Theory in Contemporary Art Since 1985

I've been looking at that book. Simon teaches the giant Contemporary Art survey class at UC Irvine so I had most of those essays in my course reader, which I leant to a friend (and you know how that goes). There are some great essays in there that you can't find anywhere else. I don't remember most of them too well, as they were my introduction to that sort of high-level critical writing.

Tell me when you get to "Informe without Conclussion". I can babble endlessly about the implications of formlessness, unfortunately no else seems to know what I'm talking about.

If they are trying to analyze Pluralism, I think it's a thankless job. The only new genre is the cartoon graffitti art, otherwise there is inevitably a lot of imitation lacking enough originality to impress me. Art in Amerca magazine has become rather pendantic and repititious. I think I will get this book to see what they have to say as one of the art professors at UCI is a personal friend.

Vince: Right now I'm reading the "AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism" essay by Douglas Crimp; the middle of Part II. You're the only one in this forum that seems to have read the book, so I can empathize with you when you write that no one seems to know what your talking about. There is a lot of "obscure" language used in the essays, but really, obscurity is relative. I think I've read enough art theory to understand most of what is being said, but not without taking a few notes.

I'm now reading the anthology along with other literature. I made the mistake of trying to just go front to back with it, so I'm now just taking my time.

You should see others' responses to references I have made to essays from the book in the "dialogical aesthetics" discussion thread--quite negative in general. I understand no one likes obscurity, I don't like it either, but for those who are familiar with this kind of language, it's nice to get quickly past this obstacle and discuss the issues at hand.

I'm curious, do you have a degree in Art History, or English/Critical Studies, both?

Right now I've just got a B.A. in Studio Art. Hopefully I'll be getting an MFA in a few years.

This high level theory stuff is pretty challenging. I made a point to familarize myself with it, as I want to be, if not actively particiapating, at least aware of the most sophisticated ideas out there.

I still have to read most essays at least three times before I begin to understand what's really going on. I can understand why most people don't have the patience for that.

I've been reading the Dialogical Aesthetics thread. I've been waiting to get my thoughts together before I interject anything too defensively.