Relational Aesthetics

Confession : I am not sure who took out relation aesthetics after me, but I am solely responsible for the pencil markings in the first half of the book; and it was the reason for the $18 dollar hold on my account which held up my registration for the class. Anyhow...

I would like to attribute the lack of "ism" to the deconstruction period of the late 60s: The Negative notion of the "ism"

"Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance" (lennon 196)

and then, a further popular culture anti-ism follow up :

"Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. " (bueller 1986)


well, koo koo kachoo.

the negative associations with the "ism" Fascism, Racism, superseded those such as feminism (although a third wave perspective could call it negative), and conceptualism. To make a long story short the basic idea is that lables got a bad wrap - critics stopped using them so much - let alone started making them up themselves...

While, I should be upfront with the fact that I do NOT agree with the term itself "Relational Aesthetics", I appreciate the idea of A term. I say this because the "termless" nature of postmodern (as well as contemporary criticism); it has been mostly a wash when it comes down to actually categorizing things. One aspect of art that I find particularly troubled by this, lack of, or rather, i should say this resistance of nomenclature is sculptural field. I am not alone in this opinion, (i quote Johanna Burton in saying) the past 2 year there have been twenty or so shows dealing with the notion of "what is sculpture" and i think this is directly related to terminology. Any how, back to Relation Aesthetics

Thoughts on Lewis' Rules:

1. A NEW "ISM" MUST DEVELOP FROM AN OLD "ISM"
- i really do not agree, impressionism didnt start from an "ism" nor did art neovea or de stijl, bauhaus, and movements from them could be "isms"

2. A NEW "ISM" IS A NEW OF THINKING ABOUT ART
-vague but fine.

3. ARTISTS OF AN "ISM" MUST HANG OUT TOGETHER
-okay fine, no real issues there, if not hang out, at least communicate (note dada was happened in France, New York etc)

4. AN "ISM" IS CREATED BY AN ART CRITIC
- i dont think it HAS to be, but its a trend

5 ANY "ISM" HAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SUB-SPECIES
-Lewis had examples although, not terribly relevant

6.AT FIRST PEOPLE MUST THINK AN "ISM" IS NOT ART
-not in all cases : but it should be significantly progressive

7.A NEW ERA LEADS TO A NEW "ISM"
not a must, but seems to be a trend (similar to 4)

8. A NEW "ISM" MUST HAVE A LANDMARK EXHIBITION
-institutionalized validity okay.