Don't bother about being modern. Unfortunately it is the one thing that, whatever you do, you cannot avoid.- Salvador Dali
For art to be pure, Goodman argues that it must fit its context. Is Dali correct in insinuating that there is no time but the present? Should art therefore be interpreted based on its immediate surroundings and context, thus adhering to Goodman's uses theory and therefore allowing art to trigger thoughts in relation to current context? Wouldn't this view then violate Goodman's purist view that it is not the properties outside of a piece of art that make it real, but rather its intrinsic and unique properties? But how can such properties exist? How is anything not representation? Every shape, color and line will somehow trigger thoughts within the evolved human mind. Regardless of whether or not we try to see the art for its form, will we ever be able to see beyond the "distractions" of current context, personal history/experience, and possible future interpretations? In my mind, the answer is "no". The present is shaped by the past but as humans, we often cannot help keeping our own contextual and cultural influences in mind when experiencing a piece of art. Perhaps we should just listen to Dali and take art for what it is now and not what it was or could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment