The history of Post-Object art can be dated from about 1966. The term
Post-Object describes two classes of art activity: Post-Minimal and Conceptual.
Post-Minimal art (ie. Earthworks, Bodyworks, Process, and Systems art)
derives from the phenomenological interests of some of the major Minimalist
figures (ie. Morris, Andre, leWitt, and Smithson). Conceptual art, stringently
defined, entails the use of word language to state artistic intentions.
By 1969, many of the more progressive Conceptualists in America and England
became associated with the "Art & Language group" (hereafter cited as A & L).
This group published Art-Language--The Journal of Conceptual Art.
An analysis of A & L has had to deal with various historiographical
problems. These include: the lack of historical perspective; the failure
of contemporary art writers to produce a sensible critical-historical framework;
the unintelligibility of A & L writings.
This study refers to the art-works and articles produced by the members
of Art-Language's editorial board (ie. Atkinson, Bainbridge, Baldwin,
Hurrell, Kosuth, Burn and Ramsden, and Harrison. The discourse that was
carried on by these eight individuals is analyzed with reference to a four
phase developmental model: "early" (c.1966-8); "insular" (c.1969-70);
"transitional" (c.l970-1); and "pluralistic" (c.1972-3).
A & L contended that the condition of Post-Object art enabled art
theory and art criticism, as well as art-object production, to be viewed as
art-making. In order to understand this notion, one must be first acquainted
with the relationship between Post-Object art and Modernist art. In the
course of its historical development, Modernist art shifted the creative
(ie. active, central) sector of art-making from the role of object maker to
the role of critic. The Modernist conception of art is a highly self-referential one. Post-Object art, in particular A & L, developed this insular
conception of art to its ultimate conclusion.
In this sense, A & L's "early" work with theoretical art-objects and
theoretical frameworks is discussed in the context of both traditional art-making,
and Post-Object art-making. Then, A & L's position vis-a-vis Post-
Object art is clarified with reference to the criticisms that the group levelled
at this wider community. These criticisms are interpreted historically
as polemical writings which served to establish A & L's priority within
the Post-Object domain, and prepare the ground for the subsequent production of a general Post-Object theory of art.
The group was familiar with the methodology of Analytical philosophy
and sought to employ this knowledge to construct a rational "art-language".
This notion was developed in the "insular" phase according to a positivistic
viewpoint that was originally suggested by Kosuth. In the course of this
programme though, difficulties were incurred and the group was forced to
gradually relativize Its viewpoint.
During 1970 and 1971 (ie."transitional" phase), A & L's inquiry shifted
from Its self-referential position towards an analysis of the dominant force.
in contemporary art--Modernism. The group felt that Modernism could be effectively
described with reference to Richard Wollheim's 'Physicalist" theory.
They further suggested that Modernism could be interpreted as a reductive
extensional logic based on Wollheim's Physicalist principle. Wollheim suggests
that a Physicalist theory coordinates the entire development of Modern
art history. In response to this contention, A & L used. T.S. Kuhn's
theory of Paradigms(developed for the History and Philosophy of Science) to
characterize Modernism as the established sector of a wider "Material-Character/
Physical-Object Paradigm of art.
In 1972 and 1973 (ie. "pluralistic" phase), A & L became conscious of
contemporary developments in Linguistic philosophy, and accordingly accepted
"contextual analysis", or "pluralism", as "their viewpoint". This analytical
stance enabled them to investigate the Material-Character/Physical-Object
Paradigm in the context of contemporary culture. This investigation revealed
the ideological background of this paradigm, and outlined some of the reasons
why this phenomenon had become entrenched in the contemporary art community. / Arts, Faculty of / Art History, Visual Art and Theory, Department of / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UBC/oai:circle.library.ubc.ca:2429/41950 |
| Date | January 1976 |
| Creators | Mitchell, David Brian |
| Publisher | University of British Columbia |
| Source Sets | University of British Columbia |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis/Dissertation |
| Rights | For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use. |
Page generated in 0.0116 seconds