JUCHTMANS JUS: BIPOLAR
NIEVES FERNÁNDEZ GALLERY: from 28.04.1911
If you study, so no deep history of contemporary art, you realize, we just have to do their part, the bulk of desartización processes have been focused on just the body or problematize sense has always menso presumably had-to-the lead in this art: the look.
And, if anything has marked the comings and goings in the history of art is the gradual and increasingly clear denigration of sight. As stated by Martin Jay , if anything characterizes the twentieth century is just a hostility toward her, toward the eye.
Since the early avant-garde, the epistemological premise with which to carry out its plan of subversion was posing questions and radicalization by merely looking. Malevich to the head, but also and obviously Cubism, Futurism, plasticimso, etc.
pulling the thread arrived at a time, ours, in which one of the aesthetics of the most powerful resistance is that which is understood as art-blindness, as the art of nullifying the very thing that should in principle be given to the view. Along with that is the whole art of the loss and trauma, the return to the real and recorded by Hal Foster : if the paradox of this not-seeing is that it can not be eliminated altogether, art seems to just be the perfect strategy to get closer to what I could not touch: the Lacanian Real. Eschatological aesthetics of remembrance / regression of children, those who gloss trauma, Teddy would say Castro Flórez, are all aesthetic, in the words of Foster, have dared to tear the screen sieve separated us from the real.
But not to go too far from the topic at hand, if at some point this denigration of the gaze took citizenship card from a theoretical point of view was undoubtedly from the thoughts of Benjamin around the reproducibility technical sense of there knowing a conceptual bond with the political problems in which we still muddy-and without too many overtones of solution, it must be said. According to him, art reproduction brings a new role for art that was annulled and the concept of aura which was based on the entire social fabric of art, is supported within hours of a political function.
The technique, which encourages infinite reproducibility, refers to novel strategies for the artistic from the beginning that are subject to the process of formation and construction of the collective imagination. In this regard, the unconscious optical model is that precisely by the political forces, is what escapes the vision and is therefore subject to various disciplinary regimes. In the words of Benjamin , "What is atrophy in the era of technical reproduction of a work of art is its aura" that is, the look, the premise of the durability of memory as a priori from where the file is built means a society, a culture. From then until Rancière and his thesis according to which all aesthetic regime refers to a particular way of relating the visible, the speakable possible and there is only a small step.
In other words, the separation that operates Freud between unconscious and conscious, Benjamin moved to the problematic view / no-see-dialectic is very dear to art as as we have maintained, is based on many of the processes desartización.
Within this small geneaología we have tried to draw a line rather thick, and attached to the artistic strategies that have emerged in the career, it seems that minimalism is a rarity within the coordinates in which we have moved. For the minimalist, sustained For example in Case LeWitt that what exists is what you see, it seems to be contrary.
But, however, the reality is quite different. Who even today, after which represents a whopping distance of nearly fifty years, argue that minimalism is that movement sterile, unchanging, concerned about the lines and look safe, it is quite confused.
Minimalism is on one hand the formal culmination of modernity but also a reflection on perception and production. If you do not want to make it a series of motifs, which are absolute, minimalism can not be understood as a reductive idealism concerned with deal with the collection of pure forms, but must be understood as a movement capable of breaking the transcendental space to place the viewer in a 'here and now concrete and that suddenly becomes a perception of the work that can be redefined in terms of place and time. Isolating
one hand, the purpose and, secondly, their understanding of contextualization specifying directly with the surrounding space, minimalism will highlight the epistemological and perceptual conditions of the work of art. The difference therefore between considered art or decoration lies in that extra negativity that he carries within him.
But his most radical position is the one that's taken as a move that breaks with the mean mode until then prevailing, which is given as mediated by the intention of a more or less ideological. This is precisely where it carries out its specific negativity. If the mean ideological production was typical of pre-industrial, now sets the stage for a dislocation of the same parameters of significance. It does so by questioning the viewer's perception and expression of the artist. That is, the phenomenology that is meant minimal problematizes as going hand in hand with new modes of signification. This now seems clearer correspondence between minimalism and processes on the table before the problematization of the eye.
In this represents a further step which conceptualism: focusing on the perception can deploy a negativity as questioning the social processes of meaning, while, conversely, conceptualism, going directly to the concept, can not refer only to processes of meaning based on the same structures in the language of art, but not the social cause.
The minimal, on the other hand, renew certain tenets of art and makes self-conscious. Hence it is inferred as an attack involving an art institutions and well conformed. What Dada was noted, but still not got the time not yet fully institutionalized art, minimal succeeds. It was just beyond the limits of a new objectivity posited by the areas of institutionalized art (with Greenberg to mind) how did the coup minimal effect, apparently without going through established channels, go to the other side: the the effectuation of its negativity.
Because it was only in the movement to bypass the limits to appeal to a return of form if you like, in an excess of zeal, as minimalism was able to problematize the processes of perception and meaning. Thus, minimalism, as stated in the hypothesis that has depth, perhaps, it must be said, because it's true, "emerges as a counterpart to the already decadent Greenbergian cutting criticism, and comes just as a contraefectuación not all the primates in that theory rested to remove, but in a strictly implement the guidelines. Therefore, appealing to the radical return to figuration that the time claimed was as minimal, running the line at the back, managed to explore artistically as negativity.
Ultimately, Minimalism, far from being reduced to the perfection of form, a reduction to almost zero of the primates and emotional subjectivism more sentimental art, it insert in the thick of the movement who saw the need, and urgent at the time, to problematize the ideological and political structures of production, display and obviously the look. In this regard, minimalism and pop art, far from wanting to see them even as their contraréplica perfect have to go hand in hand with the realization that if something had clear that we had to emphasize was the social cause of the work. Just by the mere act of introducing the work in the processes of mass production and mass consumption, as both movements was prepared to give a further twist in the objectifying process of unleashing the artwork and art negativity specific post-industrial era.
That said, and going and finally to the heart of the matter, the paintings of Jus Juchtmans redirects epistemological and perceptual primates to minimalism, in conjunction with the problematization and paint almost eternal, continuing research the terms of the look and the act of seeing.
His paintings, apparently monochrome, refer to the plausibility of a look that, in contemplation, discovers new effects, new colors that invite you to go beyond the canvas to go further. On a surface, as we say monochrome Juchtmans compulsively repeated up to thirty-times-the pictorial gesture back to cover the canvas painting. Layers of colors with different shades even come to result in an area where the gaze is lost in different textures and unexpected colors.
always, as stated above, a something beyond the eye, always look to see what is not-ve. The negativity of the art, once again, moving to the beat of vision obstructed or non-viewing permitted. The aesthetics course of his work must certainly give way to thoughts that have looked at the problem of discursive its axis. Otherwise we would be reducing the work to be simple thing, a mere look psicologicista, and we would be committing the same outrage committed against minimalism.
may no longer be plausible a transcendence to appeal to as Malevich could do, maybe not such strategies are so new and overwhelming as it may be for LeWitt and Stella , but certainly the problematization the look is still the center of discourse on which to draw desartización processes that articulate the history of eart d concpeto in its entirety. Only then can Adorno, and it concluded, ruling that "the poles of the desartización is that the artwork becomes a thing and a vehicle of the psychology of the beholder."
0 comments:
Post a Comment