Yes on Aesthetics

This article was helpful to read because it gave me a better understanding on “dialogue,” and the skill of “inviting” certain critics, philosophers, theorists, etc. in to our papers for support. So, I felt that this reading was especially informative, as well as purposeful and practical.

I really thought that this dialogue tied in great with our conversations at the Cantor last week in the African Art gallery. How do you understand artifacts that are characteristic and representative of certain cultures when they are displayed in a typical art museum? Moxey addresses the monotonous of “cultural” art or artifact exhibitions at the Louvre and its attempt to display “art” from different countries and cultures. Artifacts, like we saw at the Cantor, are displayed behind glass, denying objects of their original, purposeful and specific values. Moxey writes that the art in the Louvre “were reduced to sameness by means of an exhibition policy that implied that they were somehow equivalent to each other.” (86) He does however note that the Louvre was and still is primarily dedicated to western European art, and their attempts to include more “global” art pieces and artifacts may be a new direction for not only the Louvre, but for many major art museums. With globalization, I find it particularly interesting that major museums such as the Louvre, are finding what seems to be a constant pressure to equally represent and display art from different cultures, countries, and genres. However, because older, more famous museums may be better known for displaying specific kinds of art, from say western Europe like the Louvre, they are suddenly faced with the challenge to “globalize.” This challenge causes haste, monotony, and incomplete representations of attempts to display cultural and global art that many museums are criticized for.

I was also really intrigued by the question, “What does aesthetics still mean for art history today?” I think aesthetics are still important for art history because they provide a basis in which to begin looking at art. Aesthetics can help to provide an artist’s intentions or response to an issue, or can serve as examples and models of how to execute techniques. From aesthetics, from the examination of the formal qualities and characteristics of a piece of art, narratives can form and from theses narratives theories can be applied. (This is one of the aspects I am hoping to touch upon in my paper- first, the act of looking at art, the formulation of a narrative in the mind, and then the mind’s ability to connect what it sees with the narrative derived from the work of art, and then ultimately, a piece of art’s ability to convey certain ideologies.) I do not think that art history or visual studies can transcend into a totally new discipline without recognition and taking into consideration, not just aesthetics, but the “old” art history all together. Art history is a discipline that stems from the past and that should not be forgotten. Cheetham says, “We must instill the sense that the past was different, but that our access to it, our writing of it, posits a connection to the present.” (83) It is the changes and interpretations from past ways of looking at art that has allowed present art historians to formulate theories and posit new ways of conceiving art today. So, yes on aesthetics.