short report on progress

Yesterday I finished reading Ishiguro’s When We Were Orphans

When We Were Orphans is narrated by Christopher Banks - by his own account, a great (the greatest?) English detective of the1930s - who is obsessed with solving the ultimate mystery of his parents' disappearance in Shanghai 20 years before the story is being told. But the problem is that Banks is an unreliable narrator, and this observation mixed with the quite chaotic situation in the Shanghai at this historic moment, makes this text into a difficult web of secrets and hidden meanings.
I liked the way Ishiguro depicted Christopher Banks long-ago childhood, and the way he described the mature Christopher's search for his parents through a war-ravaged neighbourhood in Shanghai, but I did not quite like the way all this came together within the totality of the novel. I think I got too tangled up in the labyrintic mysteries to appreciate this novel as a literary work of art. I ended up being confused and exhausted, a lot like Christopher Banks himself? So this might be a better novel than I am willing to admit right now …?

Anyway, to have a chance fulfilling my hideous summer reading programme, I had to start a new novel right away - . And being very unsure where to go, I stared two. First I read the first chapter of Smith’s On Beauty, and then I read some pages in Colm Toibin’s The Master. Both in Norwegian, which was a nice change, having read only English for quite some time now.




And the books? Well, I can say as much as this; there doesn’t seem to be any similaritys between them… so maybe it will be possible to read them both at the same time? Time will tell - .

or a few more hours...?

these are the basic books in art history and aesthetics - to be read this summer:

larry shiner: the invention of art
carolyn korsmeyer: gender and aesthetics

give me a break

I’ve started some holiday planning. It’s still a month till we’ll take off, but one has to be prepared… Here are some things I will be putting in my suitcase – unless something even more tempting shows up in the near future:
1) Zadie Smith: Om skjønnhet
2) Colm Toibin: Mesteren
3) Michail Bulgakov: Mesteren og Margarita
4) Carolyn Parkhurst: Babels hunder*
5) Virginia Woolf: En uskrevet roman
6) Kate Atkinson: Behind the Scenes of the Museum*

*) These are books I know nothing about, not even why I planned to read them…
A quick summing up gave me the result of 100 pages pr. day – this is what I’ll have to work through if I don’t make a false start… right now I'm in the middle of Ishiguro’s When we were orphans, which I really love – so I might have to exchange some of the books on my holiday list with more Ishiguro?

And I did also plan to read some art history and aesthetics... There is only one possible solution:

extra holiday week(s)!

kulturlivets tøysekopper

For kort tid tilbake startet Trond Borgen, gjennom en kritikk i SA, en debatt om Stavangers identitet som kulturby. Han hevdet at Stavanger ikke viser vilje til å ta vare på sine mest sentrale kunstinstitusjoner, og at dette forholdet er med på å umuliggjøre Stavangers drøm om å bli en kulturby av europeisk format.

I et svar til Borgen, og andre aktører som i etterkant har vært på banen i denne debatten, finner Jan Inge Reilstad det passende å kalle Trond Borgen for ”en narr som er uten nytte for andre enn ham selv og hans få venner” (SA 8. juni 2006). En narr er en som blottstiller andre som idioter, dette er neppe Trond Borgens prosjekt. Slik jeg leser hans kritikker har de snarere preg av en personlig selvavsløring. Han stiller, med sine egne mer eller mindre Freud-inspirerte analyser, seg selv lagelig til for hogg. Og hogg har han fått, både titt og ofte. Men la oss snu litt på speilet, er Jan Inge Reilstad en narr? Ja – det tror jeg at det er rimelig å svare bekreftende på. Hans prosjekt har utvilsomt vært å blottstille og latterliggjøre. Har så denne narren en viktig funksjon? Muligens, men det hadde vær enklere å forholde seg til hans narrestreker dersom han hadde sortert argumentene sine litt bedre. Hans kritikk av Borgens selvopptatthet tar seg for eksempel ikke særlig godt ut side om side med hans egen selvforherligelse. Men noen og enhver kan jo la seg rive med innimellom…

Borgens prosjekt, slik dette framstilles i SA, er å reise en debatt om billedkunstens kår i Stavanger. Man trenger verken å være venn av Borgen, kunsthistoriker eller en mann i sin beste alder for å reagere på Stavangers svært labre utstillingsprogram. Det holder å være et voksent og kunstinteressert menneske for å se at det som vises og formidles i vår by, primært er rettet mot mennesker som helst, dersom de fikk velge fritt, skulle ha gjort noe ganske annet enn å se på billedkunst. Kunstinstitusjoner som ikke tar sitt eget kjernepublikum alvorlig har, slik jeg ser det, et eksistensielt problem. Vi trenger enkelt og greit museer og gallerier som viser interessant nasjonal og ikke minst internasjonal kunst. Det hadde vært en fordel om dette feltet ikke var fullstendig overlatt til private gallerier, slik som det er i Stavanger. Offentlige midler bør innebære at det man gjør er av offentlig interesse, og til offentlighetens beste.

I Stavanger finnes det en rekke mennesker som har stor kompetanse på kunstfeltet, til tross for at de har sitt daglige virke innenfor ganske andre samfunnsområder. Dette betyr at det er helt legitimt å diskutere samtidskunst på en faglig måte, gjerne med innslag av fremmedord, også i det offentlige rom, så lenge dette rommet er åpent for alle. Samtaler om kunst skal være utviklende – ja sågar kunnskapsbyggende, ikke fordummende. At Borgen har en sterk stemme innenfor kunstkritikken kan ikke være problemet her, problemet er at han har den eneste stemmen, og det viktige spørsmålet er hvems ansvar det er at det kun finnes en stemme? Hvorfor sørger ikke våre lokale aviser for å ha flere kunstkritikere? Hvorfor tar ingen ordet? Og sist, men ikke minst, hvordan møter vi dem som forsøker å si noe?

Stavanger 2008 handler om kultur i et vidt perspektiv. Det er likevel betimelig å stille spørsmål om billedkunstens vilkår under disse forholdene. Kultur er ikke det samme som billedkunst, men det er likevel ikke riktig – som Reilstad faktisk hevder – at kultur er noe annet enn billedkunst. Billedkunst er uten tvil en sentral del av kulturen. At vi har gode litteraturarrangementer, revyer, kafeer og dans på Sandnes kan vel neppe kompensere for manglende styrke på billedkunstfeltet?

Og når det gjelder bedriftskunstforeningene, som ulike aktører har forsøkt å trekke med i denne diskusjonen, hold dem utenfor! Stikk i strid med Reilstad vil jeg nemlig hevde at man ikke kan forvente å få de mest ekspanderende løsningsforslagene nedenfra, for ikke å si utenfra - . Ansvaret og utfordringene ligger primært hos bevilgende myndigheter, kunstinstitusjonene og media. Hvis ingen av disse klarer å få fram noe viktig om kunstens vesen og samfunnsnytte, er det lite sannsynlig at det brede lag vil komme inn for å redde oss.

Reilstad avslutter sin tekst med en påstand om at billedkunsten mangler poesiens vitalitet - . Det kan tenkes at denne feiloppfatningen har sitt opphav i at tekstforfatteren har fått sett for lite av den internasjonale kunsten til å oppdage den gode samtidskunstens utfordrende kraft. Mistolkningen kan også henge sammen med at vi har for få stemmer i samtalen om kunsten, for dårlig formidling og for lite kritikk! Den gode kunsten problematiserer alltid verden og våre illusjoner om det virkelige og det viktige, våre forestillinger om oss selv. For at den interessante debatten om den visuelle kunsten skal kunne finne sted, trenger vi gode museer og visningssteder. Vi må sette de allerede etablerte institusjonene i stand til å sette kunsten i sentrum. Alternative scener er ikke et brukbart svar på Stavangers identitetsproblem.

For å få i gang en god diskusjon om kunstens nytte og rolle hadde det vært fint om kulturlivets tøysekopper hadde vært litt mer opptatt av kunst og litt mindre fokusert på sin egen speiling i vår lokale andedam…

no comments

invisible man

Jeff Wall

on the meaning of houses and things inside them

Rachel Whiteread

Untitled (House) 1993

In a text on Whiteread Shelley Hornstein asked an exciting question: "What is the relationship of a thing to an idea, a house to a home?" This qustion is very relevant to my coming project, it is to the heart of what I will be studying.

ordinary aesthetics

I am working on my first sketches for a book. Reading aesthetic theory I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to do some thinking & writing on my own. Starting with Linda Nochlin’s essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (1971) I will ask:
Is there any great women artist today?
What is a great artist?
What is great art?
Can minor stories make great art?
My theoretical inspiration will come from feminism, post-structuralism and hermeneutics. As of the situation today I believe art is very dependent upon theory and criticism. Art need a to enter a larger discourse to become art. This put a heavy responsibility on anyone entering this discourse – a responsibility that is both aesthetical and ethical.

Art History has focused on men’s art from men’s point of view. This has given us men’s story and interpretation of the world. I will be looking for alternatives, for other narratives, for contemporary art histories.

Here is where I’m going to start looking:
i. Helle Helle (literature)
ii. Rachel Whiteread (sculpture/installation)
iii. Liza Lou (sculpture/installation)
iv. Päivi Laakso (literaure)
v. Trude Marstein (literature)
vi. Aino Kannisto (photo)
vii. Vibeke Tandberg (photo)
viii. Ghada Amer (textile)

The Advantages of Being a Woman Artist:

· Working without the pressure of success.
· Not having to be in shows with men.
· Having an escape from the art world in your 4 free-lance jobs.
· Knowing your career might pick up after you're eighty.
· Being reassured that whatever kind of art you make it will be labelled feminine.
· Not being stuck in a tenured teaching position.
· Seeing your ideas live on in the work of others.
· Having the opportunity to choose between career and motherhood.
· Not having to choke on those big cigars or paint in Italian suits.
· Having more time to work when your mate dumps you for someone younger.
· Being included in revised versions of art history.
· Not having to undergo the embarrassment of being called a genius.
· Getting your picture in the art magazines wearing a gorilla suit.

the Guerrilla Girls

Vibeke Jensen exhibited in "Symbolsk Orden" Rogaland Kunstmuseum

These have been days filled with aesthetic theory, though not very much Kant. I have enjoyed reading, amongst others, Carolyn Korsmeyer on “feminist aesthetics” and Griselda Pollock’s Vision and Difference. I find Pollocks book intelligent, provocative and good for speeding off own thoughts. I am reading quite heavily in this field right now due to some lectures I’m going to deliver in May, but here are lots more to be done in this field. I think I at least will have to write my own book on the subject …

I wonder, is it a good idea to start conceptualizing a new aesthetic theory in the middle of a PhD on language deviances in psychosis?
1. Yes – this will most certainly enlarge your horizon…
2. No, the horizon is nothing but a horizon, and anyway – it’s already large enough

to kant

Reading more poststructuralist theory than Kantian philosophy these days - some questions seems necessary to post:
1. Can aesthetic judgement be anything more than a construction based in the language in which it is articulated, a discursive practice?
2. Is there a subject who can have a privileged access to a transcendent realm of aesthetic judgement?
3. Is aesthetic value an effect of different practices and institutions, rather than something caused by artworks?
4. Is it a good idea to start questioning Kant without even having read him properly?
5. Is it possible to read Kant today?
6. Is it meaningful?



What seems clear is that you have to relate the discussion of aesthetics to a discussion on self and subjectivity. The status one gives to the subjective self is of great importance to any debate of (im)possible aesthetic judgement.

rachel whiteread

Rachel Whiteread - Untitled (One hundred spaces)

- a thing is a hole in a thing it is not

be prepared

sorry Kant, but you'll have to wait, i'm entering a weekend dedicated to serious Benhabib reading! by the way - what are you're view on feminism mr. K?

kant'en

There can be no rule according to which anyone is forced to recognize anything as beautiful.

The judgement of taste is based on the feelings of pleasure but also claims universal validity – yet judgement of taste cannot be proven since they do not rest on concepts or rules.

To Kant pleasure can be communicable only if it is based on a state of mind that is universally communicable. Since this judgement isn’t connected to concept, it must connected to ‘cognition in general’ as opposed to a particular cognitive state of mind - .

The judgement takes the form of a conceptual judgement, since we speak of beauty as if it were a property of things and say ‘the thing is beautiful’.

Kant read through the glasses of D.W.Crawford

I’m not sure that this has led me any further in my search for knowledge:

- What does he mean by subjective universality?

- How can anything be communicable without being based on concepts?

contemporary aesthetics

There seems to be no way around it. Working with contemporary aesthetic theory one has to consider Kant – seriously…
I therefore plan to spend some of my spare time in this guys strange company. Hoping that he might inspire me in my ongoing reflection on the concept of art.

But now comes judgement, which in the order of our cognitive faculties forms a middle term between understanding and reason. Has it also got independent a priori principles? If so, are they constitutive, or are they merely regulative, thus indicating no special realm? And do they give a rule a priori to the feeling of pleasure and displeasure, as the middle term between the faculties of cognition and desire, just as understanding prescribes laws apriori for the former and reason for the latter? This is the topic to which the present Critique is devoted.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION 1790

Helle Helle

Men vi kunne lide de samme gode gamle rettene med sovs. Vi kunne også lide at ligge på sofaen, især mig. Dertil kom vores fælles glæde ved bagerbrød og ugeblader hver torsdag. Vores mor havde givet os smag for den slags, torsdag havde altid været ugens højdepunkt. Den tradition havde skabt en talemåde iblandt os:
- Ved du hva? Sagde den ene.
- Nej, og jeg vil selv læse det, sagde den anden.
Vi læste også Tove Ditlevsen og Knuth Becker og Pearl S. Buck. På skolen i Næstved var der en, der sagde til mig, at den slags ikke var riktig litteratur. Han hed Hans, og havde gået et år på universitetet. Jeg tillagde ikke hans udtalelser nogen særlig værdi. Hvis han var så stor en litterat, ville han vel ikke uddanne sig til ergoterapeut.

Rødby-Puttgarden (2005): 10

Ian McEwan

I’ve spent quite a few hours in company with bad books lately, and started reading Saturday with not too great expectations. Now, after having finished it in a couple of days, I am still amazed. McEwan’s medical knowledge on the human brain is certainly impressive, but what makes it all breathtaking to me is his way of combining politics, natural sciences and arts in his negotiation on the meaning of life. Saturday puts the private man on the public scene in a brilliant way; the intimacy of lovers and families is connected to war and peace on a grand scale. Love and war, echoing the magnificent novels of the nineteenth century, compressed to the happenings of a day in the life of Henry Perowne. And this ‘compression’ - a life in a day - leads us on to another great English author – to Virginia Woolf. It is also possible to see Saturday as a comment on her novel Mrs. Dalloway. We find similarities in the dinner party preparations, the city walking, insanity and war, in how both authors show us the singular life and the larger world as interconnected – both fragile and exposed to threats.