This is a very strange question. What is a "pluralistic art"? Is it an art
that is simply constituted from many perspectives but somehow monolithic, or
an art that is constituted severally from different perspectives and is
always a set of fragments that reflect this? Can we introduce an idea like
serviceability? The Art & Language indexing project raised no essentialistic
questions as to the artisticness or lack of artisticness of the material
processed. The discourse, chatter and noises off were the stuff out of which
some sort of item serviceable as art was made. These materials were not at
all monolithic in their aspiration a) to be art (some were, some weren't),
and b) to be artistic discourse, just in case that is different from a).
What, in any case, are the theoretical basics? There are certainly no
foundations, just questions that go to a self-transforming discourse of art
as distinct from creating horizons beneath which it is consumed.
Michael Baldwin/Mel Ramsden(ARTLANGUAGE@aol.com)
|
|
|
|
|
