A fun read, even if neither party seemed to think that the art/propaganda distinction holds water. (Me neither!) Unless we're going to dismiss effectively all of Western fine art made between the 16th and 18th centuries, when "Art" ceased to function magically or ritualistically and became the purview of social and religious elites, concerned with presenting themselves and their regimes in a positive light, it's obvious that works with propagandistic (rhetorical, persuasive) intent can be great works of art.
What's interesting about the framing of the question is that the dialogue arrives at a more or less explicit definition of propaganda (ideologically motivated, rhetorical, made with a specific audience in mind...), but doesn't even begin to imply a definition for art or any criteria by which to judge whether or not something is, indeed, a work of art (a much thornier queston that Blake dealt with admirably in his recent essay in the Brooklyn Rail).
My take: None of the works presented are propaganda OR art! Two mediocre paintings, one uninteresting print, and one photograph of an art historically-relevant found object (though, it's worth asking whether the artwork presented as Duchamp's is indeed Fountain, the found object, which was lost and, I'm inclined to say, therefore can't be judged as an artwork since it can't be experienced in person, or whether it's a photo by Steiglitz, in which case I'd be more inclined to call it (the photograph) art).
Nice response, Anna ... but once again I'll insist that there is no way to say whether something "is" propaganda or "is" art. An artifact (including all "Old Master" works) FUNCTION as art WHEN (when, when, when!) they are used discursively. They function as propaganda when they are USED to effect political results. And, crucially, any artifact at all, including mediocre paintings and a urinal -- whether real or in a photo -- can be used as either art or propaganga, as need arises.
Yes, yes—ultimately, metaphysically, I think that's right. I've read Goodman, and I find your articulation of a discursive theory of art quite compelling. Any thing, object or photograph, can be *used* as propaganda or treated as an artwork. The Rembrandt painting can be used as a blanket, in which case it is not being used as art. Judgments about its value as art are useless, nonsense, if you're freezing to death.
But most of the time we are not freezing to death when we encounter a Rembrandt painting. Practically, humanly, I hesitate to accept so flexible a picture of use and function because I think it can be a convenient way to avoid speaking from *within* a discourse. Different discourses, or forms of life, to use a Wittgensteinian term, bind us, restricting possible usages. These conventional restrictions allow communication to be possible. Of course, new usages or taboos on usages can change the limits of the discourse.
In a time when anything *can* be art—that is, when art is free from conventional criteria, making discourse/communication about art problematic—hence, the glut of mediocre art and art criticism—in such a time, we are free, from within that discourse, to claim that certain things are not (ought not to be used as) art. Claims that something is or isn't art, are claims about what the discursive limits of the form of life that sees art as important *ought* to be.
An art claim is a subjective claim to universality, about a world we share or could. It is felt to be true by the judging subject, but is nonetheless ungrounded and ungroundable. For discourse to happen, the interlocutors needs to be committed to the conversation. And often commitment comes in the form of value judgments about what counts as something.
I agree with you that there will be objects seen as typically "art-ready," and others that are more far-fetched as subjects to be art-ed. But all of those are certainly just as commonly, or maybe more commonly, used to other ends. For instance, as you yourself said, to present commissioning elites "and their regimes in a positive light" -- or just as investment vehicles. So I can't see that a discursive use of an artifact, even as its most classic use, goes far in restricting other uses. It is more likely to encourage them!One important conclusion I've come to recently: While my discursive theory is important for a definition of art (IMHO) it makes no claims about quality judgments between works of art. Those will be made quite locally, withing a community, as it works through some particular corner of the discursive "field." And within that corner -- say, a debate about formalism -- there will be a great deal of commitment to its issues and premises (about what is worthwhile art, or not -- thereby excluding a urinal, for instance) despite the fact that the larger category of art is unbounded.
4 points for your persuasive argument characterizing these works as neither propaganda nor art. 1 point reduction though for interpreting the Prop Quiz as "is it propaganda or art?" rather than "is it propaganda or not?" (Which is Blake's fault, really, if we're being honest.) 3 points awarded. AG: 3
Touché! But the implicit presumption is that they are all already works of art, since it is an *art* criticism publication... which should give me the freedom to judge that they're not.
Threeché! Tbh, as the unchecked authoritarian, it makes me nervous that you're determining the freedoms of the Prop Quiz. I may hafta depoly my own propaganda in order to stifle this uprising. Proof of life pics from a hospital bed perhaps?
A minor point of correction: Trotsky was not murdered in Kahlo's home, as CVF claims. He was rather murdered in his own home.
Now for a point of contention: Warhol's own intention or lack thereof in remaking the image of Mao cannot be the defining criterion for deciding whether the work is propaganda. This seems to me the least interesting and important part of the problem.
My bad! You couldn’t be more right about that, re AW’s intentions. I hold that the Intentional Fallacy is chief among all art-historical fallacies.
BUT, Warhol is a member of the work’s audience who might have USED the Mao as propaganda … but didn’t. Ditto anyone else one might mention! If, as I argue, propaganda is a USE of an artifact, not an essential feature of it, then the Mao can only count as propaganda if used as that!
Mr. CVF is possessed of what I would often tell my students to look for in aesthetic criticism: a tin-eye. Either he hasn't actually seen the Sargent in person or he didn't take the time to actually look at it. The horror of Sargent's image is contained in the bottom left, far distance of the piece, where off duty soldiers are playing soccer either "blindly" oblivious to the suffering in the foreground or deliberate in their ignoring it. Like all Sargent's it is masterfully painted. economic in palette (essentially the colors of camouflage), beautifully drawn, and subtle rather than bombastic in mission. It harkens back to the sermonizing of Breughel without the liturgical overtones. It is a piece of propaganda in support of humanity, dignity, and moral justice.
As for Kahlo, I find this painting not unlike the rest of her oeuvre, primarily intended as an instrument of self promotion. As badly crafted as it is it does not stand apart, for me, from the bulk of her work in its execution.
The Warhol is just another, in a long line, of his execrable self indulgences. He could always count on some desperate scribe to dress it up in wordy analysis to elevate its purpose. I find myself in alignment with Robert Hughes in finding Warhol both shallow and dispensable.
Thanks for taking the trouble to comment, Chris. But I'd just say, re the Sargent that every painting offers both access to a gestalt and to its details, and those can be taken separately, and can be either in harmony or in conflict. I'd say my pal CVF is attending to a gestalt he finds troubling; you, with equal cogency, are attending to the painting as a congeries of details.
And as for the Warhol ... one of the easiest pitfalls of criticism is to simply write-off the pleasures and interest that others find in a work you happen not to like. (And "liking" is the very least important aspect of any good art-talk.) Many extremely smart people (and less-smart ones, like me) have spent years finding deep pleasure and insight in Warhol's work, and I don't think that can be written off as mere "wordy analysis to elevate its purpose," as though there's something almost suspect in their "elevation." What would your deprecation of Warhol be, if you gave more reasons for it (which you'd have to do, for it to be taken seriously) but another kind of "wordy analysis"? Extended analysis may in fact be at the very deepest root of the strange artifacts we in the West use as "Fine Art" -- as I argue in my recent piece on the Brooklyn Rail!
I would hesitate to give Warhol the same effort you so nobly did to Duchamp. In general I tend to thing Warhol provides us the same discursive affordances in his work that he found necessary to address in his time. Warhol was a very gifted and clever illustrator, no less than Philip Pearlstein told me he left Carnegie with the single best student portfolio he had ever seen. But Mr. Warhol was very much a creature of his time and place, and he put that on exhibit with shallow sensation, superficial thought, and indifferent and often disinterested and uninvolved craft. But he leaves a Rorschach sized hole big enough for a bus load of aesthetes to drive through. But just as your folks generation dismissed Sargent wrongly, I am willing to admit I may be totally wrong in my judgements,
And you and I connected on Instagram on the R. Mutt piece in Brooklyn Rail.
I promise you that I spent eight years writing 400K words about AW, and found him deeply rich and satisfying. And many serious thinkers — Hal Foster; Arthur Danto; Ben Buchloh — have found him DIFFERENTLY fascinating… as Duchamp’s greatest heir! He established new thought about the nature of art, on several dimensions — which is why he can be challenging to deal with according to established standards. Read our books, and see if our many different readings sound cogent as proposals for understanding him. TRust us!!!
Great aesthetic analyses, comparisons, and interpretations, Chris. As for the Quiz, I gather you're a Yes on Sargent and a No on both Kahlo and Warhol. Therefore, 1 point awarded. CG: 1
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Winchester. I often fret that taking the time to write a response is wasted energy, but I am such a fan of Mr. Gopnik's writing that I felt compelled. When I was a student, oh so many, many decades ago, I was always dismayed at the easy dismissal of Sargent on the part of my art history professors. "Glib" they would decry. Well, I guess that suffices for Hals, Whistler, Sorolla, Cecilia Beaux, Manet, Turner, and all the other great painters for whom draftsmanship and paint application were inseparable. And thank you for the original post!
Your poor students, Mr Gargan. If you’re tossing Whistler, Manet, Turner, Sorolla and Sargeant into the same scouse as equal talents with regards to “draftsmanship” and “paint application,” you didn’t do much discriminating with respect to the ground these artists broke, or didn’t, in depicting their respective subject matter. No question, Sargent was a tremendously gifted painter, but these gifts often played catch up to his artistic and intellectual derring-do—unlike, say, Turner, Manet and the late Goya, whom I mention. I do give you credit for nailing the right Spanish painting analogy, though. Sargent is an American Sorolla, terrific at describing bougie social mores, which he did usually on commission.
Funny, my parents’ generation of modernists just couldn’t stand Sargent, and I felt the same for a long time. But I’ve come to so admire his skills with a brush, and even at making great “society” portraits — of people who rarely deserve their flattering portrayals — that I can overlook what he DOESN’T manage to do. Maybe I need to think of his works as functioning as craft, not “Discursive Art” — but that’s fine with me! I adore a great Venetian wine glass, or a perfect clay bowl by Lucie Rie. (Or a stunning thriller by Robert Ludlam.)
I also appreciate Sargent, at this late date with regards to his impact both for what he painted and didn’t. There is certainly discourse there, some of which holds great weight in discussions of painting today. But Courbet he was not, by a nautical mile. Still remember the headline from a Robert Hughes review in Time: “Tourist, First Class.”
Well, I’d also say, of Courbet, “Sargent he was not, by a nautical mile.” (Though I do wish I knew how long that was!) They serve different functions …. But I guess I’m willing to say that I prefer Courbet’s. (Even when he’s making ol fashion porn for a Turkish diplomat? Not sure…)
Problem is, there’s no one set of criteria for making the judgments! I’ll grant you that there’s a discursive conception of “quality in art” (that I mostly share) that currently rates Courbet higher. But there are ways to “use” their artifacts that would give Sargent higher marks. In 50 years, sargent might be the more “useful” artist. (Just look at how he and Hopper have risen in the ranks in the last 50 years? Why couldn’t they keep rising until they hit the top?) I wouldn’t want to say our heirs are simply wrong in their estimation.
Well, one sign of a weak argument is to simply shift the goal posts. In this case my basket was made up of painters who exhibited extraordinary craft not a shared aesthetic nor a shared purpose. He was not Courbet, nor did he mean to be. I can imagine your dismissing Velasquez due to his fawning obsequience to the Spanish crown. In Sargent's case it's just too easy to dismiss his insight because it comes with such delight to the eye.
Your opening gambit would be clever, if it had something to do with what I wrote or even with your pseudo-rebuttal. Not all realist, now-academic painting is made of the same stuff; the important work kicks against the pricks of the ethos of whatever age. Sargeant for the most part didn’t; instead, he illustrated its privilege reiteratively, though with a certain elan, it must be said. Point being, the group of painters you list is not a group. Except where “delight to the eye” is an unquestioned maxim.
A fun read, even if neither party seemed to think that the art/propaganda distinction holds water. (Me neither!) Unless we're going to dismiss effectively all of Western fine art made between the 16th and 18th centuries, when "Art" ceased to function magically or ritualistically and became the purview of social and religious elites, concerned with presenting themselves and their regimes in a positive light, it's obvious that works with propagandistic (rhetorical, persuasive) intent can be great works of art.
What's interesting about the framing of the question is that the dialogue arrives at a more or less explicit definition of propaganda (ideologically motivated, rhetorical, made with a specific audience in mind...), but doesn't even begin to imply a definition for art or any criteria by which to judge whether or not something is, indeed, a work of art (a much thornier queston that Blake dealt with admirably in his recent essay in the Brooklyn Rail).
My take: None of the works presented are propaganda OR art! Two mediocre paintings, one uninteresting print, and one photograph of an art historically-relevant found object (though, it's worth asking whether the artwork presented as Duchamp's is indeed Fountain, the found object, which was lost and, I'm inclined to say, therefore can't be judged as an artwork since it can't be experienced in person, or whether it's a photo by Steiglitz, in which case I'd be more inclined to call it (the photograph) art).
Nice response, Anna ... but once again I'll insist that there is no way to say whether something "is" propaganda or "is" art. An artifact (including all "Old Master" works) FUNCTION as art WHEN (when, when, when!) they are used discursively. They function as propaganda when they are USED to effect political results. And, crucially, any artifact at all, including mediocre paintings and a urinal -- whether real or in a photo -- can be used as either art or propaganga, as need arises.
Yes, yes—ultimately, metaphysically, I think that's right. I've read Goodman, and I find your articulation of a discursive theory of art quite compelling. Any thing, object or photograph, can be *used* as propaganda or treated as an artwork. The Rembrandt painting can be used as a blanket, in which case it is not being used as art. Judgments about its value as art are useless, nonsense, if you're freezing to death.
But most of the time we are not freezing to death when we encounter a Rembrandt painting. Practically, humanly, I hesitate to accept so flexible a picture of use and function because I think it can be a convenient way to avoid speaking from *within* a discourse. Different discourses, or forms of life, to use a Wittgensteinian term, bind us, restricting possible usages. These conventional restrictions allow communication to be possible. Of course, new usages or taboos on usages can change the limits of the discourse.
In a time when anything *can* be art—that is, when art is free from conventional criteria, making discourse/communication about art problematic—hence, the glut of mediocre art and art criticism—in such a time, we are free, from within that discourse, to claim that certain things are not (ought not to be used as) art. Claims that something is or isn't art, are claims about what the discursive limits of the form of life that sees art as important *ought* to be.
An art claim is a subjective claim to universality, about a world we share or could. It is felt to be true by the judging subject, but is nonetheless ungrounded and ungroundable. For discourse to happen, the interlocutors needs to be committed to the conversation. And often commitment comes in the form of value judgments about what counts as something.
I agree with you that there will be objects seen as typically "art-ready," and others that are more far-fetched as subjects to be art-ed. But all of those are certainly just as commonly, or maybe more commonly, used to other ends. For instance, as you yourself said, to present commissioning elites "and their regimes in a positive light" -- or just as investment vehicles. So I can't see that a discursive use of an artifact, even as its most classic use, goes far in restricting other uses. It is more likely to encourage them!One important conclusion I've come to recently: While my discursive theory is important for a definition of art (IMHO) it makes no claims about quality judgments between works of art. Those will be made quite locally, withing a community, as it works through some particular corner of the discursive "field." And within that corner -- say, a debate about formalism -- there will be a great deal of commitment to its issues and premises (about what is worthwhile art, or not -- thereby excluding a urinal, for instance) despite the fact that the larger category of art is unbounded.
4 points for your persuasive argument characterizing these works as neither propaganda nor art. 1 point reduction though for interpreting the Prop Quiz as "is it propaganda or art?" rather than "is it propaganda or not?" (Which is Blake's fault, really, if we're being honest.) 3 points awarded. AG: 3
Touché! But the implicit presumption is that they are all already works of art, since it is an *art* criticism publication... which should give me the freedom to judge that they're not.
Threeché! Tbh, as the unchecked authoritarian, it makes me nervous that you're determining the freedoms of the Prop Quiz. I may hafta depoly my own propaganda in order to stifle this uprising. Proof of life pics from a hospital bed perhaps?
A minor point of correction: Trotsky was not murdered in Kahlo's home, as CVF claims. He was rather murdered in his own home.
Now for a point of contention: Warhol's own intention or lack thereof in remaking the image of Mao cannot be the defining criterion for deciding whether the work is propaganda. This seems to me the least interesting and important part of the problem.
My bad! You couldn’t be more right about that, re AW’s intentions. I hold that the Intentional Fallacy is chief among all art-historical fallacies.
BUT, Warhol is a member of the work’s audience who might have USED the Mao as propaganda … but didn’t. Ditto anyone else one might mention! If, as I argue, propaganda is a USE of an artifact, not an essential feature of it, then the Mao can only count as propaganda if used as that!
Copy, paste. 2 points awarded. KE: 2
Mr. CVF is possessed of what I would often tell my students to look for in aesthetic criticism: a tin-eye. Either he hasn't actually seen the Sargent in person or he didn't take the time to actually look at it. The horror of Sargent's image is contained in the bottom left, far distance of the piece, where off duty soldiers are playing soccer either "blindly" oblivious to the suffering in the foreground or deliberate in their ignoring it. Like all Sargent's it is masterfully painted. economic in palette (essentially the colors of camouflage), beautifully drawn, and subtle rather than bombastic in mission. It harkens back to the sermonizing of Breughel without the liturgical overtones. It is a piece of propaganda in support of humanity, dignity, and moral justice.
As for Kahlo, I find this painting not unlike the rest of her oeuvre, primarily intended as an instrument of self promotion. As badly crafted as it is it does not stand apart, for me, from the bulk of her work in its execution.
The Warhol is just another, in a long line, of his execrable self indulgences. He could always count on some desperate scribe to dress it up in wordy analysis to elevate its purpose. I find myself in alignment with Robert Hughes in finding Warhol both shallow and dispensable.
Thanks for taking the trouble to comment, Chris. But I'd just say, re the Sargent that every painting offers both access to a gestalt and to its details, and those can be taken separately, and can be either in harmony or in conflict. I'd say my pal CVF is attending to a gestalt he finds troubling; you, with equal cogency, are attending to the painting as a congeries of details.
And as for the Warhol ... one of the easiest pitfalls of criticism is to simply write-off the pleasures and interest that others find in a work you happen not to like. (And "liking" is the very least important aspect of any good art-talk.) Many extremely smart people (and less-smart ones, like me) have spent years finding deep pleasure and insight in Warhol's work, and I don't think that can be written off as mere "wordy analysis to elevate its purpose," as though there's something almost suspect in their "elevation." What would your deprecation of Warhol be, if you gave more reasons for it (which you'd have to do, for it to be taken seriously) but another kind of "wordy analysis"? Extended analysis may in fact be at the very deepest root of the strange artifacts we in the West use as "Fine Art" -- as I argue in my recent piece on the Brooklyn Rail!
I would hesitate to give Warhol the same effort you so nobly did to Duchamp. In general I tend to thing Warhol provides us the same discursive affordances in his work that he found necessary to address in his time. Warhol was a very gifted and clever illustrator, no less than Philip Pearlstein told me he left Carnegie with the single best student portfolio he had ever seen. But Mr. Warhol was very much a creature of his time and place, and he put that on exhibit with shallow sensation, superficial thought, and indifferent and often disinterested and uninvolved craft. But he leaves a Rorschach sized hole big enough for a bus load of aesthetes to drive through. But just as your folks generation dismissed Sargent wrongly, I am willing to admit I may be totally wrong in my judgements,
And you and I connected on Instagram on the R. Mutt piece in Brooklyn Rail.
I promise you that I spent eight years writing 400K words about AW, and found him deeply rich and satisfying. And many serious thinkers — Hal Foster; Arthur Danto; Ben Buchloh — have found him DIFFERENTLY fascinating… as Duchamp’s greatest heir! He established new thought about the nature of art, on several dimensions — which is why he can be challenging to deal with according to established standards. Read our books, and see if our many different readings sound cogent as proposals for understanding him. TRust us!!!
Great aesthetic analyses, comparisons, and interpretations, Chris. As for the Quiz, I gather you're a Yes on Sargent and a No on both Kahlo and Warhol. Therefore, 1 point awarded. CG: 1
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Winchester. I often fret that taking the time to write a response is wasted energy, but I am such a fan of Mr. Gopnik's writing that I felt compelled. When I was a student, oh so many, many decades ago, I was always dismayed at the easy dismissal of Sargent on the part of my art history professors. "Glib" they would decry. Well, I guess that suffices for Hals, Whistler, Sorolla, Cecilia Beaux, Manet, Turner, and all the other great painters for whom draftsmanship and paint application were inseparable. And thank you for the original post!
Your poor students, Mr Gargan. If you’re tossing Whistler, Manet, Turner, Sorolla and Sargeant into the same scouse as equal talents with regards to “draftsmanship” and “paint application,” you didn’t do much discriminating with respect to the ground these artists broke, or didn’t, in depicting their respective subject matter. No question, Sargent was a tremendously gifted painter, but these gifts often played catch up to his artistic and intellectual derring-do—unlike, say, Turner, Manet and the late Goya, whom I mention. I do give you credit for nailing the right Spanish painting analogy, though. Sargent is an American Sorolla, terrific at describing bougie social mores, which he did usually on commission.
Funny, my parents’ generation of modernists just couldn’t stand Sargent, and I felt the same for a long time. But I’ve come to so admire his skills with a brush, and even at making great “society” portraits — of people who rarely deserve their flattering portrayals — that I can overlook what he DOESN’T manage to do. Maybe I need to think of his works as functioning as craft, not “Discursive Art” — but that’s fine with me! I adore a great Venetian wine glass, or a perfect clay bowl by Lucie Rie. (Or a stunning thriller by Robert Ludlam.)
I also appreciate Sargent, at this late date with regards to his impact both for what he painted and didn’t. There is certainly discourse there, some of which holds great weight in discussions of painting today. But Courbet he was not, by a nautical mile. Still remember the headline from a Robert Hughes review in Time: “Tourist, First Class.”
Well, I’d also say, of Courbet, “Sargent he was not, by a nautical mile.” (Though I do wish I knew how long that was!) They serve different functions …. But I guess I’m willing to say that I prefer Courbet’s. (Even when he’s making ol fashion porn for a Turkish diplomat? Not sure…)
We’re in the business of issuing value judgments, so let’s not be shy about it. Courbet’s achievement is greater in nautical and land miles.
Problem is, there’s no one set of criteria for making the judgments! I’ll grant you that there’s a discursive conception of “quality in art” (that I mostly share) that currently rates Courbet higher. But there are ways to “use” their artifacts that would give Sargent higher marks. In 50 years, sargent might be the more “useful” artist. (Just look at how he and Hopper have risen in the ranks in the last 50 years? Why couldn’t they keep rising until they hit the top?) I wouldn’t want to say our heirs are simply wrong in their estimation.
Well, one sign of a weak argument is to simply shift the goal posts. In this case my basket was made up of painters who exhibited extraordinary craft not a shared aesthetic nor a shared purpose. He was not Courbet, nor did he mean to be. I can imagine your dismissing Velasquez due to his fawning obsequience to the Spanish crown. In Sargent's case it's just too easy to dismiss his insight because it comes with such delight to the eye.
Your opening gambit would be clever, if it had something to do with what I wrote or even with your pseudo-rebuttal. Not all realist, now-academic painting is made of the same stuff; the important work kicks against the pricks of the ethos of whatever age. Sargeant for the most part didn’t; instead, he illustrated its privilege reiteratively, though with a certain elan, it must be said. Point being, the group of painters you list is not a group. Except where “delight to the eye” is an unquestioned maxim.