Sublation of Art (1) —— Why is art history full of prejudice

What is art? This is a difficult question to answer, but not because of how difficult the question itself is, but when the horizon is limited to the framework of art, it is difficult to realize that art is the knowledge brewed by discourse, constructed by the power of discourse. It has become a self-explanatory concept that exists in daily life. However, whenever someone tries to peel off this structure for exploration, the originally seemingly clear boundary is like the ripples formed by the sea water on the beach, slowly disappearing into all the tides related to mankind, society and history, as if it had never existed. Foucault’s vigilance on power-knowledge can be seen in the historical time scale of art’s infiltration of human thinking and mind. With this vigilance, we should realize that what we really should be is not asking this question, but begin to reflect, when the authenticity in principle has never existed, whether the body of art should continue to exist. We should peel off the veil of speech and knowledge, face the “unspeakable silence” and find the boundary of words. Out of trust in human intelligence, even if this process may shake the inertia of people and even society, knowledge must be released from the “zombies” of the past.

As stated in my first short essay, the definition of “beauty” during the Enlightenment period was not only incomplete but was overthrown by the so-called “unbeautiful art” in just a hundred years. But to this day, beauty has not been explained in a more complete way. On the contrary, it has become a concept with unknown boundaries. No one can say clearly about beauty. There is no principled measure of beauty, or even any principle. People judge beauty with an intuitive value, but there are differences and even contradictions between these values, so they are interpreted as “interesting” “, or derived from more complex comprehensive value judgments such as “meaning” and “reflection”, the evaluation of “beauty” becomes a harmonious coexistence of various opposites, and its connection with “art” no longer exists , And relativism is to separate itself. Either starting from sensibility, or having intellectual participation, and the double feedback of people’s knowledge and emotion to a certain meaning, it can naturally become beauty, history can become beauty, religion and behavior can also become beauty, and all differences are beauty. Accepted. Such a human-based but absolute metaphysical history is undoubtedly the continuous criticism of historicalists. For Marxists, the high suspension prevents beauty from criticizing ideology. Ideology can infiltrate arbitrarily. The absolute opposition of class conflicts is also tolerated by beauty. Beauty can reflect various meanings. The contradiction is false. Marx Weber’s disenchantment is the final blow at this moment. Human experience is not the composition of the world. Freedom, creation, value and even beauty itself are actually meaningless to the world.

“Beauty” lacks ontological interpretation, and “art” therefore no longer has meaning. It is difficult to find a clear boundary in it, but it overrides cultural judgment. If you want to talk about art, the source of the answers to what is art is almost always from artists or art critics. It coexists with the argument that art is not only an artist, and the explanation in principle is suspended again. At this time, from the perspective of historicism, if you want to summarize the many arts on the historical scale and find a rule of central discourse narration, then even if you ignore the metaphysical “beauty” that has been created, the tearing and suddenness of various standards attempts to generate various results are tantamount to finding angels from the tip of a needle. While Benjamin tried to realize the empathy of an era through the study of Paris arcades from the layered text collage, presenting the inclusive influence and phenomenon, the self-construction of the artistic context is enough to ignore all doubts from other disciplines. The weird argument that “art is art” exists here. Many different types of creation are collectively recognized as art, and the artist becomes an undeferential function word like art. Under such circumstances, the so-called “revolution” in the art world is no better than having a German sitting in the Stuttgart dynasty. The throne is more subversive. It is just another change of power. The monarchy is replaced by self-explanatory artistry, such as Duchamp’s urinal and Andy Warhol’s Campbell Canned Soup. The breaking of art however is replaced by art even become the art. Acknowledging and putting it in the museum, its significance depends on the display and elaboration of the “art scene”. The so-called “revolutionary” is just another noble blood. Today, the more radical art works, the more they need to be put into the “art scene” to be released. The art museum seems to have become a holy place. It has nothing to do with politics or utilitarianism. All pursuits are only for art. The power of discourse makes art appreciation a kind of privileged power under artistry. It is this power that allows the new king to sit on their throne. The last scene before the end of the movie “Square” is an irony of this phenomenon. The actor, as the head of the art museum, needs to respond to his fault at the press conference. At the beginning of the conference, there was no reporter listened to his explanation, until the public relations department of the art museum provided a note related to the art exhibition. When the male protagonist began to use this as the main content, all the noise returned to silence.

Nicholas used “Bacchus” and “Apollo” to give the answer to the question of whether there is a boundary between life and art. Since life itself is an act capable of bursting out a huge tragic light, any “appreciation of art” that requires a specific context or the proposition that a specific group of people can realize the production of art is meaningless. The breaking of existing concepts in contemporary art actually relies most on a mechanism of modern society: Zygmunt Bowman in Liquid Modernity Proposed caravan site, consumer-style critique under the open house policy to replace producer-style critique. Due to the fundamental changes in hospitality, breaking can no longer cause substantial harm, unless the same breaking and criticism accumulate to a certain degree-contemporary art works The strong connection with modernity breaks down Marcuse’s ability to criticize transcendence—the seemingly conflicting multi-cultures dissolve each other at a higher level, forming a true one-dimensional value judgment—the current art Judging the essence is precisely this value orientation.

Historians regard everything in the past as history, and the judgment of historical importance is based on a very simple utilitarian result judgment. The degree of influence of the event on society determines its length in history books. The description precedes the prescription to explain the objective neutrality of history on a principle scale. Five chaotic Hua and the reign of Zhenguan, Pingxingguan Great Victory and the Nanjing Massacre, Hitler and Stalin, historical events of different value orientations can get the same length, and historians show their understanding through these pages. Art history is not the case. When the entire art judgment is based on the normative value orientation, being written into art history is the recognition of the value of art. What can have an impact in art history is good art, and the circular argumentation is completed. The self-enclosure of art history presents a contradiction to the historical research of “the worst politicians are also politicians, but not good works of art are not working of art”. However, from the perspective of new historicism, the text is historical. The artwork is not only established by its own value, but the complex and multi-layered context of the era as a whole and the acceptance terminal of the construction, which carries the specific mental performance of a specific period. Ignoring more works is not a responsible act.

Of course, historians have their values, but they must be based on the understanding of all historical evidence. Just as Daniel Goldhagen is a child of concentration camp survivors, but his conclusion in Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust comes from the detailed analysis of all relevant historical materials, not any feelings of historical value based on self. He realized that when faced with the past event of the Holocaust, latecomers were able to conduct research from a more comprehensive and comprehensive perspective. Although everything in the endless past made true comprehensive knowledge impossible, it was also for him. Provides the right direction. Potential influences and superficial events are dialectically integrated with each other, and the historical background is the stage itself, striving for a possibility beyond the perspective of the time. As a result, the same human creation may receive completely different evaluations in history and art history, but if we refine the current historical works of specific art categories, the perspective of historical research will return again. There is a passage in Film History co-authored by David Bodwell and Christine Thompson: “The most credible answer we give to a given question depends on the strength of the evidence and our A method of argumentation, rather than a prior commitment to write a certain type of history.” (P15, Peking University Press, 2014) Film, as a specific category under the existing concept of “art”, is more advanced than conventional art history. To conduct research in an open location, the research method is the same as the existing historical research. The creator’s intention and social environment are properly explained, and a variety of historical viewpoints and historical facts are analyzed. The film’s influence rather than its value is described more. The study of historical environment and influence replaces the judgment of artistic achievement. Returning to art history from here, we will see the paradox of traditional art history: if it studies “art”, the ontology of artistry will first cover all discussions with prejudices, and if it is refined to a specific art category, Only historical research is left, and “art” cannot be judged by any value—the objective methodology must eventually erase “art”.

New historicism shows the complexity of history in many disciplines. Philosophy has been working hard to identify the essence. The existing concepts of art and aesthetics cannot exist by this, and art history cannot be attached to real historical research. The false truth constructed by the right of discourse and the persistent historical legacy are the original features of the artistic concept. We must expose this point, and then find the real referent behind the signifier, providing a clearer space for human intelligence and free creation.

Bibliography:

Kant, I., Weigelt, M. and Müller, F., 2007. Critique Of Pure Reason. London: Penguin.

Bodwell, D., Thompson, C. and Fan, B., 2014. Film History. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Goldhagen, D., n.d. Hitler’s Willing Executioners.

Bauman, Z., 2018. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marcuse, H., 1991. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.

BURKE PETER., 2019. EYEWITNESSING. Place of publication not identified: REAKTION Books.

Kaufmann, W. and Nietzsche, F., 2011. Beyond Good And Evil. New York: Vintage Books.