In her blog Kim states, “Art cannot be determined by theory if theory is determined by art because the argument becomes circular. An interesting problem with many of these art theories is that they are based on the art of their time. People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art. “
I think this is one of the main problems each philosopher comes across when delving into the creation of a new theory for art. Both concepts and art evolve with the passing of time, people grow in their abilities to understand and appreciate art, and new technologies allow for new possibilities in the creative processes of the Artworld. How, then, are we to sum up the entire Artworld in a single theory?
Kim continues, “It would be intriguing to see someone anticipate directions in which art might go within their theory rather than limiting it to what is already known. This would be very difficult to do but might result in a theory that better stands the test of time.” This is where I disagree. With so many different versions/forms of ‘art’, I don’t think it is even possible to come up with a single theory in order to understand and explain the Artworld. Clearly, as we’ve seen through inventions and the like, people can certainly “anticipate” where the Artworld may be in the next few decades; but, to know anything about a theory of the future that could “stand the test of time”? Seems like a daunting and near impossible task to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment