Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-66nw2 Total loading time: 0.293 Render date: 2021-11-29T16:10:51.795Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

16 - The State of Advanced Art: The Late Twentieth Century and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

David W. Galenson
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access

Summary

Pluralism, Postmodernism, and Perplexed Art Pundits

Painters no longer live within a tradition and so each of us must recreate an entire language.

Pablo Picasso

Well, thank God, art tends to be less what critics write than what artists make.

Jasper Johns

In 2005, Peter Schjeldahl wrote in the New Yorker that “The contemporary art world of the 1980s blew apart into four main fragments…Eventually, even the fragments disintegrated, becoming the sluggish mishmash that has prevailed in art ever since.” The idea that advanced art had become fragmented in the late twentieth century was not a new one. In 1984, for example, the art historian Corinne Robins titled her survey of American art during 1968–1981 The Pluralist Era, and on the first page observed that “the Pluralism of the seventies…effectively did away with the idea of dominant styles for at least a decade.” Over time, another term gained currency to describe the situation, as in 2000, Jonathan Fineberg explained in his textbook, Art Since 1940, that what had emerged in the seventies was postmodernism, “an inclusive aesthetic that cultivates the variety of incoherence.”

Whatever name they give to the situation, there is widespread agreement among art critics and scholars that they have lost the ability to provide any convincing overall narrative or explanation for the art of the late twentieth century and beyond. The critic Arthur Danto, for example, remarked in 1997 that “contemporary art no longer allows itself to be represented by master narratives at all.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Louise Schneider. 2007. Art Across Time, 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Archer, Michael. 2002. Art Since 1960, 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Arnason, H.H. 2004. History of Modern Art, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bell, Cory. 2001. Modern Art. New York: Watson-Guptill.Google Scholar
Bell, Julian. 2007. Mirror of the World. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Elke Linda, et al. 2007. Art. New York: Abrams.Google Scholar
Collings, Matthew. 2004. This is Modern Art. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Cottington, David. 2005. Modern Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, Robert. 2005. Art. London: DK Publishing.Google Scholar
Davies, Penelope, et al. 2007. Janson's History of Art, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dempsey, Amy. 2002. Art in the Modern Era. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
Fineberg, Jonathan. 2000. Art Since 1940, 2nd ed. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
Foster, Hal; Krauss, Rosalind; Bois, Yve-Alain; and Buchloh, Benjamin. 2004. Art since 1900. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Honour, Hugh and Fleming, John. 2002. The Visual Arts, 6th ed. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
Hopkins, David. 2000. After Modern Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Sam; Jacobus, John; and Wheeler, Daniel. 2004. Modern Art, 3rd ed. New York: Vendome Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, Martin, ed. 2000. The Oxford History of Western Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucie-Smith, Edward. 2001. Movements in Art Since 1945, new ed. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Parmesani, Loredana. 2001. Art of the Twentieth Century. Milan: Skira.Google Scholar
Richter, Klaus. 2001. Art. Munich: Prestel.Google Scholar
Taylor, Brandon. 2005. Contemporary Art. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×