Ideology in Art Historical Practice

I agree the Elkins article was much more simplied than the T.J. Clark article In Defense of Abstract Expressionism. I found it very interesting that Clark bridges the gap between contextualized thinking between Modernism and Postmodernism in Abstract Expressionsim. In the present era of Postmodernism, it seems that we should be ideologically explaining the social contexts of the work by definition of vulgariy in the sense of the "object's existence in a particular social world" as TJ Clark states.

So, I guess I am still wondering what TJ Clark specifically means by vulgar. Is he talking about people in ordinary society during the 1940s? Is he discussing the crudeness of the Abstract Expressionist painters? I think Clark is talking about vulgar in terms of bourgeois taste ideologically against the vulgar of Abstract Expressionism in favor of the aesthetic and "popular" art of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it appears that during the time periods of the Abstract Expressionist's acclaim, the ideology of social classes was not in a vulgar state and Abstract Expressionism allowed bougeoise society to claim its individuality in a time when there was search for elite status. I am looking forward to hearing what people have to say about this as I have been going in circles. Just writing this response makes my head hurt:).

As for Elkins, I enjoyed reading his approach to the five theories discussing the origins of Modernism. The first approach of Modernism Begins in the Renaissance. Elkins points to two writings; one that looks at the Renaissance as the beginning of visual culture with interest from popular socieity (Postmodernistic) and the other being that Renaissance art progression resulted in the 20th century avant-garde (Modernism). And the formal aesthetics vs. social contexts seem to be in constant debate in all of the theories. In the concluding, Elkins goes into great depth in terms of Clement Greenberg's notoriety in some parts of the world and lacks notoriety in other parts. In essense, Elkins claims that Greenberg was a proponent of art being defined as the formal aesthetic elements of a canvas (Greenberg though paintings was the only true art of Western culture) to self-referentiality to the artist. It is clear that Greenberg is a critic that is against social history's relationship to art. However, Greenberg's theory remains most prevalent because of his defining Modernism as avant-garde. However, as Elkins points out, it is presently hard to define contemporary artists work by its formal qualities. The New New Painters have similar formal qualities to the AE. However, if we only look at formal qualities, then we can say nothing that separates their work from the AE and this is a curse of Greenbergian theory. Elkin's definitely seems to argue in favor of looking at art from the ideology of the ruling social class in order to better separate and define meaning for a group of artists.

Looking forward to seeing everyone later!