Welcome to the 2009 edition of the Postmodernism blog.
Think of this space as an extension of the tutorials - somewhere you can test, debate and extend your ideas about postmodernism. The comments function serves as a really useful forum for just this purpose.
The blog is strictly supplementary - we'll be using it to post interesting tidbits, diversions and illustrations, and to allow you to keep the dialogue rumbling, 24/7.
It's no substitute for lectures, tutes and assigned reading!
To get things going for this week, I've uploaded two of the images discussed in the lecture, Van Gogh's 1885 A Pair of Shoes, and Warhol's 1980 Diamond Dust Shoes.
What's so radically different about the two?
Do both qualify as 'art'?
What kinds of challenges to prior notions of 'art' does Warhol's work issue?
Since no one has posted a comment, I guess I'll get the ball rolling...
ReplyDeleteWhat’s so radically different about the two?
Van Gough’s ‘A Pair of Shoes’, perhaps represents the common individual, one that has endured an extremely difficult life. The use of vibrant colours and textures which depict a very real image puts a different spin on the emotionally charged content of the piece. Through this artistic style, Van Gough attempts to capture the essence of the life behind the shoes in a more positive context. Rather than leaving the viewer depressed, he leaves them not only with a greater insight into what the shoes represent, but leaves them with a sense of intrigue about the individual in question. Moreover, the piece shouts at society the notion that every individual has a story to tell and that nobody is insignificant.
Whereas Van Gough’s piece was intended to evoke an emotional response, Warhol’s ‘Diamond Dusted Shoes’ I think is a statement to society about its fascination with the notion of fame/celebrities/the rich. Not only is his piece the antithesis of ‘A Pair of Shoes’ in its portrayal of the well-to-do, but when viewed through a 21st century perspective, it almost acts like a mirror that society must look into, to understand the almost celebrity minded sickness it has developed. Warhol’s painting with its use of blacks, greys and whites (which almost looks like a photographic negative image) in comparison to Van Gough’s use of rich colours and textures, is just another jab at society’s misconceptions of the life of the rich and famous. The dark tones of Warhol’s piece show the reality of celebrity/fame. Although the shoes are pretty in appearance, the use of a photographic negative style aims to close the gap between reality / representation. Warhol attempts to demonstrate that the lives of a cultural ‘elite’ can also be made up of extremely unhappy people – the fact that the painting is void of any emotion is indicative of the misconceptions people have about this sub group.
Do both qualify as ‘art’?
I think in order to answer this question, we first need to think about what doesn’t qualify as art (if such exclusions can be made) and since I’ve never done art history or know anything about art (despite my earlier musings) I would be interested to get the perspective of someone who has some knowledge in this field. However, my first instinct was to say that art is subjective, and that anything could really be classified as art (especially after coming across some pictures — the name of the piece escapes me, but I think it was mentioned in ‘Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction’ — of two pairs of vacuum cleaners stacked on top of each other), but I guess postmodern art is art by another means — art that breaks down binary opposites…
Hi WS,
ReplyDeletethanks for your rich and eloquent reading of these two images - one that suggests how dramatically our perceptions of the nature and possibilities of art altered throughout the twentieth century.
And you're dead right - our culture tends to recognise 'art' by defining what it isn't. What made work such as Warhol's so challenging was that he brought things previously considered as antithetical to art (popular culture, mechanical reproduction, commodification) into the 'high cultural' sphere.
We look at his work early on in this subject because is is ideally emblematic of one of the cardinal features of postmodern culture - what you call the 'breakdown of binary opposites.'
What do you think Jameson means when he says Warhol's image 'does not really speak to us at all', instead presenting the shoes as 'fetishes'?