Jonsuit

Theories and documents of contemporary art by Kristine Stiles (Author), Peter Selz (Author), and also the Whitechapel Documents of contemporary art series are both good compilations. The Whitechapel books are very specific, titles like: the object, systems, ethics, memory.. etc.

Hang in there! This is my first time around, applied to 5 schools and havent heard a peep from one. I would imagine this is a hectic and chaotic time on their end too, that they deal with every year. (So they surely aren't as eager as we are) Best of luck!

I applied and was accepted for New American Paintings - South...

Has anyone heard back from Hogwarts yet? (fingers crossed)

Also waiting... I haven't had any rejections.. but also no good news. I feel like checking in here is like a moment of weakness... a bit like staring at a car crash lol I have continued my work and feel much better during the wait while I am busy with it. I do not plan to change anything about my work based on rejections, but would likely search for schools that might be a better fit next go round, or re-evaluate the context of the work and writing.

You may already be familiar with this, but I just read it through and thought it fit well with this discussion. Participation and Spectacle: Where Are We Now? - Claire Bishop 2011 Apparently there is a video too.. I haven't watched it yet though. Regards!

Absolutely, the discussion is a welcome exercise! The statement "... theory tacked on to work for the purposes of legitimation, works against its emancipatory potential, and with oppressive regimes of capital." is both energetic and lovely. I certainly agree that art and life are integral, but not art and politics, or art and the environment, or art and ethics etc. Of course, all of these things are part of life, and are valid for an artist to address, but that output is only an indicator of sentiment. I don't think it is, in essence, an emancipatory tool, per se. In the event that it becomes a "tool" then it is degraded into propaganda (regardless of moral stance), this likely happens when, as you've said, "theory (is) tacked on to the work for the purpose of ligitimation...". I agree that the fashionably indeterminate work of contemporary art is stale. I also agree with you that art has a lot to offer, but I would be wholly disheartened to think of art as a mere "awareness campaign". I am not a theorist, but I think there is much for art to explore in terms of interpersonal and internal human experiences. I think it can do a lot with themes of humanity, ceremony, life/death, identity, community, and generally the individual experience. However, for as much as art is in fact a barometer, the prevalence of indeterminate works of art is a direct reflection of the contemporary culture, as much as it is any "oppressive regime". It seems that the idea "Art" has been over-inflated and misused to such a degree that there exists an erroneous belief that its primary or essential function is bearing influence on over-arching social/political opinions and actions. You asked; "Discourse and theory have been important emancipatory tools, but we seem to be caught in some kind of endless loop (or rut) where discourse and theory just feed the systems that hold us under their sway - Are they still the best tools - on their own? What others do we need? What else can we do? I may be digressing but would ask; is the making/doing of art-like things more existential or political; is art a tool or a practice? What about viewing/participating/experiencing? If discourse and theory are tools (which I agree they are), how are they used? How do they reflect and influence the doing portions of art?

Please bare with me as I try to keep pace. I understand you to say: 1. We as individual "artists" are seemingly caught in ineffectual discourse, and are held by the influence of a system(s) which prizes ambiguity and, I infer, also promotes a dominant social order that continues to be compellingly criticized. and 2. The humanities (broadly) have a responsibility/obligation to to address/influence social, political, and ethical crises. I understand your question to be: By what means can "art" improve it's stance in dismantling said system, beyond discourse and theory? I am confused by your rejection of the term "ideology". I would say that ideology is the basis for behavioral choice. To take (maybe unwarranted) liberty; I feel you are describing a discontentment with the status of the agreeably inflated, and unjustified market for fine art, particularly visual art. It seems as though you are also bothered that it is not having the political/social impact you believe it should have. Respectfully, if this is the case, I would again differ to history. At what point is it that "art" came to be perceived as an instrument of political/social change, and at that, was it ever really effective? Is it possible that the perception of art as a social barometer or catalyst of sorts was not a political result of that same sway holding system? My understanding is that art throughout civilized history has been closely entwined with the patronage of wealth, and though the Damien Hurst, Wade Guyton, Jeff Koons crowd is producing particularly inane work, their "products" are status symbols for the wealthy. Funny story..... I was wandering through our little American art museum here in Arkansas and there is a large Warhol painting/print called Hammer and Sickle. I approach as two ladies are passing by. They are maybe in their late 60's or early 70's, aged enough to fully grasp post WWII U.S. political sentiment. Concerning the image, one says to the other "oh no, this is far too communist for me". The other, agreeing, turns to move on, but glances down at the label as they pass. She stops abruptly and turns to the first saying "wait, it's an Andy Warhol, we'd better get a picture."

Smart! And here I was thinking of puff-paint on playing cards...

Beriredux, This is a great prompt. The phrase "genre of contemporary art" does seem apt. I am interested in taking up your discussion, however addressing the distinction between terms like "representation, contemporary art, and art" would necessarily be exhaustive (if not unending), but that's not to say that it wouldn't be worth the while! What I do find interesting in your statements though is the implicit idea of an administrative structure. Who is responsible for perpetuating the "genre of contemporary art"? How do we comprehend the entity that might potentially be moved from a "rut of indeterminacy"? How is that structure identified? Is it the majority of works being produced, the work shown by the most well-known galleries, the newest work with the highest price tag, the table of contents in Art Forum??? Is is all of that and more? If so, (and this is what I assume you mean by a "political" move") it seems like you have already given a satisfactory answer. The one (kind of) stabilizing factor for the production of artists, critics, historians, gallerists, and so on is the higher education system, and like any change of ideology you have to re-examine the accepted history and adjust your view. The question is how far back do you go to begin re-writing??

As the deadlines get closer my self-doubt only grows! ....it's not too late too late to paint 20 new, right.... ? ......