1) The author states that the main problem with minimalist, or literalist, art is that it is too theatrical. Its theatricality comes from objecthood, which the literalists believe separate their art from modernist painting. "...the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than a plea for a new genre of theater; and theater is the negation of art." Do you believe that theater, and literalist work, is the negation of art?
2) "The success, even the survival, of the arts has come increasingly to depend on their ability to defeat theatre." Why is theater considered such a negative and destructive element to the arts - do you believe it even is? In what ways can the arts defeat theater?
3) "Literalist work is often condemned - when it is condemned - for being boring. A tougher charge would be that it is merely interesting." What do you think about this? The issues of the quality and value of art are not important to literalists, instead they are only concerned with sustaining interest. According to the author, being interesting is a bad thing. Do you believe this is true? If value and quality are not a part of the work, can it be interesting?
1) I believe that art is such a general term. When I think of art, my first thought is of painting; however, I know that art encompasses so much more than that. In some ways, art is more about ideas and experience than it's aesthetic appearance. For this reason I do not see theater as the negation of art and I think it is confining to state that art must defeat theatre.
ReplyDelete3) Again, I believe that there are too many different kinds of art to declare something like being interesting is bad. I definitely do not think being interesting is a bad thing. I think much of art is about the experience and the reaction from the viewer. To me, sustaining interest is a good goal for artists.
I would have to agree with Mary's statement about art being more about ideas and experiences. I think seeing theater as a negation of art is narrow minded and that seeing theater as needing to be defeated by "arts" is ineffective. This raises the question what would you consider performance art?
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Mary and Jess that art is more about ideas and experiences and that "seeing theater as a negation of art is narrow minded. I understand that theater hands you the whole story and you don't have to really think or draw on your own experiences to feel a connection and that in art these are things that should happen. But I don't think that it makes theater become a negation of art. I believe that actors have to draw on their own experiences or research to become their character. Perhaps the act of seeing theater isn't what should be focused on but the actors themselves.
ReplyDelete3. An artists work has to come from somewhere. I would certainly like it to be interesting. No one will pay attention to the work if it isn't interesting. If it is just craft there isn't any point. If the work is interesting but doesn't have good craft and doesn't look like it is done well it immediately turns me off and I loose interest.
my number 1 is supposed to be number 2!
ReplyDelete1) I think the whole argument of literalist work being theatrical and that theatrical is something to be avoided in art is somewhat unsubstantiated in Fried argument. I would say that yes Literalist art seems to emphasize objecthood, but he fails to supply reasons by that is undesirable. "Literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is concerned with the actual circumstance in which the beholder encounters...work" seems to be a bit of a imprecise reason. The lightening, the gallery space, all of this is circumstance, and most artists have opinions and carefully stage just for the viewer to walk in and it be where they wish.
ReplyDelete2) I am not sure Theater is separate from art. I propose performance art as a combination of both theater and the visual art, not to mention the many ways in which art is physically incorporated into theater. Perhaps Micheal and I are simply not working from the same definition.
ReplyDelete