“Flat” painting, word and thought
21
Nov
The new is built in dialogue with tradition, not the one that is closed and
impermeable, but the one that allows this dialogue for the greatness of its construction, which is the case of “flat” painting and on which one can build the future of as Jacques Rancière claims.
impermeable, but the one that allows this dialogue for the greatness of its construction, which is the case of “flat” painting and on which one can build the future of as Jacques Rancière claims.Rancière clarifies: “the surface claimed as media (médium) of pure painting is actually another medium (Rancière, 2003), so it can be understood that the media is nothing other than a medium, or what some areas of knowledge call it support, but media or mediums are more current words and refer to “new media”.
His criticism of Greenberg is because his formalism “wants to match intermediate (medium) and material, Kandinsky’s spiritualism, which makes him a spiritual milieu, are two ways of interpreting this disfigurement. Painting is flat as words change their function of relation to it. “(RANCIÉRE, 2003, page 88)
Rancière will give her a representative order, which she says is a “model or norm”, is something new, because if the word lacks subjectivity the painting seems to lack objectivity, even if this classical separation is idealistic, it exists and is almost a norm in modernity.
He develops his reasoning: “as poems, as profane or sacred history, they drew up the arrangement which the composition of the painting should translate.” (RANCIÉRE, idem)
Here the word is linked: “Jonathan Richardson recommended to the painter to write the story of the picture first, to see if it was worth painting” (idem), then there is the connection.
He explains that the aesthetic criticism that emerges from the romantic era is not normative, does not admit to saying what the picture should be, says only what the painter did, is the absolute idea realized.
But the misconception is “to articulate in a different way the relation of the sayable as the visible, the relation of the picture to that which it is not. It is to rephrase in another way the how of the ut pictura poesis, how art is visible, by which its practice coincides with looking and depends on a thought. “(RANCIÉRE, 203, ibid.)
And I would say almost conclude: “art has not disappeared. It has changed place and function “(idem), that is, one can not deny its relation to the thought and the eye, in which everyone agrees, but they do not agree that the”depends on the thought” and this depends on models and norms, ultimately ideals and ideologies .
