Still not liking Susan Stewart, Still perfecting a souffle
Susan Stewart on Immanuel Kant:
"we practice apprehending persons in themselves and for themselves without a prior sense of outcome or goal in that encounter. In this respect the aesthetic is deeply political and makes serious demands on us."
"For me, art leads. Art is before culture, because culture is an aesthetic activity."
Say the word enough times in a row and it starts to sound like nonsense.
Can art be created without an aesthetic? I mean, there isn't any difference between an "art" and a "thing" except that certainly somebody "made" the art, but a thing can just spring into existence.
And the aesthetics themselves, well, even the theory is pretty artsy. And its all political. I can't recall anyone who argues against that. And so, which came first: the culture or the politic? I may just be confused after all these months, but I'm not sure there is a relevant difference between the two for me.
And finally, I can get that culture follows art. But I also get that, though I can't always "follow" him, Kant always leads the aesthetics to the art...
where he plunks them down and says "see, give each other some space and take the time to fathom what your brains can find in some ART." (Actually, he doesn't say that. I think I might say that.)
How can you follow something bound by a frame and stuck to the wall (perhaps behind lobbies, ropes and guards--or undaunted docents)? And if you single file behind the statuary, you might make more progress but you might also be arrested for attempted vandalism...what were you about to take off with that file?
Art leads. I follow. I mostly follow tags around the city, I follow the arrows on the walls, I learn the lay of the land in a new town by ignoring the signs and watching the vandalism. What do I follow? What do the authorities follow up on? Art and aesthetics become the half shell around a separated yolk when you try to chicken and egg the very concept of them. Souffle!
And next, Stewart says:
"I believe an artist has certain obligations in relation to politics that are different from those of someone doing cultural commentary or the analysis of political discourse. And as citizens we have responsibilities to public life that cannot be met entirely through the practice of our art."
She means that critics have an obligation to the integrity of the art and the artists' INTENTIONS.
Artists have an obligation to go "SURPRISE!" and be surprised themselves.
I've been reading a lot. No one else has said that this is what critics and artists are for. And they mostly said "SUBLIME" not "SURPRISE."
And, though I've read cases of artists and writers faking critiques of their own works, I've never heard of them calling for critics to feel an obligation to the integrity of intent in the work.
I don't know if art can be both mystical (as in surprise) and political (as intent and integrity). I don't know. I'm not sure how much I go around meeting people in a politically involved way after having followed some art into some a priori space of surprise. "Oh, fancy meeting you here! Care for some souffle?"
I like my new egg beater.
"we practice apprehending persons in themselves and for themselves without a prior sense of outcome or goal in that encounter. In this respect the aesthetic is deeply political and makes serious demands on us."
"For me, art leads. Art is before culture, because culture is an aesthetic activity."
Say the word enough times in a row and it starts to sound like nonsense.
Can art be created without an aesthetic? I mean, there isn't any difference between an "art" and a "thing" except that certainly somebody "made" the art, but a thing can just spring into existence.
And the aesthetics themselves, well, even the theory is pretty artsy. And its all political. I can't recall anyone who argues against that. And so, which came first: the culture or the politic? I may just be confused after all these months, but I'm not sure there is a relevant difference between the two for me.
And finally, I can get that culture follows art. But I also get that, though I can't always "follow" him, Kant always leads the aesthetics to the art...
where he plunks them down and says "see, give each other some space and take the time to fathom what your brains can find in some ART." (Actually, he doesn't say that. I think I might say that.)
How can you follow something bound by a frame and stuck to the wall (perhaps behind lobbies, ropes and guards--or undaunted docents)? And if you single file behind the statuary, you might make more progress but you might also be arrested for attempted vandalism...what were you about to take off with that file?
Art leads. I follow. I mostly follow tags around the city, I follow the arrows on the walls, I learn the lay of the land in a new town by ignoring the signs and watching the vandalism. What do I follow? What do the authorities follow up on? Art and aesthetics become the half shell around a separated yolk when you try to chicken and egg the very concept of them. Souffle!
And next, Stewart says:
"I believe an artist has certain obligations in relation to politics that are different from those of someone doing cultural commentary or the analysis of political discourse. And as citizens we have responsibilities to public life that cannot be met entirely through the practice of our art."
She means that critics have an obligation to the integrity of the art and the artists' INTENTIONS.
Artists have an obligation to go "SURPRISE!" and be surprised themselves.
I've been reading a lot. No one else has said that this is what critics and artists are for. And they mostly said "SUBLIME" not "SURPRISE."
And, though I've read cases of artists and writers faking critiques of their own works, I've never heard of them calling for critics to feel an obligation to the integrity of intent in the work.
I don't know if art can be both mystical (as in surprise) and political (as intent and integrity). I don't know. I'm not sure how much I go around meeting people in a politically involved way after having followed some art into some a priori space of surprise. "Oh, fancy meeting you here! Care for some souffle?"
I like my new egg beater.