I find this quote to be true, simply because at my high school we were never taught about the aids crisis. I learned about it on my own through artists like Keith Haring. I find it interesting that the aids crisis maybe unintentionally (though my own skepticism makes me doubt it) is still a subject that is not taught in schools as a cover up/distancing from the powers at large.

I personally believe were on the breaking point of this problem. With social media you can find your own niche aesthetic and each group of people will then decide amongst themselves what is significant or not. This also allows these artist groups to find each other fairly easily and create their own institutions. It can also be noted that you can kind of see this change of discovery just from the BFA classes every year. For the most part the art is drastically different and each persons aesthetic mimics a culture or artistic direction that said artist appreciates regardless that we all share the same handful of professors and sort of tiny bubble environment. Yes we may have all came from drastically different environments and experiences. But, with the internet we get to discover and dive way deeper into the things we appreciate with a greater ease.

This sentance reminds me of a exhibition I saw at the ICA in Philadelphia by William J Pope in 2014 where bologna was used as a medium ?

https://hyperallergic.com/143477/deconstructing-an-artists-dubious-claim/

in my opinion art will always be a mode of cultural discourse wether intentional or not. Even if art is deliberately trying to separate itself from the culture its surrounded by then that is an inadvertent commentary of said culture.

a long complaint

The quote “from the 1960’s and the second from the 1990’s it is quite clear that the criteria for judging or even comprehending, them as art are quite different…. To approach Kabakovs installation or Douglas’s video with the criteria used my formalist critics in the 1960’s to evaluate Nolad or olitskis paintings would be to invite either incomprehension or rejection of them as significant works of visual art.” This passage makes me reflect on the unnessesary, frustrating and over powered the role of the critic is and was. I believe art is made for your own self or who you choose it to be toward if so be it . If you make art so critics will love it and you will sell a lot of it, great. But why should art that isn’t directed for a critics approval be denounced and forgotten ?

Ok so I just wrote a bunch of notes while reading along and here they are: “What has not been taken into account by this view, however is the social position of the older modernism… its passionate repudiation by an older Victorian and post-victorian bourgeoisie for whom its forms and ethos are received as being variously ugly, dissonant , etc.. “anti-social”” The anti social part of that sentence is what struck me the most. some people make art for sale and I would think a factor of contemporary art is instead of making art for a profit, contemporaries are making art for arts sake.

“Yet American postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world” I think this is just a dramatic metaphor but it reminds me of Jenny holzer’s exhibition that is in massmoca currently https://massmoca.org/jenny-holzer/

What is Sartrean irony page 5

The chart with Van Gogh and Warhol on either sides is also very confusing.

It seems like he brought this up to separate his knowledge on architecture even further from then the everyday viewer that he is talking about.

so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.