen without conforming to certain dominate paradigms.

Part One/picture:

This picture by Walker Evens fits into Sandler’s discussion of postmodern art as being perpetuated by critics and artists who wanted to decommodify art by appropriating images. Walker Evens sold photographs for a ton of money. In opposition to him, artists like Sherrie Levine, copied his photographs in order to challenge the idea of the pure artist that sells priceless or original work. She took photographs of his and made them herself in order to challenge, "conventional aesthetic ideas, such as originality—ideas advanced by the newly fashionable neo expressionists—were fictions that needed to be demystified" (Sandler 386). She critiqued the myth of the ‘original genius’ and states, "The birth of the viewer must be at the cost of the painter" (Sandler 386). In other words she uses concepts from postmodern literary theory to assert that taking pictures of other peoples pictures is a way in which to depict the concepts behind postmodernism. As I discussed above her theories and basis for her works met the criteria in opposition to modernism however because critics like Crimp perpetuated her work she became successful and wealthy herself. Through the dominate discourse being replaced by postmodernism artists simply shifted their works to meet the new theory and were rewarded for sticking within the framework of postmodernism not unlike the modernists before them.

Sandler’s argument is more far out than just being critical of the critics when he observes that, "Ironically Levine’s piracy could also be viewed as modernist because it had never been done before." Her original idea is much like Walker Evens original ideas in his photographs. But then again postmodernism asserts that the one thing that is true is that the world is full of complexity evident in everything having a constant contradiction. This photograph in particular shows a ‘real’ woman and does not fit into the framework of either modernism or postmodernism completely. Art should not be concerned with sticking into a neat theoretical framework because it takes away from simply appreciating a piece of work. The woman in this picture is shown biting her lip waiting for the picture to be taken and her life to continue: not to progress towards a utopia or ‘live in the moment’ but just to realize that life is short and we are not immortal so why attempt to classify art. Just let art happen because like Bob Dylan said, "Time is like a Jet Plane It moves too fast."

Working within the postmodern framework I will focus on what I think Koons is doing. To me it looks like he is trying show how the normal everyday stuff can be considered art. These dogs look like chochkes or knickknacks that you see next to people’s kitchen sinks or sitting outside in their yards. Sandler states that Koons, "reveled how commodities can function as works of art and how works of art function as commodities"(Sandler 493). He wants to show that simple things have aesthetic qualities. Sandler says that Koon’s mission was to, "convince the public to accept its superficial habits and tastes"(Sandler 498). Everyone relates with this image of the dogs with trite bows in their hair and shaggy coats. He challenges conceptions of art as coming from an ‘original geniuses or conceptions of art as unique priceless objects. But I am not going to be passive aggressive about this one. I am pissed. This guy is very dull in the sense that all he attempts to do is be boring because he just wants to make money. He is his own self-promoter because he loves advertisement. He states, "The media defines reality" and goes on to explain how while celebrating with friends he realizes that he is acting like a television ad, "We were right there living in the reality of our media." In other words Koons is a big looser. I don’t think that artists should love and live for the media’s ability to manipulate their audience that they take to be mere consumers. Banality taken to this extreme is not good or funny…well I guess it is funny if you consider funny as being not funny but Jeff Koons is doing just that: he is being funny as in not funny. Just kidding but nonetheless his style does not appeal to me because he sticks within the postmodern framework in order to be successful.

Banality has a place in art because art can become detached from people’s everyday interactions with their environment if it is too complicated to get a message across to its viewers. Banal art can be valuable because if art is not accessible to people than it becomes effervescently meaningless. To put normal dull things into galleries can serve to appreciate the mundane events or sights in life. Gertrude Stein said, "A Rose is A Rose is A Rose." She meant that art is art regardless of what theories, geography, or personalities that it is reflecting. However she did not say, "A Rose is A Rose only in New York City." By becoming so successful and transforming into a cultural icon Koons has taken what attempted to be banal and made it worth a ton of money. In doing so he has corrupted his ‘banal’ art by making critics very excited by how much money it will produce. Banality has a place in art because it attacks conventional definitions of art as unique or other than mundane but Jeff Koons looses integrity because his art reflects the current framework that critics perpetuate in order to be a success in the art market and beyond.

The canon is meant to be the establishment in Academia that decides who are artists and who are not. Some dead white guys/art that comes to mind include: the frescos of the 16th chapel, Leonardo De Vinci, Michelangelo’s David (all of the dead white guys that other dead white guys who wrote about it thought painted really beautifully). Academics decide which artists to include in art history texts and then students memorize dates, paintings, and artists. In this way the cannon is perpetuated in that both the people who write history and those who memorize it have a specific idea of what is art. Contemporary art shown throughout Sandler’s text rejects the establishment that perpetuates certain artists while invalidating others. Andrian Piper is an example of someone who "presents the ‘Other’ in a fashionable art-world venue to make politically correct claims for the work." The cannon is relevant to contemporary art because the rejection of it by artists resulted in blacks, women, and other traditionally excluded groups being represented in greater numbers.

The role of the artist if unclear to me. I do not think that "Art of the Post-Modern Era From the Late 1960’s to the Early 1990’s" reflects the role of the artist in our society. Sandler focuses on the historical context of events through the lens of an art critic not that of an artist. The limitations to the text therefore are that an artist might interpret the market much differently than Sandler. Extremes are shown in the text like artists that love money and success or ones that sleep with rats. However in Sandler’s text the artist becomes elitist because they must attempt to work within the theoretical framework discussed in question one more clearly. But they do not become more meaningful just because they become elitist. Rather the artist becomes an image. But ultimately art is not visible. Ideas and ideals cannot be seen but must be thought out or spoken within the mind or with other people. Only through explaining their art’s message can artists become meaningful and talking is not elitist. (Putting yourself on a huge billboard with sexy women hanging on you like Koons is though).

I think that the postmodern feminists attempted to address this problem but they failed miserably. They failed because they got lost in the rhetoric about gender identity and shock forgetting that real women exist in very different worlds. In other words while they attempted to shift the focus from elite artists to the experiences of women the experiences of women took the place of elite artists before them. I think that in order to be success feminists in art need to expand the dialogue to include women’s actual problems. Poverty, abuse, and molestation do not need millions of dollars to go to artists. Instead women’s status becomes lost and as photographs like Walker Evens become trite lives are forgotten in the fast-pace art market’s millions of dollars.

I did not examine this image clearly but to me it seems like a Native American drawing on the side of a rock. The shape of the head is distorted and roughly drawn. His eyes seem to be looking out for a clue to the purpose of art. Or maybe I am projecting. I do not think that art is completely relative. The Nazi’s had stuff that they considered to be art but I do not consider it to be art. There are distinctions between art and things that are not art. The criterion for distinguishing good art from bad art is something that I do not know the answer to. All I know is that the world is very complex and that money and the media continuously determine everything from the recent presidential election to art.

Instead of worrying about whether art is relative or not people should attempt to take art back from the media and money hungry elites.

We need to deliberate about art. We need to go to public places to discuss the ideas behind an artwork. It doesn’t matter whether people go to public galleries or the sides of buildings to discuss. Anything is better than TV or the Internet where art is sold like any other commodity. Part of the answer to whether art is relative is to have everyone decide. People in communities across the world must take art away from the media and money and appreciate it for what it is.

In my interpretation of this work an artist took a part of his imagination and put it on a wall. People do not own rocks. This wall represents art that should be appreciated and not possessed. We must stop being voiceless automatons in the art world by demanding to enter the discussion about what should or should not be considered art instead of always listening to the media and critics. Just like Lester Bangs the famous rock and roll critic people must be, "Honest and Unmerciful". People should not just choose which art they like based on what others pick to be art. They should be involved in the process of deciding what is art. Deliberating about art that speaks to people would mean that we could stop depending on academia, money, or the media.