Rosalind Krauss is an American art critic, professor, and theorist. Krauss explores the historical, theoretical, and formal contexts concerning modernism art.
The online dictionary Answers.com defines ‘historicism’ as ‘a theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value’. Within the essay ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, Krauss addresses this concept of ‘historicism’ with consideration to the context of art.
Krauss suggests that historicism ‘works on the new and different to diminish newness and mitigate difference’(30). Furthermore, we ‘are comforted by this perception of sameness, this strategy for reducing anything foreign in either time or space, to what we already know and are’(30).
I am interested in the word ‘strategy’ that is used to describe this process of historicism for ‘reducing anything foreign…to what we already know and are’, and would like to suppose that to ‘historicise’ is almost like human nature.
When confronted with a new art-object, whether it be an image, sculpture or a painting. Initially one tries to immediately decipher and decode this new object, in order for one to make sense of this new experience and interpret it on some level. Wonder and awe provoke questions about the new foreign object we are confronted with, and we construct our own answers upon the object for the want and need to understand. This will be primarily based on what ‘what we already know and are’, for example what we have seen before, and what we have previously experienced, using this strategic tool of historicising. Memory is triggered and we naturally familiarize art objects than contain characteristics reminiscent of other objects in accordance with our visual library of past experiences as a strategy for us to identify. I can think of uncountable times people have used the phrase ‘This work reminds me of……(example)’ in an art critique. Simply trying to make sense of the new object by drawing relationships and making connections to comprehend and organize our thoughts in a way that is comfortable and rational. Although we can see these connections of the new object and history, we can still distinguish individuality and the ‘newness’ of the contemporary art object.
Which makes me question whether to historicise is sufficient to understand meaning? According to Wikipedia it states ‘a large number of thinkers have embraced the need for historical context, not because culture is self-referential, but because there is no more compressed means of conveying all of the relevant information except through history’. This view is said to be rooted in the work of a recent historian Benedetto Croce in the context of 20th Century philosophy.
In this case I believe that historicism should be embraced as the need for historical context, background and culture are essential for the need to make sense of the world around us.
References:
Krauss, Rosalind, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol.8 (Spring, 1979), pp.30-44.
Anwers.com, The world’s leading Q & A site. 7 April 2009. Answers Corporation. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://www.answers.com/topic/historicism
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 7 April 2009. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Meg Cranston born 1960 is a practicising Californian artist who has exhibited internationally since 1990. She is currently a professor at Fine Arts at Otis College of Art and Design.
In an interview between Meg Cranston and Nico Israel in 2008, Cranston rejects the idea that artists should develop a signature style what she calls a ‘trademark image’, describing it as ‘unethical to brand yourself’(7). Cranston’s diverse artistic practice which ‘encompasses object making, writing, performance, theatre, and even curating’(7), promotes an artistic career that is full of diversity and to some extent a bit generalist, is just as credible as those who are specialists in one field. Detailing that she found ‘having a particular style seemed hokey in a way and doing the same thing over and over, which had been considered a virtue’(7) became highly suspicious to her. Cranston’s explicit disinterest in establishing a recognisable style gives confidence to artists who also engage in various processes, and mediums like myself.
Often when considering my own artistic practice I frequently have this concern to develop a signature style, or that my works needed to develop coherently or logically. Cranston’s thought-provoking attitude challenged my former way of thinking that erratic variation from artwork to artwork and delving between varieties of mediums shouldn’t be perceived as amateur as it is commonly considered. Cranston reveals her ‘unclassifiable’ freedom, stating ‘I don’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad’(7), making me realise that essentially sticking to one style or medium is limiting and restrictive. Another multi-disciplinary artist who enjoys employing and utilizing a number of mediums, methods and ideas is German artist Gerhard Richter. Richter delves in between painting, photography, sculpture, writing and performance. Linda Weintraub in her essay “Inconsistency”, describes Richter as an example of an artist who “engages in a multitude of formats and mediums, thus rejecting the assertion that exalted artists to originate a distinctive style”. (Weintraub, 7)
Cranston’s lack of concern in asserting her uniqueness was also inspiring, claiming ‘I’ve tended to use myself as the subject not because I feel I’m unique, but because I’m similar to others’ (7). In regards to my own practice time, and again I would strive for uniqueness within my artworks having this want and need to produce an original work of art, whereas Cranston enjoys the relationship of being similar to others and exploits her similarities and differences as a subject for making art.
This interview encourages artists to step out of their comfort zones and exceed their boundaries. Cranston’s advice being that ‘someone once taught me that you should take the worst comment about your work and base your next show on that idea’(17). With her example of writing a play, something she had never done, suggests that inexperience of mediums can also be a positive methodology for making art.
References:
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Weintraub, Linda, Athur Danto and Thomas McEvilley. “Art on the edge and over: searching for art’s meaning in contemporary society, 1970s-1990s” Litchfield, CT : Art Insights, 1996.
In an interview between Meg Cranston and Nico Israel in 2008, Cranston rejects the idea that artists should develop a signature style what she calls a ‘trademark image’, describing it as ‘unethical to brand yourself’(7). Cranston’s diverse artistic practice which ‘encompasses object making, writing, performance, theatre, and even curating’(7), promotes an artistic career that is full of diversity and to some extent a bit generalist, is just as credible as those who are specialists in one field. Detailing that she found ‘having a particular style seemed hokey in a way and doing the same thing over and over, which had been considered a virtue’(7) became highly suspicious to her. Cranston’s explicit disinterest in establishing a recognisable style gives confidence to artists who also engage in various processes, and mediums like myself.
Often when considering my own artistic practice I frequently have this concern to develop a signature style, or that my works needed to develop coherently or logically. Cranston’s thought-provoking attitude challenged my former way of thinking that erratic variation from artwork to artwork and delving between varieties of mediums shouldn’t be perceived as amateur as it is commonly considered. Cranston reveals her ‘unclassifiable’ freedom, stating ‘I don’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad’(7), making me realise that essentially sticking to one style or medium is limiting and restrictive. Another multi-disciplinary artist who enjoys employing and utilizing a number of mediums, methods and ideas is German artist Gerhard Richter. Richter delves in between painting, photography, sculpture, writing and performance. Linda Weintraub in her essay “Inconsistency”, describes Richter as an example of an artist who “engages in a multitude of formats and mediums, thus rejecting the assertion that exalted artists to originate a distinctive style”. (Weintraub, 7)
Cranston’s lack of concern in asserting her uniqueness was also inspiring, claiming ‘I’ve tended to use myself as the subject not because I feel I’m unique, but because I’m similar to others’ (7). In regards to my own practice time, and again I would strive for uniqueness within my artworks having this want and need to produce an original work of art, whereas Cranston enjoys the relationship of being similar to others and exploits her similarities and differences as a subject for making art.
This interview encourages artists to step out of their comfort zones and exceed their boundaries. Cranston’s advice being that ‘someone once taught me that you should take the worst comment about your work and base your next show on that idea’(17). With her example of writing a play, something she had never done, suggests that inexperience of mediums can also be a positive methodology for making art.
References:
Meg Cranston with Nico Israel,“Running On Light Feet”,from Hot Pants In A Cold Cold World: Works 1987-200,Acukland: Artspace and Clouds,2008, pp.6-21.
Weintraub, Linda, Athur Danto and Thomas McEvilley. “Art on the edge and over: searching for art’s meaning in contemporary society, 1970s-1990s” Litchfield, CT : Art Insights, 1996.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)