blahblahblah

Blahblahblahism: It will change the way you view the world

by Cesar Marzetti,

excerpted from his recent lecture "The Truly First and Only Art Movement of the 21^stCentury, Even..."

Late in the last century, the rise of theory spawned the rise of anti-aestheticism. Even for cultural theorists discussions concerning aesthetics were often carried out in a critical shorthand that failed to engage with the work of art, much less any notions of aesthetic experience. Any attempt to see the art object as embodying and conveying knowledge in itself quickly faded as an outdated conception.

People started to make art at university in response to what theory they read. The writing became fundamental in creating the art: it served the art and the art served the writing. The practical body of work suffered accordingly. Any changes in the discourses surrounding contemporary art became intimately linked to art education and to the artist's 'professionalization'.

Moving into this new century, the art object has become a distant concern. A work of art no longer applies as the source for one's conviction of its value. An art object is no longer visually distinct from a non-art object. Instead, its placement in an art space and context has orientated it within an established network of artistic practices, ideas, debates and modes of display otherwise known as the 'artworld'. This leaves art solely as an artworld activity, an institutional activity.

Such a peripheral focus makes a discussion of the art object irrelevant and instead targets art only in relation to accepted discourse, modes of representation and elucidation..

A revived aestheticism encourages the idea that the intrinsic impact of a work of art has the potential to open radically different ways of thinking about identity, politics and culture. If we encourage 'theory' to enter a more reflective phase, we can expect the appearance of a new aestheticism. At a moment that is often termed 'post-theoretical', this is a direct index to which there is a renewed willingness among critics and philosophers to consider the ways in which cultural theory often overlooked key aspects of the object.

Blahblahblahism restores a consideration of the physicality of the artwork, and of style and form. Blahblahblahism heralds a priority for art practice to develop organically, without being constricted by measurable criteria but reclaiming now-mythologized terms such as 'creativity', 'artist' and 'art': special qualities requiring freedom from any externally imposing theory.

*blahblahblah...* will attempt to salvage the art object from all obsolescence and herald in a new aestheticism. It will change the way you view the world… blahblahblah . . . (an alternate reading) Late in the last century, the loss of blahblahblah spawned the rise of an anti-blahblahblah. Even for cultural theorists, discussions concerning blahblahblah were often carried out in a critical blahblahblah that failed to engage with the work of art, much less any notions of blahblahblah. To see the art object by itself as embodying and conveying blahblahblah quickly became an outdated blahblahblah within the contemporary art world. People started to make art at university in response to whatever blahblahblah they read. This blahblahblah became instrumental in creating the art: it served the art and the art served the blahblahblah. The practical body of work suffered accordingly. Any changes in the blahblahblah surrounding contemporary art are now intimately linked to art’s overall blahblahblah and specifically to its 'blahblahblahism' But now, a distinctly 21^st Century re-allows the idea that focusing on total blahblahblah has the potential to open radically different ways of thinking about blahblahblah, blahblahblah and blahblahblah. If we allow the old 'blahblahblah' to enter a more reflective phase, we can expect the appearance of this new blahblahblahism. At a moment that is often termed 'post-blahblahblah', this is a direct index to which there is a renewed willingness among critics and philosophers to consider the ways in which cultural blahblahblah often overlooked key aspects of its reliance on philosophical blahblahblah. However, with the birth of a new blahblahblahism, there is a will to return to a consideration of the artwork’s blahblahblah itself. Heralding this nascent blahblahblah suddenly becomes a priority for all of art practice to develop an even greater blahblahblah, without being constricted by measurable blahblahblahs but reclaiming such now-mythologized blahblahblahs as 'blahblahblah', 'blahblahblah' and 'blahblahblah': special qualities requiring no further blahblahblah from any externally imposing blahblahblahism. Opening reception: Saturday, January 19th from 6 until 9pm.** Regular museum hours: 12 - 6pm, Thursday through Saturday		Blahblahblahism: It will change the way you view the world by Cesar Marzetti, excerpted from his recent lecture "The Truly First and Only Art Movement of the 21^stCentury, Even..." Late in the last century, the rise of theory spawned the rise of anti-aestheticism. Even for cultural theorists discussions concerning aesthetics were often carried out in a critical shorthand that failed to engage with the work of art, much less any notions of aesthetic experience. Any attempt to see the art object as embodying and conveying knowledge in itself quickly faded as an outdated conception. People started to make art at university in response to what theory they read. The writing became fundamental in creating the art: it served the art and the art served the writing. The practical body of work suffered accordingly. Any changes in the discourses surrounding contemporary art became intimately linked to art education and to the artist's 'professionalization'. Moving into this new century, the art object has become a distant concern. A work of art no longer applies as the source for one's conviction of its value. An art object is no longer visually distinct from a non-art object. Instead, its placement in an art space and context has orientated it within an established network of artistic practices, ideas, debates and modes of display otherwise known as the 'artworld'. This leaves art solely as an artworld activity, an institutional activity. Such a peripheral focus makes a discussion of the art object irrelevant and instead targets art only in relation to accepted discourse, modes of representation and elucidation.. A revived aestheticism encourages the idea that the intrinsic impact of a work of art has the potential to open radically different ways of thinking about identity, politics and culture. If we encourage 'theory' to enter a more reflective phase, we can expect the appearance of a new aestheticism. At a moment that is often termed 'post-theoretical', this is a direct index to which there is a renewed willingness among critics and philosophers to consider the ways in which cultural theory often overlooked key aspects of the object. Blahblahblahism restores a consideration of the physicality of the artwork, and of style and form. Blahblahblahism heralds a priority for art practice to develop organically, without being constricted by measurable criteria but reclaiming now-mythologized terms such as 'creativity', 'artist' and 'art': special qualities requiring freedom from any externally imposing theory.