First off, composition, in my understanding of it, is the bringing together of elements to form a whole. That means that bringing together elements from other compositions in a remixed whole still constitutes composition.
Second, even if one sees this as a remix (if one were to see that as dismissable), it is a remix acting as a canvas on which invention was enacted. The artist painted on the goat as well as on the canvas (literal) as well as on the wood & tire, etc.
Finally, for invent-ness, I give it proper due (because somehow its "props" is the only thing that came to mind). I think that there is a dimensionality that is created in the composing and therefore and inventiveness to the composition.
But the caveat to all of that, I suppose, is my early definition of composing. Bringing elements together rather signals a materiality to the process. I am not certain internal composition is, per se. But this brings me back to our discussions of internal rhetoric and internal knowledge, as well.
I like the defiance and critique of conventions that this work exhibits. It's something I think we should be teaching to our composition students. Invention, the generating of new ideas in response to the accepted ones circulating in the social milieu, must embody some of this defiance in order to truly be invention, I think. And it reminds me of something Henry Jenkins said in an article called "From YouTube to YouNiversity": "A networked culture is enabling a new form of bottom-up power, as diverse groups of dispersed people pool their expertise and confront problems that are much more complex than they could handle individually [...]. At such a moment, we need to move beyond preparing our students for future roles as media scholars, wrapped up in their own disciplinary discourses, and instead encourage them to acquire skills and experiences as public intellectuals, sharing their insights with a larger public from wherever they happen to be situated. They need to be taught how to translate the often challenging formulations of academic theory into a more public discourse." It kind of seems like that's what Rauschenberg's art is doing - translating the often challenging formulations of formal art theory into a more public discourse. Cool :).
Well- it gets into modes of thinking-- like an orientation, on a map-- or habitual ways of approaching a situation. Re-purposing. As an ethos-- what does this stem from, if it becomes a norm- is it epistemic? Like what scrounging occurs in a time-period of famine? So--is it historiographic? Iconoclastic-- meaning political in intent; is it critiquing the king? Trying to foment revolution. And then-- there is the Intentional Fallacy-- can art be understood by dissecting motive? All of this... Duchamp's re-purposing was design by contradiction or extension. What about the absurd?
Speaking of materiality, here is a review of
It has implications for composition as I see it:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, composition, in my understanding of it, is the bringing together of elements to form a whole. That means that bringing together elements from other compositions in a remixed whole still constitutes composition.
Second, even if one sees this as a remix (if one were to see that as dismissable), it is a remix acting as a canvas on which invention was enacted. The artist painted on the goat as well as on the canvas (literal) as well as on the wood & tire, etc.
Finally, for invent-ness, I give it proper due (because somehow its "props" is the only thing that came to mind). I think that there is a dimensionality that is created in the composing and therefore and inventiveness to the composition.
But the caveat to all of that, I suppose, is my early definition of composing. Bringing elements together rather signals a materiality to the process. I am not certain internal composition is, per se. But this brings me back to our discussions of internal rhetoric and internal knowledge, as well.
Makes sense. I especially like your quote *invention was enacted*. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI like the defiance and critique of conventions that this work exhibits. It's something I think we should be teaching to our composition students. Invention, the generating of new ideas in response to the accepted ones circulating in the social milieu, must embody some of this defiance in order to truly be invention, I think. And it reminds me of something Henry Jenkins said in an article called "From YouTube to YouNiversity":
ReplyDelete"A networked culture is enabling a new form of bottom-up power, as diverse groups of dispersed people pool their expertise and confront problems that are much more complex than they could handle individually [...]. At such a moment, we need to move beyond preparing our students for future roles as media scholars, wrapped up in their own disciplinary discourses, and instead encourage them to acquire skills and experiences as public intellectuals, sharing their insights with a larger public from wherever they happen to be situated. They need to be taught how to translate the often challenging formulations of academic theory into a more public discourse."
It kind of seems like that's what Rauschenberg's art is doing - translating the often challenging formulations of formal art theory into a more public discourse. Cool :).
Well- it gets into modes of thinking-- like an orientation, on a map-- or habitual ways of approaching a situation. Re-purposing. As an ethos-- what does this stem from, if it becomes a norm- is it epistemic? Like what scrounging occurs in a time-period of famine? So--is it historiographic? Iconoclastic-- meaning political in intent; is it critiquing the king? Trying to foment revolution. And then-- there is the Intentional Fallacy-- can art be understood by dissecting motive? All of this... Duchamp's re-purposing was design by contradiction or extension. What about the absurd?
ReplyDelete