About two
weeks ago, McKenzi briefly mentioned the Eurocentricism present in our
discussion of popular works of art; the reading by Lyotard summoned to
mind that conversation, and provided some interesting parallels and
explanations for this occurrence.
His critique of realism in particular can be read as a
criticism of refusing to see the “question of reality implicated in that of
art” (Lyotard 3) and adhering to rules that are unspoken, understood, and
accepted. These rules, in my opinion, can be read as the rules of a culture
that has a universalized (hegemonic) standard of reality and its accepted
signifiers. Lyotard implies that both of these concepts have a strong
correlation to the influence of money and capital: “[In] in the absence of
aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works
of art according to the profits they yield. Such realism accommodates all
tendencies, just as capital accommodates all ‘needs,’ providing that the
tendencies and needs have purchasing power” (Lyotard 3). Realism’s
accommodation of “needs” that have purchasing power can be alternatively read
as the art form as pandering to the group
that has historically had the most purchasing power: white Europeans and
Americans. Industrialism and globalization accommodate the wealthiest
demographic’s needs over all others in the same way that a majority of popular
and widely discussed art has tended to come from European artists. He critiques
the public’s interpretation of art as “well made” only when they can understand
through their own experience, calling it “narrowly sociologizing and
historicizing–in other words, one sided” (Lyotard 3).
In the end, I really enjoyed this reading.
Lyotard’s final statement once again reflects his belief in challenging the notion
of a single, Eurocentric reality, and the depiction in all work of a
pluralistic existence. The last words even resonate as the type of battle cry one might read
in the conclusion of an essay on the importance of postmodern feminist theory: “The answer is: let us
wage a war on totality… let us activate the differences and save the honor of
the name” (Lyotard 6).
Reading your post reminded me of what Chris mentioned the earlier last week about the Walter Benjamin essay — art is art as long as it can be commercialised. I think it is interesting that you bring up the group that holds the purchasing power, as opposed to only looking at the ability itself. Eurocentricism is particularly strong in the realm of art; I don't see as much art that I am familiar with or have been exposed to. Asian art is certainly very different from European art, and each is beautiful in their own ways — however, the popularity of the latter form outweighs the former. In essence, would the party with the most purchasing power — white Europeans and Americans — effectively be the party that assumes what is realism and what is avant garde?
ReplyDeleteLyotard suggests that there exists a party that "requests, selects, and propagates... ['correct' images, narratives, and forms] as the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression that public experiences" (Lyotard 3). Would the party then decide what is beautiful and what is not? Seemingly, it appears that the purchasing power of a party is somehow correlated to its political power in the art field. Taking this into consideration, it then points towards the fact that indeed, art is only art when it can be commercialised — the higher the number is on an artwork's price tag, the more it is seen as an object of high culture. How sad is it that capitalism runs every world?