Validation by Touch in Kandinsky's Early Abstract Art

Critical Inquiry 16 (1):144-172 (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Some recent artists and critics have taken it upon themselves to demystify the notion of stylistic unity. Their task has included the historical reconception of a few “modernist” artists along “postmodern” lines, usually as precursors of current semiotic strategies.11 These artists may have used a set of incompatible styles to expose the artificiality of competing stylistic conventions, or even to challenge the myth that celebrates the authenticity of artistic expressiveness. Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp, otherwise very different artists, have both been seen as having “deconstructed” the concept of authenticity by problematizing basic means of artistic reference.12 But the desire to challenge conventions must not be misconstrued as an enduring element of an iconoclastic artist’s personality. Otherwise, the characterization is merely an updated version of the traditional argument for authorial unity. 11. The terms “modern” and “postmodern” are used in a variety of ways in contemporary criticism. Here, “modern” refers to nineteenth- and twentieth-century artists who embrace the notion of originality, and “postmodern” to those who would attack the notion by exposing the conventionality at its center. Although some critics who profess “modernism” do not mention “originality” by name, most subscribe to it in some form, often with the originality and self-sufficiency of the artist transposed to that of the work. This is especially true of the criticism of Clement Greenburg and Michael Fried.12. Rosalind Krauss rightly uses the semiotic complications of Picasso’s art to object to autobiographical interpretations of his work. In the course of the argument, she refers to Picasso’s semiotics as part of the “proto-history” of postmodernist art. See Krauss, “In the Name of Picasso,” The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths , pp. 38-39. Arguments for Duchamp’s protopostmodernism are much more common. For one example, see Krauss, “Notes on the Index: Part 1,” The Originality of the Avant-Garde, pp. 196-209. Margaret Olin is an assistant professor in the department of art history and criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. She is presently writing a book on the theories of Alois Riegl

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The paradox of kandinsky's abstract representation.Kenneth Berry - 2005 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 39 (1):99-104.
Modern Physics, Kandinsky, and Klee.Robert McTague - 1997 - The European Legacy 2 (1):68-73.
What is Touch?Matthew Ratcliffe - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):413 - 432.
What was abstract art? (From the point of view of hegel).Robert Pippin - 2007 - In Stephen Houlgate (ed.), Hegel and the Arts. Northwestern University Press. pp. 1-24.
Point and line to plane.Wassily Kandinsky - 1926 - New York: Dover Publications. Edited by Hilla Rebay.
Pulse Diagnosis in Early Chinese Medicine: The Telling Touch.Marta Hanson - 2012 - Early Science and Medicine 17 (3):351-353.
Touch Without Touching.Matthew Fulkerson - 2012 - Philosophers' Imprint 12.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-17

Downloads
32 (#498,428)

6 months
7 (#425,099)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references