Theory Rules- Part 1

8/12/2019 Theory Rules- Part 1

1/66

Theory rules: art as theory, theory and art

Author(s) Berland, Jody ; Tomas, David G. ; Straw, Will ; Scholars Portal

Imprint Toronto [Ont.] : University of Toronto Press, c1996

Extent 1 electronic text (320 p.)

Topic BH

Subject(s) Art criticism -- Congresses; Arts -- Philosophy -- Congresses

Language English

ISBN 9781442664647, 0802007074, 0802076572, 9780802007070

Permalink http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=560217

Pages 1 to 65


2/66


3/66

T H E O R Y R U L E S


4/66

T H E O R Y R U L E SA R T A S T H E O R Y / T H E O R Y A N D A R T

E D I T E D B Y J O D Y B E R L A N D , W I L L S T R A W A N D D A V I D T O M A S

Y Y Z B O O K SA N D

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T O R O N T O P R E S ST O R O N T O B U F F A L O L O N D O N


5/66

T H O R YR U L S


6/66

Y Y Z Books 1996TorontoA co-publ icat ion withUniversity o f Toronto Press IncorporatedToronto Buffalo London

Canadian C ataloguing in P ubl icat ion DataMain entry undertitle:Theory Rules: art as theory/theory and artPapers printed at a conferenceA rt asTheory / theory and artheld at the Universi ty o f Ot tawa,Nov.29-30 Dec. 1, 1991.ISBN 0-8020-0707-4 hardcover)ISBN 0-8020-7657-2 paperback)1. Arts - Phi losophy -C ongresses2 .Artcrit icism- Congresses.I. Berland, Jody.II. Straw,Will.III. Tomas, DavidG. David Geo rges), 1950-BH39.T54 1995 700M C95 931750 -3

YYZ Books acknow ledgesth e generous ass is tanceo fth e Canada Co unc il , S pec ia l P ro jects , V isua l A r ts to this publication.YYZ Bo o ks a lso rece ives operationa lfunding f rom th e C anada Co uncil ,Ontario Arts Counci l , th e City o f Toronto through th e Toronto Arts Counci l ,and th e Municipality o f Metropo l itan Toronto, Cu ltural A f fa irs Div ision.Universi ty o f Toronto Pressackno wledgesthe f inancial assistanceto its publ ishing program of the Canada Counci l and the Ontar io Ar ts Counc i l .


7/66

CONTENTS

3 Introduction: The Art asTheory/Theoryand ArtConferenceJody Berland y Will Straw David Tomas

P A R T

23

33

57

79

101

115

1 : C O N T E X T

Bewitched, Bothered,andBewilderedWill StrawBackto theFuture:TheSequelThierry deDuveTheorizing Culturalism: From CulturaltoIdentity PoliticsandBackVirginiaR. Do minguez

Policies

InDefenceof theRealm: Public Controversyand theApologeticsof ArtKevin DowlerWhat CountsasCulture?Jamelie HassanThe Writing on theWallBarbara Harlow

P A R T 2 : I D E N T I T I E S

133 BodiesofTheory, BodiesofPain:Jody Berland

SomeSilences


8/66

157

177

Imitating Authorities: Theory, Gender,andPhotographic DiscourseElizabeth SeatonTheExclusionsofTheory: Feminist AmbivalenceinArtPracticeandCriticismJanet o l f f

P A R T

195

223

243

257

283

297

315317

3: V I S I O N S

AnIdentityinCrisis:TheArtistand NewTechnologiesDavid TomasSpectatorship in Cyberspace: The Global EmbraceJanine MarchessaultTheSublime:TheLimitsofVisionand theInflationofCommentaryOlivierAsselinIntroduction, Dissemination,andEducation:MichelFoucault,"IntegratedIntellectuals," andWritingon the Visual Arts in English CanadaTim ClarkSynthetic Magic / Virtual RealityFrancine DagenaisArtand Theory: The Politics of the InvisibleTony BennettAppendix:Statementof Concerns Sent toPresentersNotes onContributors


9/66

T H E O R Y R U L E S


10/66

his page intentionally left blank


11/66

INTRODUCTIONThe Art asTheory / Theory and Art Conference

M O S T O F T H E P P E R Scollected inthisvolume were firstpresented in theiroriginal form at the conference "ArtasTheory/TheoryandArt" heldat the University ofOttawanearthe end of1991.Theconferencewashostedby theuni-versity'sDepartment of Visual Arts, and received fundingfrom theSocial SciencesandHumanities Research CouncilofCanadaand theCanada Council.The impulse to hold the conference sprang frominformaldiscussions betweenthe three co-organizersin 1990and1991.Itgrewfromashared recognitionthatTheory (withacapital T) has emerged as a privileged site of mediationbetweenprocesses ofmarket valorization anddiscourseso fintellectual orpolitical legitimation in the productionandcirculation of art. The conference was planned to addressthe conditions under which Theoryhasassumed thisnewrole,and theresultingimplications forartisticand theoret-ical work.

Withincultural life,atension betweentheoreticalworkand artisticpractice has long been observed. Indeed, thedesiretoresolve these tensionshasbeenaprincipal impulseshaping the historyofartisticwork and criticism over the lastcentury. Nevertheless,the lastdecadehas seen theemer-genceof abroad, interdisciplinary body oftheoretical workwhoserelationship toartisticpractice is quite novel and dis-tinct.Theoriginsofthis work range from poststructuralist

3


12/66

T H E O R Y

literary theory tothat amorphous entity called "culturalstudies."There is increasingly common reference, withinartworks, to principles andvocabularies developed withinthis body oftheory. T he convergences ofpurpose betweenart,artcriticism,andtheoretical writing suggest thatasig-nificant shiftin the relationship betweenartisticproductionand critical/theoretical activityhasoccurred.M o r eandmore, worksofart, criticism, and scholarshiphavecom etodefinetheirprojectas one ofcultural analysis.Across these activities, one increasingly finds the deploy-ment of a shared set of analytical tools, or the reference toacom monbodyof authors andtexts.In the space of mutualsustenance created here, the relationships between thesevarious activities, andbetweentheinstitutionalcontextsinwhich they normally occur, are being transformed. Thesetransformations, and their implications forartisticandscholarly work, providedonefocus for theconference. Theywere addressed in the "Statementof Concerns" which wassent toindividualpresenters.Thisstatementisincludedasanappendixtothispreface.M a n y oftheseconcerns have a practical dimension. Iftheoretical workandpractical activity withinthevisualartshave become intertwined in distinctly new ways, we canexpect the material conditions of each to be transformed.Already,in the evolving relationship of the academy to theartschool,werecognize shiftsin thetraditionalpatternsbywhichartistsaretrainedandartisticcareersunfold.Theseshiftshave producednewtensionsandhaveraisedahostofnewquestions. When developmentsincultural theory nour-ishartisticpractice, forexample, whatis the effect ofthisuponthenormal processesbywhichartistsare trained orotherwise acquirethecompetencies necessaryto anartisticcareer?Issuchacareer possiblein theabsenceof anacade-m iceducation which emphasizes the cultivation of theoreti-cal knowledges? And if, as is generally the case,artistswilloften supplement income from theirwork with teachingactivity, will theoreticaltrainingbeneededinorderthattheyacquire the qualifications deemed necessary forthisactivity?

4 INTRODUCTION


13/66

R U L E S

What,then, willbe therelationship between theseartistsandthose oftheir academic colleagues who are designated astheorists? As"movements" or newdirections in artisticpractice respond moreandmoretodevelopmentsinculturalt ory itself,what will be thestatusof thoseartisticworksortendencies which do not participate in these movements?Discussionsof the relationship betweenartisticpracticeand academic, theoretical work typically begin with theassumptionthatthereis adivision betweenthe twowhichdialogue orfurther analysis will overcome.T heconferenceonwhichthisvolumeisbasedwasmeanttoaddress quiteadifferent situationoneinwhich theories ofculture have,for some time now, playedasignificant rolein theproduc-tion,dissemination, andinterpretation ofworksofart. Theshiftingorwitheringofboundaries betweenartisticpracticeand theacademymay beglimpsedin anytripto themaga-zinestoreorgallery book shop.The circulation oftheoreticalwork within such venuesas the art gallery (evident in artists' statements and thegrowingimportance ofexhibition catalogues) and the artmagazine has created new forms of support and sitesofintervention for the professional academic. With the emer-genceof abroad interdisciplinary and international audi-ence forcultural theory,theratesofchangeandcommodityvalue oftheoretical innovations have increased. In thisrespect,justas the domain ofartisticproduction has grownnoticeablymore "academic,"the field ofcultural theory andanalysis within the academy has comemore and more toresemblethe market forart, with similar cyclesoffashion-ability and a comparable emphasis on currency and inno-vation. In grant applications, exhibition statements, andcatalogues, oneincreasingly findsartistsusing theoreticaltropes as the most effectivemeans for positioningtheirpastand projected work. Conversely, the waning ofdiscipli-nary boundaries as theprincipal context within which the-oretical workisundertaken hasheightened thevalueof awriter's signature and reputation. Instances of theoreticalintervention thuscometo beseen as signalling shifts or

T H E A R T A S T H E O R Y 5


14/66

T H E O R Y

embellishmentsofauthorial personality rather than contri-butions to the slow, collective revision of institutional or dis-ciplinary traditions.

Thoseinvitedto theconference included professional aca-demics,practising artists,critics, and curators. We did notassumethatthe ascendant influenceofculturaltheory uponthevisualartswasevidenceofthe finalbridgingofanage-oldgulf;nor did weseek simplytoinstituteadialogue betweentheoryandpractical activity.Theconference sought, aboveall, to address a range of new questions concerning theinstitutional, political, and intellectual conditions withinwhichintellectual andartisticworkisundertaken.

Theconference was organized as an international event,andbrought together presenters from Canada, the UnitedStates, and Europe. (Tony Bennett, from Australia, wasunable toattend the conference,butkindly submitted apaperforinclusioninthis volume.) Nevertheless,the spe-cialrelevanceofthisconference's themesto the Canadiancontextseemed clear. The relative underdevelopmentof acommercialartmarketinthiscountry,inproportionto thelarge andproductiveartistic sector (galleries, museums,governmentagencies, royal commissions, schools, etc.), hashadnumerouseffectswhichrelatedirectlyto theconditionsaddressedby the conference. That somanyartists fundtheirwork through governmentgrants,incombination withthe long-standing practiceofawarding such grants on thebasis ofjudgments byjuries ofone's peers, encouragesartiststowrite statements about theirworkthat signaltheir awareness of current trends and discourses, andthatlocateand legitimate their art interms ofcontemporarycritical issues andvocabularies..The lack of a significantmarket for art also makesartistsmore dependent uponinstitutions ofhigher learningfortheir incomeand acon-text in whichto work.Aremarkable number ofaccom-plished Canadian critics and curators have returned touniversityinrecent yearsforpostgraduate studies, mindfuloftheshort-termandpotentially secure income sourcesforacademicwork.

6 I N T R O D U C T I O N


15/66

Artists in Canada have also created awell-developedpar-allel gallery system, which,inconjunction with avenuesofpublicsupport forcritical andcuratorial work,hasnour-ishedartisticproduction and criticism thatengage withadvanced theoretical analysis. Indeed, it might be arguedthatthe weakness of the commercial market for certain cat-egories of art-making within Canada has heightened theinfluenceoftheoretical andcritical discourse uponit. It isoftencritical writingthatprovides the basis upon which thevalueofthisworkisestablishedandclaimed.Theconference took place during a period in which theroleand purpose ofartistic institutions had become theobject ofrenewed attention withinthe academic, political,and public spheresinCanada.The newimportanceof themuseumand art gallery as objects of interdisciplinary studywithinuniversities hasaccompanied (and contributedto) acrisis of sorts in the relationship of these institutions to thecultural heritage theyaremeanttopreserveand thepublictheyare intended to serve. One symptom of this crisis is theongoingdebate over the extent to which museum and gal-leryexhibitions should depart fromtraditional principlesoforganization(suchasthose based around individualartistsor historical periods) in favour ofother principles whosecoherence ismore obviously groundedin the concernsofcontemporarycultural theory. (The recent collection editedbyIvan Karpand Steven D. Lavine,ExhibitingCultures:ThePoliticsand PoeticsofMuseum Display offers a usefuloverviewofthese debates.)At the same time,the currentpreoccupation ofthat theory with cultural identity, andwith the problemofdefining national cultures,hasgonehand-in-handwiththe growing internationalization ofcul-tural theory, suchthatthe same pointsofreferencewillbefoundinwritings from anumberofdifferent countries.Thankfully, the organizers of a conference are rarelyabletoexercise total control over what transpires withinit.M a n yofthememorable momentsin theevent recorded herecamewhen speakers departed from the list ofpublishedconcernstoaddress others whichwe hadoverlookedor to


R U L E S


16/66


17/66

institutionallocation.For thetheory-trained academic,thespacesof art feedfantasiesofinterventionin aspace which,however sociologically circumscribed, beckons with thepromiseof anurban"real."Indoingso,thesespacesrecastthetheorist/critic astransgressor ofboundaries,partnerinanatural alliance which strugglesagainstthecompartmen-talization and professionalization of intellectual labour.Beneath these fantasies, one arguably finds a tendency tomistakethe material concretenessof theacademicinstitu-tion for a social isolation which urban art/theory scenes,withtheir less conspicuoussubculturalboundaries,areseentohave resolved.Forthe artteacher,inimportant historical moments,theartschoolhasbeen legitimizedas thenecessarily freespacein which innate creative facultiesare to befosteredanddirected.As deDuve argues,theconceptionofthisspaceasfree did not workto diminish the perceived valueof theprofessionallytrainedartteacher.On thecontrary,byrefor-mulating the technical problems ofartisticwork as the ped-agogicalchallenges raisedby newpsychologiesofcreativity,art schools found legitimation as cultural laboratories ful-fillingfunctions which couldnot befulfilled elsewhere.In abroader sense,we maynotethecontradictory waysinwhichshifting notions ofartisticpractice alter the institutionalstatusof the academic institution. The overturning of aes-thetic norms may diminish the prestige of those institutionsin which such norms have congealed,castingthem, for amoment,as outmoded guardians of musty tradition. In time,however, these successive overturnings will revalorize thebroad historical perspective suchinstitutionsclaimastheirmarkofdifference, enshriningit as theonlyeffective basisofcritical understanding.In acomprehensive study excerpted here, Timothy Clarkhas traced the insinuation of Foucauldian ideas into Cana-dian art criticism and theory overaquartercentury.Theinvocation ofFoucault's work in the writing ofCanadiancriticshas itsrootsin thebiographicalandintellectual tra-jectories ofeachofthese individuals, but it also marks a


R U L E S


18/66

T H E O R Y

broader reorderingofintellectualandinstitutional relations.Withtheincreased referencetocontinental,poststructural-ist theory, the frameworks of critical understanding haveshifted fromheroic narratives oftwentieth-centuryartisticmodernism tomore totalizing accountsofWestern rational-ity and itsregimesofknowledgeandvisibility.A rguably,theeffectsofthisshift extend beyondtheintrusion intoarthis-toricalorcritical writingof arangeof new andcompelling"themes" (suchas the link between monocular visionandthe constitution of gender identities). They are manifest, aswell,in acertain epicflairwithin much contemporary criti-cism,suchthatthe older themes of twentieth-century writ-ing (the relations between popular and high culture, or thelinkingofartisticpracticetosocial movements)aredimin-ished within a much broader historical scope.

The scopeofthiscriticism, forwhich worksaresymp-toms ofbroaderhistoricalregimesofauthority,ismirroredinthatofthePlatonic claimthatartbrings"lastingbenefittohuman life and human society." Citing Plato, KevinDowlerpointstowaysinwhichthe discoursesof art havebeen disarmed in the faceof political or administrative cri-tique through theirown dismantling of the modernist in-sistence that the freedom embodiedin individual worksensuredthelong-term social benefitofartisticpractice. Inanycase, whathas emerged in recent controversies overartworksinCanadianinstitutionsis theinsistenceonspeci-ficity, thedemandthatjustificationbe offered for thepre-ciseprice paid forthispainting, orthatthe specificfunctionofrotting meat inJanaSterbak'sVanitasbe explicated. Insuch instances, traditional formalist analyses frequentlyreveal themselves as the most strategically useful tools ofdefence, even whentheirdeployment involvesa levelofbadfaith.W eareliving,asVirginiaDominguezsuggestsin hercon-tribution tothisvolume, amidthewidespread"culturaliza-tion"of political and social life. This has causedartisticworksto befoldedback intothebroad socio-political fabric,just as it has often made terms derived from art criticism

10 INTRODUCTION


19/66

R U L E S

("representation," "image," etc.) part of the common lan-guage ofpolitical discourseingeneral.Dominguezisspeak-ingbroadly, here, of the organizationofpolitical impulsesaround the categories of ethnic, national, and racial iden-tity.Wemight note,aswell,thetendencyforpoliticalmobi-lizationto gravitate around phenomena which are culturalinamore limited,traditionalsense.Artmagazines, parallelgalleryshows, and controversies over musicaltheatreor lit-erary appropriation have assumed a significant role withinrecent Canadian life, as those practices or events aroundwhichoppositional politics coalesce.

Ifthere are notable differences ofperspective betweenmanyof the articles in thisvolume, theyrest,as JamelieHassan explicitly argues, on the appropriate role to beaccorded"culture"as aphenomena. Doesthecontemporaryprivileging of culture reproduce, asDominguezsuggests, aEurocentric convictionthat "viable and distinctive cul-tures" are the necessary priceofadmissionto aworldofpolitical rightsand recognition? In the widespread insis-tencethatweunderstand the coherent cultural dynamicsofparticular populations,do we not findconcealedtheclaimthatgroups unableto offer this coherenceforunderstand-ingare less deserving of the rights they demand?Or isit thecase,asHassan argues, thatrootednessin a"viableanddistinctive culture" is the necessary basis of any artis-tic and political practice set against the forcesof colonialistpower?VisionsandKnowledgesArthas traditionally been conceived as a privilegedsiteforthetraining (the education)of the eye or, in thelatterpartof the last century and formost ofthis century, for thedeploymentof its excesses in the dissonant shapes of vari-ousavant-gardeaestheticpracticesandproducts.If aresis-tance is to be detected in connection with the encroachmentofnewform softheoryortheoretical work withinthedomainoftraditional andnon-traditional artisticpractices, it isbecause artisticvision is still conceived by many to be a

T H E A R T A S T H E O R Y


20/66

T H E O R Y

special site, an almost autonomous medium for the expres-sionof an individual'ssubjectivity.Or,alternatively, it isconceived as aprivileged field for the displayoftransna-tional and, indeed, transcendental visual effectsof the kindthatwere circulated most successfully underthe authorityofaModernist "art forart'ssake" aesthetic practice.The art of the 1980s was dominated for the most part byanalmost mysticreturnto the individualityof anartist'stouch, to the uniqueness of her or his vision. Andthiswasin adecadethatalso witnessed major theoretical inroadsinto art's traditional domain and area ofexpertisethedisarticulationofvisionun der the auspices offeminist,gay,lesbian,andrace politics.Theconflicting agendasandlessonsofthisreturnandtheseinroads haveyet to becom-pletely digestedbyartistsorindependentandacademically-based theorists andhistorians.But theclashof"high"and"low"culturesthatitentailed, combined withthemachina-tions of many of its elite art world and academic protago-nists, aswellastheirprestige-based power politics andstrategies ofhigh finance, provein themeantimethatprac-tices of the eye can never be divorced from the broadersocialeconom yinwhich they find legitimation.

A llthese phenomena prove, as Olivier Asselin demon-stratesin hiscontribution tothisvolume,thatvision isitself a site of theory as well as being a site for the canon-izationofvariousform sofsocial knowledge.T hequestionoflanguageandart,ofvisionandwritingis, asAsselin showsin hiselaboration of the historical relationship betweenconcepts of the sublime andartisticpractices, often subtle,complex,andhistorically determined.Notonlyare"theartsofvision...permeated with language" but, as he suggests, [f]rom the point ofviewof its production, the workisoften already motivated by language": oral guidance in artschools anduniversity-based art departments, treatises,books,periodicals, etc. Theory functions accordinglyas anevaluative language aswellasalanguageof legitimation.Tracingahistoryof thesublime whichisitself groundedincontemporary theory, Asselin demonstrates not only the

1 2 I N T R O D U C T I O N


21/66

importanceoflanguage and theory, but, aswell,the rolethatthey playandthatthesublime might playin arecent"inflationof commentary," one he detects in the discoursesof modernity.As ifrooted in an aesthetic of the sublime,these discourses reflecton the invisible,onthatwhichex-ceedsthe eye, onthatwhich is unpresentable, impercepti-ble,unimaginable.Thecritical importanceof anaesthetics ofvision,of theinvisibleand its de facto linksto an inflationof commen-tary in contemporaryart andmuseum practices, aresus-tainedin oneformoranotherin fourclosely-related papersin this volume (those by FrancineDagenais,Barbara Har-low,JanineMarchessault, and David Tomas). As the contri-butionsbyDagenaisandMarchessault demonstrate, thecultural logics of new imaging systems such as virtual real-ity are rooted in the history of social formations, as well asin economicand political imperatives. If the stereoscope(Dagenais)or cinema and television (Marchessault) can serveto bring into focusa new imagingsystem'scultural, social,andpolitical logics,ifwritingcantracetheoutlinesof newformsofsedentaryspectatorialconsciousness,and ifwordscanbeusedtotraceout theimplicationsofvirtualreality'spotential impacton theartist'straditional identityandrela-tionshipto theoryandpractice (Tomas), then thisisper-haps becausethisnew imaging system seems to embody,asits condition of existence, an exemplary relationship to theunpresentable, the imperceptible, the unimaginable andperhaps even to the history of the sublime itself.O ntheother hand, questionsoftheoryandpractice,orthose whichaddress ultramodern technologiesofrepresen-tation and the imaging powers of theory itself, are expressedbypractitioners (MarchessaultandTomas)intexts ratherthan artworks,justas the theorists here (DagenaisandAsselin) movethroughthe field ofvisioninvehicles madeoflanguageandtheory.Asthese papersandtheir authors'backgroundssuggest, vision and language, theory and prac-tice,arecriss-crossedbyinnumerable paths andmany dif-ferentkindsoftravellers. Indeed, someofthese paths move

T H E A R T A S T H E O R Y 1 3

R U L E S


22/66

beyond the clearly demarcated institutional and discipli-nary boundariesofthe artworldand theacademytoemerge,as Harlow demonstrates in her unusual contribution, inthe gloomyinterior of the prison cell. Such paths bringinto focusadifferentkind of writing surface which is in theserviceofanother set ofpolitical, social,and (one mightadd)aestheticimperatives. Ifart, writing,andpoliticscanactually meet outside themirror-like hallways of the artschooloracademy,Harlow'scontribution suggeststhatthismeetingtakesplace, more often than not, outside relatedaestheticboundaries aswell.Theinvisible takes manyforms,justas the inflationofcommentarymayserve manyinterests.Feminist StrategiesIt seems logical, even necessary,thateach of the contribu-torsofferingfeminist perspectiveson art andtheoryinthisvolumededicate some oftheirattentionto looking back atthe intellectual trends and critical legaciesof the 1980s.Duringthisperiod, anumber of newcriticaland artisticspaces openedup,particularly forwomen,andthisdevelop-menthelpedtoshapethe institutional circulation oftheo-retical work to which we have referred. This change alsoinfluenced the ways in which the social,institutional,andintellectual processeswehave been describingfoundexpres-sionwithin artwork itself. Thiswasalsothedecadeinwhichpoststructuralist theory claimedits greatest influenceonartpractices. Together, these influences gaveriseto arangeofcriticalandartisticstrategiesinitiatedbyfeministartistsseekingtocritiqueand tosabotage Westernand modernisttraditions of representation. Deconstructive impulses weremanifestin the overt recyclingandcollagingofimagesandmodesofrepresentation, in theproliferationofattentiontoframes,narratives,andconventions,often from astanceofself-conscious distantiation andelusive irony, and in theblurring ofpreviously assumed boundaries between art,theory, and criticism, andbetween subjects (selves) andlocations (genres, identities, etc.).


T H E O R Y


23/66

R U L E S

It was a timeofrapidly increasing activityby, and co-operationamong, wom enwho often played multiple roles(artists, critics, curators, teachers, editors). Inevitablythiscooperation and multiplicity also found expression in theworkthatwas exhibited and published, particularly in waysthatsuch work implicitlyorexplicitlytransgressedthecon-ventional boundaries between artwork and commentary,imageandtext.AsJanetWolffandBeth Seaton argue,thiscreated a rich ground for theoretically informedartisticandcritical workbywom en;the fieldwas notwithout conflict,however,andsomeofthese conflictsarespelledout intheirarticles.Forinstance,W olffdescribes critiques levelled againstesoteric theorizing and theoretical artwork, and Seaton con-siders the theory-based prohibitions thataccompaniedthequandaryabout what it meant toengageart as a womanartistin a time when "authorship" was deemed obsolete.For"gone werethedays,"asW olffcites from aGuardianreport, "when feministartistslistened totheir spleens "In thelonger contoursofhistorical change,thisis not diffi-culttounderstand. Womenhad for toolong been identifiedinbiological and emotional terms, and the period witnessedastrong reaction against anyworkthatuncritically echoedthathistory. In theirartisticandcritical work, feministartistsset out to dismantle the cultural construction of gen-der and rejected any representation of the femininethatcouldbe construed as biological essentialism. Workwasnothing (from this theoretical perspective, at least) if notconceptually rigorous, theoretically dense, aestheticallycool:thiswas the workof the mind, even where(asJodyBerlandpoints out) its "content" was the feminine body.Seaton writes, "[W]omenhavenot been socially endowedwith the fictional identity of a determinate and sovereignartistic subject deemedto be therequisitecriteriaforauthor-ship." In other words,the only subject permitted to beshownin art accordingto thepoststructuralistopticwas atheoretically mediated, fictionally constructed one: this was,afterall,theepochof theDeathof theAuthor,and womenwereasgoodatthatas anyone.



24/66

T H E O R Y

SeatonandBerland shareacertain macabre pleasureinpointingoutthatthewidely heralded "deathof the author"thatdominatedpoststructuralistperspectivesonaestheticsandculturalproduction wasaccompaniedby a fantasticincrease in the number of women successfully exhibitingand writing abouttheirwork. "Authorship"wasbeingde-finedas intensely problematic, whileat thesame time thetendentious signification of the (fragmented, gendered,multiple, oreven impossible) subjectthe subject of thesubject,in other wordswasinescapable in both visual andcritical production.Theauthor mightbedead, but,to put itinthemost cynical terms,artpublishingwas flourishing asnever before.Thiswas theparadoxical space,theepistemological(butalso,ofcourse,institutional)battlefield into which feministtheory and feminist art plunged head first. To some extent,the intellectually dense combinationofpsychoanalyticandfeministtheory signalledakindof adualattackandrescuesystem for the floundering claims of postmodernist art.Feminist theoryand anumberoffeministartistsachievedunprecedented statusand influencein the interlockingdomainsof the art schools, universities, critical journals,artist-rungalleries, andmuseumstowhichthisbook owesitsexistence. Suchartistswere,for themost part, charac-terizedbytheirabilitytoengage with(or to beusedasevi-dencefor) contemporarytheoreticaldiscourses, and were amajorpartof the process through which discourses such asthe "death of the author" and, of course, the demise of mod-ernism, were producing a new kind of cross-disciplinaryintellectual celebrity.A s Wolff, Seaton, and Berland all observe in differentwaysintheirrespectivearticles,thisrich periodofactivityalsoled to the constituting of a new orthodoxy in contem-porary art andcritical practice. At themost fundamentallevel,thisorthodoxy heldthatthetaskoffeministart wastointerrogate traditionalstrategiesofrepresentation and,inparticular, ideological constructionsofgenderthatformeddominanttraditionsofrepresentation inWestern art, visual

16 INTRODUCTION


25/66

culture, and the mass media. Becauseof theconsequentemphasisondeconstruction, feminism andpostmodernismseemed to some observers to be indissolublepartsof thesame (anti)modernist trajectory, whether conceivedinneg-ativeorpositive terms.AsW olffandSeaton point out, othercritics have challenged this iconoclastic orthodoxyfromvar-iousperspectives:forinstance,theapparent impossibilityofpositing or celebrating a feminine subject of any sort; theesoteric nature of somuchof the workinform ed bythesediscourses; the evacuation ofnon-whiteornon-Westernexperience; the reluctance to explore qualities or domains offexperience outside of traditional (dominant, dominating)modesofrepresentation of the feminine. Lookingat thefeminist canoninlightofthese issues, and from acertaindegreeofhindsight,we can seemore clearlythe necessarybutunhappy paradoxof theprojectand thetime:itbroughttogether a fundamental and far-reaching theoretical unrav-elling of patriarchy in conjunction with a stubborn ambitionto join and to master (if only to pry apart) its discourses andits institutions.

These themes are taken up in different waysby theauthors in Section Two, leaving us to ponder how muchtheintellectualstrategiesofleading womenartistsandthe-orists of the 1980s alludedto bythese authors was one ofthe pricesofadmission thatwomen (voluntarily) paidfortheir inclusionand, to some extent, their leadershipinthe advance-guard of contemporary art during a period ofprofound critical change. Certainly womenhad a majorvoicein shaping the theoretically sanctioned critical prac-ticesanddiscourses circulating through these "certain insti-tutions," and feministstrategiesplayed an important role inopeningtheir doorsto other voicesand different kindsofinterventions.

Theestablishment of a critical discourseon andamongwomen,which now circulates in (and between) art, criti-cism, and feminist theory, is one of the most importantand impressive effects of the growinginterdisciplinarityand institutionalization of art thatwe have described. The


R U L E S


26/66

T H E O R Y

institutionalcontexts which enabledthiscritical communitytoemerge have also createdspecificconstraints andcontra-dictions which are now being addressed inartisticand crit-ical practice, aswellas in theessaysinthisvolume. Todaytheseinstitutionalcontextsaregravely reducedandthreat-enedbecause ofsubstantialcutbacks inpublic spending.H owthisinstability willaffect theopportunitiesforwomenartistsandcritics, andinfluencethenature offeminist artpractices, wecannotyet know.Acritical revisiting of therecent pastthegroundworkof the presentremains animportant task,and thepapers containedinthis thematicsection markanimportant beginning. cknowledgmentsManypeople contributedto theorganizationandrunningofthe conference,and theorganizers would like to expresstheirgratitude. Francine Perinetwascentrally involvedinallaspectsof theconferenceplanningand was inlarge mea-sure responsible for its success. The Department of VisualArts at the University of Ottawa generously agreed to hostthe event, and to make space available. Clive Robertson,Susan Ditta, Francine Perinet,KeithKelly,and ChristineConley all participated in an insightful and lively paneldiscussion onartisticpractice in Ottawa. Tim Clark andTonyBennett,whowere unabletospeakat the conferenceitself,kindly allowed us to publish the papers each wouldhavegiven. Rosemary Donegan,Keya Ganguly,and TomHill delivered important presentations at theconference,butwere unableto bepartofthisvolume.

In preparingthisvolume, the work of the copy-editors,NancyShawandDennis Denisoff,wasinvaluable. MarcdeGuerre, Janine Marchessault, Christine Davis,andJaneKiddofYY ZArtists'OutletinToronto initiated andencour-aged the discussions which haveled to the publicationofthese proceedings. Jeremy Stolow provided important edito-rial assistance in the preparation ofthisvolume.MicheleFenniak,JanetCsontos, Christine Ling, Gordon H. Baker,ColmHoganandMilinda SatoofY Y ZArtists'Outlet worked



27/66

diligentlyinputting the manyrevisionstoauthors' texts.JoanBulger of the University ofTorontoPress facilitatedco-publication ofthiswork with Y Y ZArtists'Outlet. Finallywewould liketothank thefollowingforworkingsohard tomaketheconference comeoffsmoothlyandenjoyably:ChrisRobinson,Heather Rollo,Caryn Roll, Shannon Fitzpatrick,Bart Beatty, CaroleGirouard,Yves Leduc, Michael Chap-man, Madeleine Murphy,ChantalDurivage,JayHeins,andJoy Naffoug.

Jody Berland WillStraw David Tomas

T H E A R T A S THEORY 9

R U L E S


28/66



29/66

P A R T 1

ONT XT


30/66



31/66

P A R T 1 : C O N T E X T

BEWITCHED B O T H E R E D ,AND B E W I L D E R E D

WillStraw

M Y T IT L E W A S D EV ISE D in a hur ry over a year ago whenthepublisher askedfor one and Ipluckedasongtitle fromm ypreconscious.Itwould,Ihoped, enumeratethe contra-dictoryfeelingsI wasanxioustodescribe. These feelingsarethe fuzzy substance of an ongoing ambivalence which,formyselfandmany others, hasbeena commonresponse tonewlyemergent relationships between Art and Theory. Inm yown case, as one who taught Film Studies for a decade,thisambivalence first emergedinresponseto theprepon-deranceoftheory-films produced overadecadeagofilmswhichmystudentsinvariably found lessinterestingthanthe writingsonwhich they drew. These feelings have con-gealedoverahalf-decadeor so ofobservingthesignsof anexpanding Art/Theory Scene:theartworks whose referenceto theoretical writings is increasingly explicit,the gallerycataloguesand magazines,and the increasingly congestedtwo-way traffic between universities and the spacesof artpracticeand criticism.M a n yof thequestions raisedfor me by theemergenceofthis scene have found their wayinto thepreface jointlyauthored by the co-organizersofthe conference; I see no needto repeat those here. What follows, briefly andsomewhatrandomly,aremore personal responses, mixed with gesturestowardsabroader analysis of the art/theory interchange.Thesemayappear tobear the marksof acurmudgeonly

23


32/66

T H E O R Y

cynicism. One of the peculiarities ofart/theory worldsisthattheir two defining sensibilities are profoundlycontra-dictory:a deeply rooted critical suspicion, on the one hand,and a well-meaning, even platitudinous faithin activist goodintentions, on the other. Theweightonegivestoeitherofthese relativeto theother always risks being inappropriateforagiven momentorcontext.My owncommitmentto thepoliticizedspacesof the art/theory interchange may not beobviousinwhatfollows,but Iwould hopeit may beassumed.I willturnin a moment to the most striking feature oftheart/theory interchange: theregular insinuationoftheo-retical references into contemporary artistic works. Privi-legingthismovement, however, leads easily to the claimthatthesignificant migrations at stake hereareunidirec-tional,thatwe aredealing merely withatheorization of art.Forreversalsto beobserved,wemust cease thinking aboutArt andTheoryinterms of thepossible relations betweenthem andconsider the institutions, forms ofproductivity,andcriteriaofvalue which have taken shape around each.W emight,inparticular, delineate those waysinwhich aca-demicwork(inmany cornersand somecentresof theuni-versity)has been produced and hascom eto circulate in waysorspaces more typicalof artworlds.Organizational sociologists will sometimes distinguishbetween those careers which unfold along the rigid path-waysofinstitutionalrankorstatusand others devoted toaccumulating prestige elsewhere, within more informal,geographicallydispersed hierarchies ofinfluenceandrepu-tation. These are rarely separable, of course; the politics ofuniversities or art worlds are driven by attempts to enactconversionbetweenthese different formsofcapital. Indeed,it is through such conversions(failedorsuccessful)thatinter-generationalbattlesfor succession or disciplinary squabblesover turf are often resolved. Newlyappointed deansmayremakedepartmental boundaries in wayswhich are meanttoreveal long-nourished visionsofintellectual community,butwhich work,infact,tofreezeinnovative moves towardsbroadinterdisciplinary contact. Similarly, young academics

2 4 B E W I T C H E D , B O T H E R E D A N D B E W I L D E R E D


33/66

nurturedin theentrepreneurial celebrity cultureofmoderncultural politicsmay find the skills acquired there beingdeployedmoreandmorein the serviceofinstitutional pro-cesses. Increasingly, they arrive atuniversity posts withrangesofcontactsand skills ingrant-seeking, conferenceorganization, andpublishing, whichinanother era wouldhavecome onlywith seniorityofrank.In the academic humanities, the relative weakeningofdisciplinaryboundaries,as the contexts from which intel-lectual work derives legitimation,hasnourishednewmodesofentrepreneurship more typicalofnon-academic spheresofcultural activity.Thecoincidenceof ashrinking academicjobmarketand anexplosionofart/theory activity outsidethe university has produced apartialunmooring of individ-ual reputation from institutionalor disciplinary status. Ithas increased the importance and lure of those extra-insti-tutional spaces within which a"reputation"may take shape,circulate,andrealizeanexchange value:theparallel galleryand exhibition sectors, the conference circuit, and the moreamorphous,overlapping spaces ofgraduate-student cul-tures, artist-run centres, andsmall-scale publishers. It iswithinandacross these spacesthatsomething likeanart/theoryscene has taken shape.Likemany university teachers, I have been bewitched bythisscene, often succumbingto the sense that it offers amoreglamorousand immediately gratifying contextforintellectual workthantheuniversity. (Returningtouniver-sity lifeinOttawa afteratalkforPublic AccessinTorontoin1992,1feltlike Cinderellaaftermidnight.)Iretain, never-theless, anunshakable suspicionof the motives(or of myown,at least) which lead us to gravitate towardsthisscene.Whatis sooften framed (tooneself,or toothers)as a move"into the community" is veryoftencapitulation to the lureof a scene less socially diverse and stratified than one'sownundergraduate classes. Withinthisscene, it should beacknowledged,thereare generally fewerrestrictionson thescopeofrhetorical gestures or thepolitical claimsone mayget away with; its appeal is entirely understandable.

CONTEXT: WILL S T R A W 25

R U L E S


34/66

T H E O R Y

T heentrepreneurship whichhascometoorganizeagooddeal ofacademic practice manifests itself in time spentcookingup events, planning journals or anthologies, andtestingnewform sofcollaboration acrossavarietyofbound-aries.This is only partially the result of institutional pres-sures to produce. (In any event, the activities described herehaveanambiguousstatuswithininstitutionalevaluationsofproductivity.)It hasmuchto dowith those developmentswhich JodyBerland's contribution tothisvolume insight-fully describesdevelopments which have enhanced theexchangevalueof theauthorial "signature" andmadetheunfoldingcareerandautobiographytowhichit isattacheda principal context within which works assume significance.This foregroundingofsignature is ararely consideredeffect ofmoves towards interdisciplinarity within theuni-versity, moves normally described in alanguage of demo-cratic collaboration and exchange.As Ihave suggestedelsewhere,theinstalling of atransdisciplinaryspaceofdia-loguehas alsoinstituteda vantage point from which therelative status ofindividualsandtheir workm ay bejudged.1Fromthisvantage point, gestures of authorial bravura aremorereadily seized uponasindicesofvalue than isone'splacewithin the slow,circumscribed unfoldingof adisci-pline'shistory. There ismuchto bewelcomed here: thesteadyaccumulationofcultural sites inwhich one's workisknownmay feel like progresson the road tobecominga"public" intellectual, anambition with platitudinous statusincontemporary academic life. Arguably, however, whatlookslike a dissolutionofbarriers between the academy anda networkofsites outside it (magazines,galleries, thespaces ofpublic speaking) is to aconsiderable extent amovementoutwards ofthese boundaries so as toencircleboth.Thedilemmas implicit inthisencirclement reveal them-selves when academics undertake to write about new artpractices. Confronted with artworks which are quicklyreducibleto thetheoretical citations which underlie them,we often feel arising scepticism, but we are already in a

26 BEWITCHED BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED


35/66

worldwhere works which lacktheseunderpinnings willseem naiveandoutmoded (and critical writing upon themwillrecuperate those qualities ashaving theoretical inter-est). If,amidgalleries full ofworks whichliteralize theinsights of film theory,wecease to feel inspired, we arenevertheless unabletoimagine what might acceptably taketheir place. Attemptingtowrite about such works,westrug-gle to avoideitherof two slippery slopes: one ends in arenewedintentionalism,thecritic reconstructingor, atbest,reshufflingthetheoretical references concealedin thework;theother,in a new and often desperate aestheticism, lead-ing the critic to grope for those elements she or he mayclaim are in excess of awork'stheoretical propositions. Thedisarming choice hereisbetweenasubservient compliancewiththework's theoretical agendaand the pre-preemptivemoveto claimthatwhat is significant about the work liesoutsidethatagenda.Ifthisdiscomfort werethesymptomofagenuine incompatibility between artisticandtheoreticaldiscourse, wemight embrace it as aproductive tension.M o r etypically, it is marked by anirritatingsense of exces-sivefamiliarity.Despite this discomfort,the reconciliation of Art andTheorycontinuesto bepositedas agoal towards whichweshouldallstruggle,rather thanas adefiningrealityofcon-temporaryart worlds.In adialectic lazily conceived,thebridgingof thegulf betweenart andtheoretical criticismisstill imaginedas the condition ofsome imminent future,w n long-standing dilemmas concerningthe artwork'sknowledge-effectwillberesolved.Therelationship betweenart andtheory ispersistently framed in language whichinvites earnest effort towardsa momentofprojected re-conciliation:

In terms of the thematic focus o f thispanel wewould like toexamine how thedisciplinary segregationof th efunctions o f artproduction and art criticismhas been traditionally utilized topreservepatterns of cultural specialization which may nowrequire serious re-evaluation. W e areinterested in addressing

C O N T E X T : W I L L S T R A W 2 7

R U L E S


36/66

T H E O R Y

whethersuch conceptual and practical distinctions arestilllegitimate orw hether they merely serve to reinforce th e institu-tional frame ofhigh culturefor the sake of particular market-place interests. Specifically we want to reconsider how certaintypes of art production construct and enable modes of criticalengagementfor example the critique of art history the de-construction o f aesthetic ideologies theana lysis of socio-politicalconditions the de-coding of ethnic and gender identities etc..in other words to re-evaluate thosestrategies which may go farbeyond th ecurrent disciplinary boundaries of art criticism.2

The assumption that thisreconciliation has yet to tran-spirehas set twotraps.Thefirstis arefurbished vanguard-ism. Typically, works which, it is claimed, have breachedthis dividewhichhave givenartistic form to theoreticalpropositionsareheld up asmarkers of aroadto befol-lowed,ratherthanascharacteristicpresent-day practiceswhichraisetheirown,persistentquestions. Such worksareperpetually invokedas signs ofhopeandprogress, evenwhenthelong-standing, admittedly dull questionsofacces-sibilityandsocial locatedness linger on. Thepersistenceofsuchquestions neednotparalyse atheoretically informedartpractice (thoughitmight dampentheirself-congratula-tory veneer). Nevertheless, oneshouldnot imagine suchquestions obsolete because newworks triumphantly offerbridges to recognizable bodies of ideas or theoretical work.

More significantly, exhortations towards future recon-ciliation concealthe extent towhichthe institutional/dis-cursive economiesof art andtheoryare already intimatelyintertwined, at least within those cultural spaces self-definedas oppositional (and especially within countries likeCanada, withtheir strong traditions ofartist-run centresandcriticalpublication).The teleologyofimminent recon-ciliation requiresthatwekeep alivethesensethatart andtheoryaredividedin thepresent,partlysothattheconcreteconsequences oftheirconvergence neednot bescrutinized.Arguably,the insinuation of theoretical work into artisticpracticeislesstheresult ofhistorical reconciliation than it

28 BEWITCHED BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED


37/66

is the product of institutional and sociological realignments.Whatisneededareanalyses whichspecifythedispositional,institutional, andsocial economies within which theoryhascometooccupynewrelationships to artistic practice. In avariety of ways, and bracketing the question of its specificandvariable substances, theoryhasassumedadiversityofnew functions:as a competence whichhas displaced art-historical knowledges;asguarantor of awork's linkto anactivist politics;asthatthrough whichtheworkisinsertedinalarger history.Thelastofthese functions isperhapsthe most sympto-matic.In aperiod whenartisticstylesandform saremultipleand fragmented, the space of shared theoretical referenceshastaken overfromtheartisticschoolormediumas theter-rain on which historical time is marked. This is of particu-larimportance whenthedispersionofidentity politics seemslikelytoinstallanartisticpluralism.It is thecomm onspaceofthe critique ofrepresentation, with its shifting hierar-chies of authors and paradigms, which locates the theoreti-cally informed workin a temporal continuum. When,forentirely legitimate reasons, no one feels comfortable dis-cussing political causesintermsofcurvesoffashionability,the rhythmsofreplacementandobsolescencemay bemoreacceptably notedinlistsofinfluential authorsorworks.It is forthisreasonthatremindersofhowart hasalwaysbeen implicitly"theoretical"miss specific features of thecurrent situation.Thecrucial questions have lessto dowithwhetherapractice issomehow"theorized"thanwith itslinksto anunfolding history andgeographyof theoreticaldevelopments. These links will positionagiven practiceasindigenousorcosmopolitanin itstheoretical underpinnings,and more-or-less naive or out-of-date, efficient, clumsy,coy, or obvious in its staging or specifying of theoreticalpropositions. Whereas in anearlierperiod the functionoftheoretical reference within criticismwas toremoveaworkfrom the continuumofart-historical time, rubbing it upagainst broader socio-political phenomena,thatfunctionhasnowbeen reversed.It is the critical elaborationof awork's

C O N T E X T : W I L L S T R A W 2 9

R U L E S


38/66

T H E O R Y

theoretical project which now restores it to a larger collec-tive endeavour,thatof ageneralized cultural critique inwhichdiverse activist communities are presumed to collab-orate. The sensethat different activist practices have any-thing in commonthata magazine can legitimately coverthem all as instances of a singular phenomenonismoreandmore dependenton thethreadsoftheoretical referencewhichlead themallbackto acomm onintellectual space.

Thesociological shifts which have produced recent con-vergencesbetweenArt andTheory are,Iwould argue, rathereasilygrasped.Asintellectual politicsinCanadaandelse-wherehavecom etorevolve around questionsofsocial iden-tity, they have, at the same time, become increasinglycultural. The observable politicization of art worlds is inmanywaysaresidual effectofbroader shifts through whichactivist political currents have come to privilege the cul-tural as their terrain of intervention. One ofmany sig-nificant effects is awaningof the real orperceived socialdistance betweenactivistcultural communitiesandtheirpoliticalreferents adistance whichforeverhaunteda nowdeclining class-based, political militancy. In avery realsense, the urban subcultures ofactivist identity politicshavebecome(ortake themselves for)thecommunities theyseek to serve; the question of a broader accessibility forideas, which haunted earlier traditions of cultural militancy,has (rightly or wrongly) lost much of its resonance. Theproblem of the insinuation oftheory intoartisticpracticeofhowworks might embed particular knowledges withinthemselveshasdisplaced attention fromtheolder problemofhoweither might cometocirculate within broader dis-cursivefieldsandsocial spaces.It is the perennial illusion of anart-world politicsthatits crucial momentsare those inwhich individual worksresolve, embody,orcommunicate questions ofpolitical sig-nificance.Iwou ldclaim, instead,thatartworksandwritingsassumetheirprimary importance inasmuchas themomentsoftheirproductionorcirculation becomethoseinwhich solidarities or fractures between particular communitiesare

3 0 B E W I T C H E D , B O T H E R E D A N D B E W I L D E R E D


39/66

R U L E S

produced.It isclear,forexample,thatthe interweavingofart and theory and of both with an activist identity politicshas heightened the identificationof all ofthese activitieswithyouth, as they have become intimately bound up withtheinstitutionalandwage economiesofgraduate study, free-lance writing, andsuchsitesofsocial interaction as thedance club.The significant phenomenon here is not therole assumed byartisticworks in the communication oftheory,but thesocial continuities produced betweenatheo-retical education, political militancy, andparticulardefini-tionsofhipness.A tthe same time, arguably, whatissignificant aboutamagazinelikeFuseis not the specificknowledges it appearstooffer,but theimageitconveysofcertain knowledges (andtheactivitiesorcommunitiesinwhich theyare cultivated)properly belonging together in ways presumed to havepolitical effects. Asconstituents of the material cultureofparticular overlapping communities, what worksof art andtheory signify are the terms and forms of involvementcharacteristic of such communities: the competencies theypresume,thecollaborationsandinter-institutional relation-ships they require or enable, and the instances of empower-mentthey manifest.Newconvergencesof art and theoryhaveproducednewwaysofpartakinginparticular commu-nities andsocial spaces,but only minimallyas aresultofchangesin thecognitive roleofartworks themselves.Thisis to suggest, in asense, thatprocesses occurringwithin the worlds of art/theory-making are little differentfromthosecomm oninsuch subculturesasthataround com-puter hacking(toinvokethemost contrastingly unappeal-ingexample).Around certain practices, people occupy placeswithinand work to alterparticular relations ofpower,institutional interchange, andsocial differentiation.Oneshouldtakethe self-definedvanguardism ofneitherofthesesubculturesat facevalue.Thebroader effects ofwhat goesonwithin them havelittleto dowiththewaysinwhich theyimaginetheir relationship to a larger worldas allegorical.What mayunite art andtheoryinpolitically meaningful

CONTEXT: WILL STRAW 31


40/66

T H E O R Y

ways is not (or not merely)that they stand as formsofknowledgewhosedisempoweringseparationhas nowbeenovercomeneitherart northeory,inthisinterchange, hastruly resolvedtheproblemof itsplace within social hierar-chies of intelligibility. More importantly, the production andcirculation of these forms, as processes which transpirewithin (and link themselvesto)specific socialhistoriesandgeographies, are loci around which the broader contours ofsocialandintellectualrelations take shapeand areremade.

Notes1. See"Shifting Boundaries, LinesofDescent:CulturalStudies

andInstitutionalRealignmentsin Canada," Relocating CulturalStudies:NewDirectionsin Theory and Research ed.ValdaBlun-dell,John Shepherd,and Ian Taylor (London: Routledge, 1993),86-102.

2.JoshuaDecter, in apresentation madeduring the round-table"Sitesof Criticism/Practices:The Problem ofDivisionsofCulturalLabour,"ACME Journal 1, no. 2(1992):39.

3 2 BEWITCHED B O T H E R E D A N D B E W I L D E R E D


41/66

P A R T 1 : C O N T E X T

B A C K T O T H E F U T U R E :T h e Sequel

Thierry deDuve

T HE P G E S Y O U A R E B O U T toread were written in 1987.Theyhadanothertitlethen,but"Backto theFuture"wouldhavebeenjustasfitting.At thetime,I was aprofessorattheUniversityofOttawa,in thesame DepartmentofVisualArtsthathostedtheconference whose proceedingsyou areholdinginyour hands.Mycolleaguesand Iwere discussingwhat improvementswemight introduce into our teachingmethods,whenIsensed intuitively thatthevery systemthemodernist systemuponwhichart teaching wasbased(art teaching in general, notjustour own) needed to berethought. These pagesare theresultof myfirst attempt atdoingjustthat.They have since then beenfollowedby morethoughtfulreflections, whichis whythey were never pub-lished. For some years, Ileft them at rest and only recentlyread them again. Werethey ever writteninhaste But Ilikethe energy,the roughness, the anger with whichIwrotethem. Suddenly, theyhad to beshared. It then occurredtom ethat this bookwouldbe the proper vehicleforthem,eventhough whatIactually saidat theconference, address-ing similar issues,was a bitdifferent.Here they are.

Itusedto bethatart teachingwasacademicand artteach-erswere proudof it. Rootedin the observation of nature

3 3


42/66

and the imitation of previous art, the long apprenticeship ofa would-be painter or sculptor was primarily an acquisitionofskillsput under specificcultural constraints. Life-draw-ingand its underlying discourse, anatomy, provided thebasic skill ennobled with humanistic knowledge. Never,though,was art equated with skill. What deserved admira-tion in the accomplishedartistwastalent,notcraft.Yettherewere rules, conventions, and codes outside of whichraw talentcould neither develop nor express itself. Tradi-tion set the standards against whichthe production of artstudentswasmeasured. Academic teachinghadgreat ambi-tions regarding the maintenance oftradition; it hadlittlevanity regardingitsabilityto"turn out" individualartists.A llitcoulddo wasnurtureanddisciplineitsstudents' gifts(ifnaturehad provided them with some)and then onlywithinthelimitsofnature'sgenerosity.In theprocess, evenungifted students were givenatechnical know-howwhichsecured themarecognized,ifhumble, placeinsocietyand aplausible,ifmodest, sourceofincome. Betweentheworkoftheartisanandthatof thegenius, therewasqualitative dif-ference;there was also cultural continuity.A llofthiswasdisrupted by the social changes whichbrought about the advent of modern art. As industrializa-t ionandthesocial upheaval, scientific progress,andideo-logicaltransformationsthatwent withitdecomp osed thehithertostable social fabricand, on the whole, more or lessdestroyed allcraftsmanship, the examplesof the past losttheir credibilityin art andelsewhere,and thechainoftra-ditionwaseventually broken.To thesensitiveartist,acade-m icart andtrainingbecamejust thatacademicand thenewartbegantolook towardthe futurewith both fearandhope.Theavant-garde waslaunched. Painters andsculp-tors, progressivelyturning away from the observation andimitation ofoutside models, turned inwardsandstartedtoobserveandimitate their very meansofexpression. Insteadofexertingtheirtalentwithin relatively fixed conventions,themodernistartistsputthose conventions themselves tothe aesthetic testand, one byone, discarded those whose

3 4 B A C K T O T H E F U T U R E

T H E O R Y


43/66

R U L E S

constraints they no longerfelt.Excellence in art came to bemeasuredagainst the resistance of the medium,as if themedium couldset the rules itself, take comm andover skill,and provide a vessel fortalent.Soon,art schoolingwas affected by the avant-garde.Astheexamplesandstandards of thepast couldnolongerbetrusted, asimitation and observation couldnolonger pro-videthebasicsfor the apprenticeship ofart, art teachinghad to lookelsewhereforrootsinboth natureandculture.It achievedthisin twoways.The figure ofM an th euni-versal measureof all things in naturewas relinquishedas the outer modelforobservation, but wasrecoupedasthe inner subjective principle. Psychology,notanatomy,becamethe foundational discourse for a newartistichuman-ism. The new doctrine was that all people are endowedwith innate faculties whichit is the function ofeducationto allow to grow. Thus specialization in visualartsmeantthe specific training and growthof the facultiesofvisualperceptionand imagination. How totrainthem became apedagogicalissue. It would have remainedatechnicalim-possibility steeped in solipsism, had not psychologynotthe introspective kindbut perception psychology,gestalttheory,etc.providedthe ideathatthe ability to perceive is,by nature, already cultural, and thatperceptionis, so tospeak, abasic reading skill. It followed from there thatimaginationwas a basic writing skill of sorts. "Creativity" isthename,themodern name, givento thecombined innatefaculties ofperception and imagination. Everybodyis en-dowedwith it, and the closer it remains to sheer, blankendowment,thegreater itspotential.Achildor aprimitivehasmore creativity thanacultivated adult. Theideal artstudent, the artistof the future, cameto beseenas aninfant whose natural ability to read andwrite the visualworldneed only be properly tutored. If only the practiceof painting and sculpture could be broken into semantic"atoms,"ifonly some elementary visual alphabetandsyn-tax couldbe set up, then art couldbetaught and taughtanewwithout resorting to a nowobsolete tradition: art

CONTEXT: T H I E R R Y DE DUVE 35


44/66

T H E O R Y

itself,not merely skill, but alsotalent.Talent lies in a rawstateineveryone's creativity,andskill lies "ready-made"inthepropertiesof themedium:in thelinearityofdrawing,inthe two-dimensionality of the picture plane, in the volu-metric propertiesofsculpture.Inprinciple,if not infact, artlearning becomes simple: students should learn how to taptheirunspoiled creativity, guidedbyimmediatefeelingandemotions,and to read their medium, obeying its immanentsyntax.Asstudents'aesthetic sensibility andartistic liter-acy wouldprogress, their abilityto feeland toread wouldtranslateintotheabilitytoexpressand toarticulate. Nur-tured perception and imagination would produce artworksofa newkind.PerhapsIhave madethisshort tableauofmodernistartteaching intoacaricature. But the historical evidenceisoverwhelming.Allprogressive pedagoguesofthiscenturyfrom FroebeltoMontessoritoDeCroly,allschool reformersandphilosophersofeducation,from RudolfSteinertoJohnDewey,have basedtheirprojectsandprogramsoncreativityor,rather, on the belief in creativity, on the convictionthatcreativity,not tradition, notrules andconventions,is thebest startingpointforeducation. Moreover,allgreat mod-erntheoristsofart, fromHerbert ReadtoE.H. GombrichtoRudolphArnheim,have entertained similar convictions anddevotedconsiderable energy to breaking up the "visual lan-guage" into itsbasic componentsanddemonstrating theuniversalityof itsperceptualandpsychological "laws."Andfinally,needlesstosay, thereis not onepioneerofmodernistart, from Malevich to Kandinsky and Klee,or from Ittenand M oholy-N agy to Albers, who has not been activelyinvolved in the creation of art schools and teaching pro-grams basedon thereductionofpracticeto the fundamen-tal elementsof asyntax innateto themedium. KandinskywroteVonPunkt zur Liniezur Flache in 1924,and sincetheneveryartschoolin theworldhas a 2-D and a 3-Dstu-dio. Iftheyhadbeen strictly faithful toKandinsky,iftheyhad also taken their clue from Cubism, they wouldhave a1-Dand a 4-Dstudioaswell.



45/66

M ypointis notintendedto beironic,and I amcertainlynotinclined to dismiss this philosophy without furthertrial,but merelytostressthat it is aphilosophy,and abiasedanddatedone atthat.Let uscallit theBauhaus philosophy.It was never carried out with the radical purity of mydescription, not even at the Bauhaus itself, which died fromthepressure of its owncontradictions asmuchas it did atthe hands of the Nazis. But the Bauhaus model, more orless amended, moreorless debased,has set up aseriesofassumptions about art teaching upon which dozens of artand architecture schools aroundtheworld have been builtandwhich, today, still underlay, often subliminally, almostunconsciously,mostartcurricula, includingour ownhereatthe University of Ottawa. I took the nomenclature of someofourcoursesfor asymptomofthis,whichmay beunfairsince I don't teach them. You may argue that what mattersTE.is not the course'sname but what we do with it, and youwouldberight.You may saythatalthough courses entitled"2-D"and "3-D,"or"Photo 1" and "Photo 2," or "Intro-ductionto Visual Analysis," may betray a belief in creativ-ityandelementary visual language, thereareothers, suchas "Experimental Media Workshop" or "Instrumentalityand Reality," whichdonot. I'm not sure they don't,butmaybethatisbesidethe point. Whether creativity existsorwhether it is merely a useful illusion is, for all practicalpurposes, irrelevant aslongas it is useful. Whether thereissuchathingas"visual language"orwhetherit ismerelya pedagogical ideologyisequally irrelevant as longas itworks.

The question is: Does the amended Bauhaus model work?Is it still useful?We all have some mitigated answers tothis.Yes it works, yes it is useful, but veryoften in spite ofitself.Manyof ushave growntovaluethe perverse effectsofateaching method organized,ifonly nominally,in termsof the purity and separateness of the media. Manyof ushave come to praise the subversivestudentswho do notbehave as if they tapped into unspoiled creativity withwhichthey are supposedly endowed but who, instead, tap

CONTEXT: T H I E R R Y D E DUVE 3 7

R U L E S


46/66

T H E O R Y

the "PopKulch"with which they comeequipped. Thoseofus who teach the"basic"courses know all too wellthattheycan only communicate rules and conventions, andthatsig-nificantart is art thatoverthrows, displaces, abandons,orsubverts rules and conventions. Who has not dreamed, ifonlysecretly, ofhaving studentsthebest studentsforc-ingthe teacher to give them anA+ because they havetransgressed the rulesof the assignment so intelligentlythat they displayaperfect awarenessofwhatart makingisabout? It sometimes happens; the dream comes true and,when it does, it becomes a nightmare. Those of us whoteach "mixed media," "inter-media," "multi-media," or"experimental media"w hateverwe name the no man'sland which mostart schools have endedup institutionaliz-ing as if it were a medium of its ownknowall too wellthatunless they assign subject matter or set technical con-straints, formal limits, severe deadlines,orwhatever rulesorconventions, they willnotachieve much more than orga-nizedescapism.Thefruits whichtheBauhaus tree yieldedand still yieldsare strangehybrids.We all knowthat.Wehave cometoexpect it,even foster it. Thelastart schoolwithastrictBauhaus ideology (though already considerablyamended)wasBlack Mountain College,and itsbest "fruit"was Rauschenberg. Meanwhile,theBauhaus itself, withallthose greatartiststeaching there,did notproduceasinglestudent of astatureequal tothatof their masters.Seen from thisangle, the failureof the Bauhaus peda-gogymay be a comforting thing. Perhaps it should be main-tained in order to be subverted by teachers and studentsalike. After all,if itproducedaRauschenberg once,it maybe worthwhileto try themethod again.Itcertainlyhas theadvantage of flattering the artist in each teacher at theexpenseof theacademic. Thereis aspecial pleasure in en-couraging subversion of the rule which one sets. Butbeware.Here is an anecdote. When I was teaching in Bel-gium,we had a first-year student who had assimilated HansHaacke and Daniel Buren and understood the "logic" ofDuchampso well (or so he thought; and so I thought, at the

38 B A C K T O T H E F U T U R E


47/66

time),thathis proposal for the finalexam put us in a nicehole.The rule wasthatboth first-year and fourth-year stu-dentshad toshowtheirworkto anoutside jury.In first-year, the jury's mark counted for half the total mark; infourth-year, it countedfor the total mark. This particularstudentwasdoing performanceat the time. Herewas hisproject: he would pose as a fourth-year student and do aperformance in front of the unsuspecting fourth-year jury.He wouldaccept whatever mark thejury wouldgive him.W ewouldhavetoacceptthatif hepassedthetest,hewouldhaveobtainedhisdegree after onlyoneyear.He wasveryserious.Wewere not, and laughed wholeheartedly at hisproposal. Hebecame very angryandaccusedus of notabid-ing bywhatwetaught.He wasbrilliantandgifted.As far asI know,he does not make art any more but is well-offsell-ingreal estate.I gotmore thanonelessonout ofthisstory,butwhatitallboilsdownto isthatthe perverse effects of a subvertedBauhausm odelnowbackfire.It is fun to see the institutioncaught at its owngame onceinawhile;it is no fun to see awholegeneration of art students purportedly playing themostadvancedart "strategies"withtheir ownschoolinginstitutions onlyto belost once theyare out in the realworld.Shouldwerevert to a"straight"Bauhaus modelandset rules sostrict,mediumper mediumand stepbystep,thatnoescapismispossible? Chancesarethatnocreationwouldbepossible either.And aslongas artteachingispred-icatedoncreativity, creation is its expected outcome.Buttoday, it isneither credible nor desirable torevert to a"straight"Bauhaus model. There are many reasonswhythis is so. I shall highlight threeof them. The first one ismorein the nature of asymptom,the secondone may bethe beginning of an explanation, and the third one investi-gates some consequences.

The demise of the Bauhaus modelhaseverythingto dowith"postmodernism."It is, ofcourse,nosurprisethatartschools shouldbe affected bywhat ishappening outside.(Is it not also the other wayaround? More about that

CONTEXT: T H I E R R Y D E DUVE 3 9

R U L E S


48/66

T H E O R Y

later.) I don't know what the word "postmodernism"means, beyond the factthatit is ablatantsymptom of a cri-sis inmodernism. When people wanttochangetheirname,it is an obvious sign that they are not satisfied with theone they have. Twenty-five years ago, everybody wanted tobe modern. To be called modern, to call something modern,was acompliment: Shakespeare wasmodern,PierodellaFrancesca wasmodernNow itseemsthatno onewantsto be modern any longer, and so the name "postmodernism"appears, whose only secure meaning is "anti-modernism."But thepropensitytoinventnewnamesand newisms,thealternation of the "pro"and the "anti"or the "post," is avery modern, even modernist, habit.Sowhat postmod-ernismis(not whatitmeans)isthatit is thelatest avatarofmodernism.

What it refersto isstillanother matter.Basically it isused (bycriticsartistsusuallydon'tbother) to designatetwoquite opposed groupsofworks.The first group com-prisesa series ofreturns:topainting, to figuration, tocraftsmanship, tohistory,totradition.It recyclesthepre-modern past and isdefinitely anti-modernist, inthat itseeks topresent itselfas ifmodernismhad nothappened.Thisis why it isavant-gardistinspiteofitself;itbelievesinthe tabularasa.Thesecond group comprises aseriesofadvances out of the puristmedia of modernism and intohigh technology, pop culture, and mass media. It acknowl-edgesthe "historical avant-gardes" andrecycles themas ifnothing hadhappened before modernism. It isthereforeequally avant-gardist, but since the avant-gardes are now"historical,"it isacademicinspiteofitself. Thereare goodand bad works in both groups.Let us nowassumethatboth groups(or thecriticsrepre-senting them)arebeing givenachance to set up an artschool. Both would rejecttheBauhaus modelandsubstituteapostmodernist model.Thefirst group wouldset up anaca-demicsystem ofteaching and beproudof it. They wouldpose as connoisseursandbe openly conservative. They wouldmake the pastpast techniques, past stylesavailableto



49/66


50/66

T H E O R Y

in1987,it is nolongeraclean slateandthatit hasreceiveda number of meanings, including the one previously stated:it was aclean slate. Today's meaningorcontentof theWhite Squareliesinthatpast tense. Yesterday,itscontentlayin its avant-gardisticjustification (I'm betraying M ale-vichhere, but not his reception). Thisjustificationheldthatit was aradical break with tradition andthatitdeservedtobecalled art, andavant-gardeart atthat,becauseitbrokewithtradition.Did it?I'll takeashort cut:itdid,inthatinorder to erase the past, youneedtohave one.And so itdidn't. (The White Squaremakes no sense unless an aes-theticacquaintance with Picasso, Cezanne,Manet...andTitian links it, in retrospect, to a significant series of aban-donments.) Certainly this invalidates the avant-gardisticexplanation: the White Squareis not art becauseitbrokewith tradition. Is it artbecauseitlauncheda newtradition,asMalevichhoped?Yes and No.Yes,if youtake thisnewtraditionassimplyall themodernartthatiscompaniontothe White Squareat theMuseumofModern Art.Butthenthemoderntraditionistradition toutcourt not a newone.N o,if you take it to mean the new visual "language" madeof elementary forms and colours which Malevichand theother pioneersofabstractart hadinvested with their hope.O nthatlevel,it failed.It isherethatthe failureof theBauhaus modelsetsin.A sI said, you canerasethepastif you have one. But onceit iserased, whatcan youteachthenext generation? Noth-ing,unlessyoubelievethatabasic visual languagecan beinscribed on ablank slate, frompointtolineto surface."Nothing, unless you are convinced that creativity canreplace memory,thatpure perceptionandimaginationcansubstitute for an aesthetic acquaintance with tradition.A ndso we are back to the Bauhaus model. Its failure to pro-ducestudents of the calibre oftheirmasters is no surprise,andthereis nosurprise eitheraboutitssubsequent demiseandperversion. What hindersa new way ofthinking aboutart teaching should now be clear: the myth of creativity andthe mythof avisual language. I am notsuggesting that



51/66

these words be eradicated fromour vocabulary, but Iwouldbepleasedto seethem historicized,forexample,in the waywewoulduse theword"ether,"in ascientific context,notinorder toreferto the substance once believedto fill thevoidandconduct light, sincethebeliefinsucha substancehasvanished,but inorder toallude bothto the substanceand to the belief,andthusgive them adatedflavour. Noram Isuggestingthatthemythsofcreativity andvisual lan-guage bedemystified. They already have been,andthatmuchhas been shown by the second brand of postmod-ernism. Evenacursory inventory of thefashionable wordsincurrent art criticism demonstrates this: "appropriation,""recycling," "simulacrum" are words that belongto thesphere of consumption, not of production, let alone creation."Rhetoric" is in fashion, "language" is out; and to speak ofthe"artist'svision"isdefinitely corny, whereastospeakofthe"spectator'sgaze"isvery muchinpace withthe times.Keepingpace withthetimesis thequickest pathtoobso-lescence.One has to beeitherfasterorslower,and it wouldbewisetorecognizethatartschoolscanonlybeslower.Andthisbringsme to mythirdandlastpoint. Untilnow Ihavespokenofacademiesand art schoolsandtraced thetrans-format ionssome real,some imaginaryof the Bauhausmodel,whichItaketo bequasi-universal, albeitin asmanywatered-down versionsasthereare artschools.Butthereisanother phenomenon.Our artschoolis adepartment withinauniversity. Someof youmight think thatour incorpora-tion into academia makes it ipso facto difficult to seekareform which would make the department less academic.I'm not sosure.It may bethat,in its ownway,theuniver-sity'sadministration expectsus to beavant-garde. Univer-sitiesare in no wayhomogeneousinstitutions,and it iswellknownthattheyare infacttornbetweentworatherincom -patible functions.On the onehand, they are professionalschools geared totheneeds of the labour market, wherehighlyspecialized skillsaretransmitted;on theother hand,they are protected areas where accumulated knowledgeand scientific progress can bepursued fortheirownsake

CONTEXT T H I E R R Y D E DUVE 4 3

R U L E S


52/66

T H E O R Y

without being tied up with immediate economic results. Inthe caseof the naturalsciencesthiscontradiction is nolonger sensedasacute. Everybodyis nowconvincedof thebeneficial spin-offs offundamental research fo rtechnologyand the economy in general. But in the caseof ar tandpossibly of the humanities as a wholethis contradictionisexacerbated. There is, strictly speaking, no labour marketforindependentartists.Their abilitytosupport themselvesthrough theirwork depends not, orverylittle, on thedemandsofsociety;in the long run,itdependson the onethingthattheirschooling cannot producetheirtalent. Inthatsense,an artdepartment like ours doesnotaccomplishitsmissionas aprofessional school. However,thecriteriaofobjectivescientific verificationdo notapplyto theoutputoftheteachersin an artdepartment. Thisisobvious,as far asartistsare concerned,but the situation is similar withregardtocriticsand arthistorians. Sincetheirdiscourseisinterpretative and notdemonstrative,theircredibilityrestsonerudition andconnoisseurship, whicharequalities rec-ognizedby theuniversity,butalso consideredalittlegratu-itous and eccentric by more scientifically attuned minds.M oreoverandthisiscrucial because herethecriticsare onequal footing with the artiststheir activity implies theexercise ofpersonal aesthetic judgment and isthereforehighlyvulnerable, likethatoftheir fellow artists,to dis-missals based oneither divergingtastesor on argumentssayingthat"these thingsarejustamatter oftaste."Inthatrespect, an art department like ours does not fulfil the sci-entific functionwhichisexpectedof,say,anatural scienceoreven a philosophy department.Thishaskeptart teachingout ofuniversities for averylongtime.It is nolongerthecase,and itshouldbestressedthatthepenetration of art into academiahasrested on aparticularly powerful,butalso ambiguous, ideological amal-gam.This penetration isactually heavily dependent uponthenotionof theavant-garde,in aninterpretation even dif-ferent fromtheoneswehave encounteredsofar. Only whenmodern art beganto enjoysocialandeconomic successdid



53/66

academiaentertain the idea ofhosting professional artschools. Butthisalonewould nothavesufficed. "Scientific"credentials were needed too. (Rememberthat lucrativebusinesses suchasacupuncture andhomeopathyarestillbanned from most medical schools.) Traditional academicteaching offered no such credentials. It was merely techni-cal, on the onehand,andnormative,on theother, whereasscientifictrainingshouldbeneither.It isthusonly whenitbecameobvious to society at largethatthe success of mod-ern art did not stem from technical know-how and obedi-ence to tradition, but, rather, from innovation and freeexploration,thatacademia begantoconsidertheideathatitcouldturnoutprofessionalartists,if itcould onlytrainstu-dentsininventionand free exploration.Werecognize some-thing similarto the shift from theacademyto theBauhausmodel,but the keyword here is not "creativity."The key-wordis "experimentation" and the ideological rationale isthatartisticexperimentation isakintoscientificresearch.Thesimilaritieshave allowedthe differencesto behidden.Artistic innovationwasseenin thesamerelationtoscien-tificdiscoveryastechnical invention,and free explorationwasassimilated to academic f reedom ingeneral and toresearch inparticular. Theresultsofexperimentation areequallyunpredictable in art and inscience; thus, theyareto be fostered for their own sake and allowed a protectedinstitutional space, in the hopethatthey will have an effectonthe economic world in the long run. If the university isproudtoplay hostto theavant-gardeofdisinterestedscien-tific research, then it should take equal pride in hostingthe avant-garde ofdisinterested artistic experimentation.With thisrationale,art teaching entered academia afterWorldWar II.Anumberofthings shouldbepointedouthere."Exper-imentation," as a concept,is nomoreto betrusted thancreativity. Should I quote my master, Clement Greenberg?"Thetrueand most important function of the avant-gardewasnot to'experiment',but to find apath along whichitwouldbepossible tokeep culture movingin the midstof


R U L E S


54/66

T H E O R Y

ideological confusionandviolence." Notonlyisartisticexperimentation a poorsubstitutefor what should be calledfreedom but, when amalgamated with scientific experimen-tation, it has the disastrous effect ofhidingthe onespeci-ficityof art and artteachingthatsetsour departmentapartfrom every other in the university: it restson aestheticjudgment,itrevolves around aesthetic judgment,it has noother function but todevelop aesthetic judgment. Nowthatboth the rules and conventions ofacademicart and thehistorical driveofavant-gardearthave seen their day, what,ifnot judgment, is going to distinguish between good andbadart?Nowthatneither skillnor the properties of themediumcan put constraintson thepostmodernartist(towhom all skills, manners, styles, andmediaare available)what,if notjudgment,isgoingtodictatehis or herchoice?Now that art history has relinquished both the stylistic,cyclical,or"civilizational"models and the progressive, lin-ear, avant-garde models, what, if not judgment, is going toguidethe studentsto adecision about which past isrele-vant for them today, and which is not? Nowthatart theo-riesabound, wrappedinabstruse, pseudo-scientific jargonor cladin deliberately ideological smoke-screens, what,ifnotjudgment, isgoingto confront the theories with theworksthey are supposed to uphold? Despite experimenta-tion, thisjudgmentis not of thekindthatsanctions scien-tific research. It sanctions aesthetic quality,nottruthorfalsity.There should be a place in the university forthiskindof judgment and it should be recognized. Then the alibiof experimentationor research would nolongerbeneces-sary."Jenecherche pas,jetrouve,"Picasso once said.Thepostmodernist syndrome, with its eclecticism andhistoricism,itspluralism andpermissiveness,is theresultof, among other things, a lackofjudgment. Universitieshavea great deal of responsibility forthis. Particularlydeservingofblameis theprocessofteachingart history,adiscipline whichhasunfortunately gaineditsacademic cre-dentialson the false pretence thatit isscientific.I am notsayingthat it istotally unscientific, orthat it shouldnot



55/66

R U L E S

striveforsome kindofobjectivity. Factsare facts,and youcan'tjuggle with them.It is afactthatCezannewasbornin1837andthathepaintedtheMontagueSteV ictoire.It is nota fact thatCezanneis agreatartist.That is ajudgment.That Cezannehasbeen judgedagreatartistbymany peo-ple,however, is another fact.And so is the fact thatyouremainfree tojudge otherwise.Arthistoryisjurisprudence,nothing else.Had itbeen thought of and taught likethat,students would never havehad tobelievethathistory itselfwasspeaking throughtheteacher'smouthas if itwerejusta dullstringof objective facts, and thus they would neverhave felt free topickandchoose from thepast atrandom(postmodernism of the first kind), or feltcompelled to par-odytradition (postmodernismof thesecond kind).Most postmodern artistsof both kinds (for example,JulianSchnabelandSherry Levine)areperfect productsofart teaching in universities. They have been bred on arthistory,thatis, ondull, "factual" slide-shows. They shouldnot beblamedforrecycling images; their teachers shouldbe.Thepreposterous thingisthatthiskindof art historyteaching disguises evenitsjudgmentsasfacts, accompany-ingeach slide with dithyrambs abouthowgreat and howoriginalandcreativeanduntraditionaltheartistwas.Themoreitdoesso, themorethe intelligent studentsaregoingto sense the formidable equalization of values that goeson inthisHollywood rerun of tradition. When the timecomes for their ownproduction, they will find nothingbetter to dothan plunder and reframeart history in theshape, and on the level, of soap opera. Never have theybeentoldthatthesethingsof which they have seen slidesmost of the time reproductions of reproductions areexamples selected so as to bestandardsagainstwhichtocheck their own work. One preposterous thing leading toanother remindsmethatIstarted this analysisbysayingthat, whereas academic teaching had great ambitionsregardingthemaintenanceoftradition, it hadlittlevanityregardingitsabilitytoturnoutindividualartists.Thecon-trary, alas,istrueforboth university art departments and



56/66

T H E O R Y

forart schools basedon theBauhaus model. Thisweshouldchange.A fewprinciplesmay bedrawn from thisanalysis, lead-ing to newteachingstrategies,to achangeofviewpointonstrategieswhich have provedefficient but couldstillbeimproved.Asquare seeninprofile remainsasquare;it mayalso reveal itselfas acube,orjustaline,or amonster witha square base.Onewill never know what it isunlessoneshifts one'sviewpoint. Everything revolves aroundonehypothesis: whatif wedroppedthenotionsofcreativityandvisual language? The two go together, but they can belooked at from differentanglesandthey giveway to the fol-lowingthemes.Jammed ox vsClean SlateThemythofcreativity holdsthatthelessachildhasbeenconstricted by cultural rules and conventions, the more cre-ativeit is.Hence,thereis atendencytoidealize incomingstudents (wecall them freshmen )as iftheyhad ablank,but infinitely receptive, mind. Whether we want it or not,"basic" studios flatterthistendency. The equivalent to thestudents'blank mindis theblank pageinfrontofthem.Artteaching issupposedtostart from scratch. Butwhen theyarrive, studentsare nolonger infants. They have long beenconsumersof cultural artefacts, their eyes are clutteredwith ready-made images (from TV torecord sleevestoSalvadorDali),andtheirbrains are full ofromantic notionsabout the artist.It is ajammedboxrather thanacleanslate.(I tookthismetaphor from a very successful exercisedesignedbyPeter Gnass for his sculpture students.)Weknowthat.Still,wethinkthatourfirst taskis toundothose recruitment fantasies and "clean up" their expecta-tions.It issomehow cruel.Theresultisthatweunwittinglyteach them scornfortheirownculture, whiletheacquisi-tionof areplacement culturehas towait.(I dothisall thetime and often feel guilty about it.) Shouldwe not startfrom amore generous assumption? Their culture is acom-plex one which offers roomfor quality judgment f rom



57/66

R U L E S

within,and comparison from without. This shouldbe ourstartingpoint.At the end offirst year,studentsshouldnotevendreamofbeingartists,creators,orproducers,buttheyshouldbesophisticated consumers, abletochoose critically.TalentvsCreativityThe mythofcreativity holdsthatit is afacultynaturalto allhuman beings. Wesuspect that it isunevenly distributedbut we,truedemocratsthatweare, thinkthateveryonehasarightto anequalshareof it."Everyoneanartist"is themodernist motto. Though it isbeliedbyreality, wethinkthat toassume otherwise iselitist.This is whycreativityhad to be an emptyform ,a clean slate, for onlythencouldaproper pedagogy (suchas theBauhaus model) developitevenly in allstudents.What academic teaching called tal-ent, whichis not apotentialbut agift,avant-garde teachingredubbed creativity, whichis apotential and not a gift.Afirst corollarytothisis themyththatteachingcanprovidetalent (meaning develop creativity) or else that talent isnot necessary. A second corollary (highly visible in schoolswherethe Bauhaus modelisstillpure enough)is apeda-gogy based on problem-solving exercises with built-inresults.And athird corollaryis theillusionthatartschoolscan"turnout"artists.Infact,thereisnothing wrong withproblem-solvingexercisesat anearlystageof thestudents'development, when they need to beencouraged and sur-prisedbytheir results,aslongastheyare not led tobelievethatit istheircreativitythatexpresses itself there,and aslongas the teacher'scritique highlights the differencesintalentmade visible preciselyby amethod whereallotherthingsarekept equal.Thesoonerthestudentsknow wherethey stand regarding their talent, the sooner they willlearntocurtailorredirect theirambitions. Whatis atstakeis, in a newway, recovering the oldcultural continuitybetween theartisanand the genius in arealisticcontext.The cultu

Theory Rules- Part 1

Documents

Transcript of Theory Rules- Part 1