4 Answers

  1. The problem with all such constructions is that they try to give a cultural definition to cultural phenomena, inevitably sliding into a hollow of interchangeable terms, in the depths of which absolutely anything can be formulated with the same degree of success.

    Art doesn't work that way. Art doesn't consist of theories, it consists of actions. It happens at the moment when someone makes a work, opens an exhibition, writes a critical article, stands, looks. In this format of definitions, post-art is impossible just as post-viewing is impossible-simply because there is nothing post-eye in your eyes, username, and how do you even imagine this?

    In other words, all that can be asked here is whether a certain new paradigm, conventionally called such and such a word, is suitable in order to convincingly describe absolutely all the same things that humanity has been doing since the Upper Paleolithic period-simply because in the canons of Western civilization there is an exaggerated desire for the new (while the rest of the planet turned it on the dick-whack-whack!).

    At the same time, I do not seek to detract from art theory as a separate subgenre of both philosophy and criticism — it has given us a slightly more rigid foundation for a systematic study of what has happened over the past hundred and fifty years — but you need to realize that theory has never been ahead of practice.

    Malevich first wrote “Square” and then described it. Abstract expressionists first single-handedly created their own first post-war canon, and then Greenberg broke it into galleries. Nauman, land artists, and conceptualists could read Wittgenstein as much as they liked and position themselves against the market, media, and mass culture, but the point is always that the artist goes for aesthetics first, and then everything else. And the general obsession with the idea of the end of postmodernism suggests, first of all, that art is trying to break with another canon that it has grown up — the artificial proximity to the academy of the last half century.

    Not to mention the fact that in cases where artists refuse to become children of history during their lifetime, it simply adopts them posthumously. So all the philosophical ideas of the end of history — laugh first of all historians themselves. They had heard them many times before.

    As it is, yes, of course. To the bottom, and then. The only difference is that after postmodernism, most likely, there will be only two large subsections-non-dualism and paganism.

    “Post-art” will simply be one of the idols.

    I wouldn't worship him.

  2. Art as something created in a single instance has come to an end. Today, it is created by many, if not all. “All the best to you, …” – this vivid statement is not an art, but it is broader than this concept?

    Music, clothing, photos, memes. This is art.

  3. Right/wrong ,this is only at school (institute) they will say, from the position of omniscience. Justified or not – that's the question ,but to answer it, you need to understand from what premises the author comes, how he understands art and postmodernism, maybe then the question will be solved

  4. Wrong.

    How can what people on Earth devote their lives to on a daily basis end? There will always be art, and postmodernism began relatively recently, but it will end soon. All the most interesting things are ahead.

Leave a Reply