RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto
In message <200209251424.g8PEOai07485@i1.broadserver.jp> email@example.com (Hideki Nakazawa)
> At 1134 20020924, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > It seems to me that the status of an object as a work
> > of art in any meaningful sense is dependent on more than the will of an
> > individual. After all, Duchamp's readymades were not immediately accepted as
> > art just because he said they were art. It took some time for his ideas to
> > become institutionalised. The idea that an individual can determine what is art
> > seems reactionary to me, since it constitutes an extravagant claim for dominion
> > over both social and subjective conditions of reception, reflecting a somewhat
> > authoritarian view that disingenuously obscures the power structures that
> > support it.
> > jsa
> hi jsa,
> I agree this argument is about reactionary authoritarian view.
> But I do not think to be an authoritarian is always disingenuous.
> I am thinking about the power which appreciate readymade as art.
> This power is deeply linked to authority, I suppose.
> In this meanings, I used the word "authority" in the Methodicism Manifesto.
> BTW I think Kosouth's earlier works are more important than his later ones.
> I bought his book "Art After Philosophy And After" several years ago, but
> have not yet read whole through...
If you can get hold of it, you might want to read an essay by Peter Osborne
called 'Conceptual art and/as philosophy' in J.Bird and M. Newman
(eds) "Rewriting Conceptual Art", London, Reaktion Books, 1999. It offers a
valuable citique of Kosuth's early position.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and