Lyotard
Apr 27 2007, 4:17 AM EDT
| Post edited: Apr 27 2007, 4:17 AM EDT
Speaking about the threat of "cultural policy" and the art and book market, Lyotard writes that "What is advised, sometimes through one channel, sometimes through the other, is to offer works which, first, are relative to subjects which exist in the eyes of the public they address, and second, works so made ("well made") that the public will recognize what they are about, will understand what is signified, will be able to give or refusal its approval knowingly, and if possible, even to derive from such work a certain amount of comfort" (Lyotard, 76). From this statement I gather that realist art, or any art that attempts to mimic real life is really not art at all in Lyotard's view, but simply commodity. Artists are advised to appeal to pre-negotiated cultural laws, and make references that are easily communicable. It is in this condition that artwork exists as something to be bought and sold at market. Its beauty, it would seem, is correlated to its trendiness. Real art, for Lyotard, then, must escape definition and referentiality. Its focus should be on the sublime. Does this mean that art should become a more private endeavor? I feel this is an especially important question in regard to making the "unpresentable" become "perceptible." Is Lyotard assuming that there are absolute concepts whose essences we have similar capabilities of imagining?
Also, Lyotard states that “our business is to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented.” Again, I am wondering if there are some universally discernable absolute concepts. Furthermore, I am concerned with whether Lyotard subordinates the private experience and self-expression which art makes possible to the communicative ability of art.
-Daliso Leslie
4/26/07
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Share this