In 2000, Amy Newman published “Challenging Art: Artforum 1962-1974,” an oral history of the magazine’s founding, its move from San Francisco to New York, and its quick evolution into the leading art-critical publication. As Artforum ascended, it eclipsed
- What about Erwin Panofsky? <<The discovery and interpretation of these symbolical values (which are often unknown to the artist himself and may even emphatically differ from what he consciously intended to express) is the object of of what we may call "iconology" as opposed to "iconography">> [Chapter 1, Meaning the the Visual Arts, 1955.]
- Do you think Artforum might have been prophetic inasmuch as that magazine itself changed agenda a few times but alway shifting from one rigid mode of thinking to the next? This rigidity resulted in the triumph of the virus of explanationitis that still dominates our current discourse.
Explanations became packaging to the point that poor artists find themselves now feeling they must verbally frame the viewers' gaze, instead of prompting creative viewership like the one you mention the poets of the 70's explored.
Hi Lucio, with "explanationitis" you have given a name to the syndrome that does indeed dominate talking and thinking about art, and turns the art world into a highly regulated place. If only, carbon emissions were as thoroughly regulated. Anyway, I think the condition you have described has a bad effect on all but a few artists, inducing them to make art that is easily described.
This sounds like a joke inspired by the dreary predictability of so much contemporary art, but I'm sure you're right. Some artists actually do proceed this way.
This is another addition to the historical record, in sub-stack form, concerning art and art criticism from direct experience over decades past... thank you Carter.
I had personal experience with several ArtForum writers. My thoughts then were much simpler than yours:
Hello Carter, a couple of comments.
- What about Erwin Panofsky? <<The discovery and interpretation of these symbolical values (which are often unknown to the artist himself and may even emphatically differ from what he consciously intended to express) is the object of of what we may call "iconology" as opposed to "iconography">> [Chapter 1, Meaning the the Visual Arts, 1955.]
- Do you think Artforum might have been prophetic inasmuch as that magazine itself changed agenda a few times but alway shifting from one rigid mode of thinking to the next? This rigidity resulted in the triumph of the virus of explanationitis that still dominates our current discourse.
Explanations became packaging to the point that poor artists find themselves now feeling they must verbally frame the viewers' gaze, instead of prompting creative viewership like the one you mention the poets of the 70's explored.
Best, Lucio.
Hi Lucio, with "explanationitis" you have given a name to the syndrome that does indeed dominate talking and thinking about art, and turns the art world into a highly regulated place. If only, carbon emissions were as thoroughly regulated. Anyway, I think the condition you have described has a bad effect on all but a few artists, inducing them to make art that is easily described.
Indeed: some artists first write the press release and after having drafted it they illustrate it with the artworks.
This sounds like a joke inspired by the dreary predictability of so much contemporary art, but I'm sure you're right. Some artists actually do proceed this way.
Terrific piece!
Thank you, Melissa!
This is another addition to the historical record, in sub-stack form, concerning art and art criticism from direct experience over decades past... thank you Carter.
I had personal experience with several ArtForum writers. My thoughts then were much simpler than yours:
Dead-Heads.
Thank you, George!
Bravo Carter--a voice of reason and INSPIRATION. I always felt I was chewing on sawdust whenever reading Artforum.
Thank you, Ingrid! The sawdust image is just right.