RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto

[j.abbate@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au]

In message <200209251424.g8PEOai07485@i1.broadserver.jp> nakazawa@aloalo.co.jp (Hideki Nakazawa)
 writes:
> At 1134 20020924, j.abbate@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au 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... 
> 
> Hideki

Hi Hideki,

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.


jsa

    j.
---------- 
  abbate