Art

Answer to Question Number One
The narrative occupies a pivotal role in Western art as it functions as the unchanging element that enables the unification and hence the coherence of the different forms and types of art that has emerged and is considered a part of its category. Narratives role in unifying the different genres of Western art is specifically evident in its role in the creation and reception of Western abstract art. In the evolution of Western art, the initial adherence to the mimetic tradition, which entailed providing a detailed and accurate representation and portrayal of reality, was shifted to the focus on abstractions. Worringer (1910) provides one of the reasons behind this shift to abstractions as he argues that only by shifting to abstractions will man have access to art in its purest form. He argues that the other forms of art such as expressionism merely provide man with empathic experiences towards art. He states, Modern aesthetics, which proceeds from the concept of empathy, is inapplicable to wide tracts of art history. Its Archimedean point is situated at one pole of human artistic feeling alone (1910, p.68). In order to account for the other pole of aesthetic experience, Worringer (1910) argues that there is a necessity to adhere to abstractions, which focuses on the form of art alone.

In the same manner that Worringer criticizes the limited conception of art provided by other art theories, Greenberg in his essay entitled Avant-Garde and Kitsch, challenges the very core of the aforementioned characterizations of art and the artist. This is apparent as he claims, One and the same civilization produces simultaneously two different such things as a poem by T. S. Eliot and a Tin Pan Alley song, or a painting by Braque and a Saturday Evening Post cover (1939, p.530). In as far as classical art is concerned, specifically visual art, it can be said that for a very long period, it has been characterized by its adherence to the mimetic tradition. Such being the case, abstract art, in as far as it deviates from such tradition may be seen as an altogether different art form expressing a different artistic culture. In a manner of speaking, abstract art and culture as Greenberg envisions it, is revolutionary in the sense that it defies against the prevailing standards of society (1939, p.531). Such defiance, on the part of the abstract art is tantamount to detaching itself from society. It is important to note that the importance of such defiance is that it allowed for the possibility of bringing to the fore abstract arts true and most important function. In line with this, Greenberg wrote the following
Hence, it developed that the true and most important function of the avant-garde was not to experiment, but to find a path along which it would be possible to keep culture moving in the midst of ideological confusion and violence. (1939, p.531)

By performing this function, abstract art was able to manifest that it is possible to envision art separate from any other form of reference, as it exists for its own sake. This view is apparent as he emphasizes the importance of pursuing art for its own sake. An example of this can be seen in Pollocks abstract expressionism, which manifests examples of action painting. Pollocks works portray the possibility of creating an artwork, which is capable of standing on its own separate from other forms of signification in its environment. Pollocks abstract art, in this sense, portrays the possibility of creating an artwork, which is independent from what Worringer conceives as empathy as its construction is only based on its adherence to a particular narrative form, which emphasizes the artists creation of an artwork.

Within this context, narrative plays a pivotal role in the creation and proliferation of abstract art as it stood as the unifying element that allowed the different forms of abstract art to be united within one category.

Answer to Question Number Two
Within the context of Marxism, art is a product of the social and political conditions in society. Art thereby serves as a mirror of the social conditions in society. Such a view of the relationship between art and society may be implicitly derived from Marxs Private Property and Communism as he forwards the following claim

Just as society itself produces man as man, so it is produced by him. Activity and consumption both in their content and in their mode of existence, are social activity and social consumption. The human essence of nature exists only for social man for only here does nature exist for him as a bond with other men, as his existence for others and their existence for him, as the vital element of human reality only here does it exist as the basis of his own human existence. (n.d., p.213)

Marxs claims regarding the co-dependence of society and human beings implicitly shows the importance of artworks in determining and understanding the dominant ideology in society. Such is the case since the production of artworks as well as the production of the meanings associated to both old and new artworks portrays how the dominant ideology in society seeks to change the factual elements in social reality. In other words, views pertaining to art show how a specific belief system has transfigured reality in order to propagate as well as maintain social beliefs.

In the case of modern art, this is apparent in its emphasis on the necessity to traverse boundaries in order to prevent its curtailment within the widely capitalist driven social sphere. Modern art which is equated with the avant-garde is criticized by the different versions of aesthetic schools that affiliate themselves with Marxism. These different schools, that being the Bauhaus School, the Constructivists, and the Muralists all agree that despite modern arts desire to disassociate itself from the grasp of a capitalist driven society, it remains bound by that which it refuses to associate itself as it practices an elitist framework comparable to a bourgeoisie framework that refuses and even prevents arts accessibility to those who are not learned in artistic theories (Rivera, 1932 Rodchenko, 1986 Gropius, 1938).  Despite this similarity, these different schools differ in their attempts to redefine modern art.

In the case of the Bauhaus School, its members argued that modern art involves the union of both form and content (Gropius, 1938). Gropius created a building that exemplifies this view, namely the Bauhaus building in Germany. The building was meant to portray the credo of the Bauhaus School which states, The Bauhaus strives to coordinate all creative effort, to achieve, in a new architecture, the unification of all training in art and design(for) the collective work of art(Gropius, 1938, p.340). As opposed to this, the Constructivists argued that modern art ought to be envisioned as art that promotes life (Rodchenko, 1986). To promote life here entails developing awareness, experience, purpose, construction, technique and mathematics which ensures mans realization of his being and hence actualization of his life (Rodchencko, 1986). Finally, the muralists equated modern art with proletariat art wherein proletariat art refers to art which mirrors and portray the aspirations, desires, and hopes of all people and not only a few (Rodchenko, 1986).  Amongst these different Marxists views of modern art, it is mural art which takes an evident direct precedent from Marxs theory as it emphasizes the bourgeoisies emphasis in controlling the means of transfiguring reality, that the artworld.

Answer to Question Number Three
Marcel Duchamp may be considered as the first appropriation artist with his concept of readymades (1961, p.819). The ready-mades are ordinary, everyday objects that are transformed into a piece of art simply by claiming that it is a work of art (Duchamp, 1961, p.819). An example of a readymade is Duchamps The Fountain, which is an ordinary urinal laying on its side atop a pedestal with the signature R. Mutt. In the aforementioned work, the urinal as it appears is neither original nor rare. Creativity in this sense lies in the selection of an ordinary urinal as a work of art and displaying it in an artistic context. His artworks were recognized and became influential to succeeding artists who pursued appropriation art or installation art. The Dada art movement, along with Duchamp, continued appropriating readymades and fused together elements of chance, randomness and lack of formal structure or theory in their creations. It is, however, important to note that Duchamp himself has no particular interest in discussing his works apparently because there is nothing in them that makes them works of art. This is to say that those objects do not share or possess within them an essential property for them to be categorized as beautiful and be considered members of the extension of such a concept. This is a plausible construal of his silence and disinterestedness in aesthetic theory.

This silence however may be explained by providing his views on art as it is specified in The Creative Act wherein he argues that the creation of art entails the active participation of both the artist and the works spectator (1957, p.818). He states, The creative act is not performed by the artist alone the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act (Duchamp, 1957, p.819). Apparently, Duchamps view of art is one that is expressive in the sense that an art work is an individuals expression and this expression is not an end-in-itself but a means to something else since it must lead the individual to new thoughts, new perspectives and new ways of looking at the same world. Perhaps, this is what he meant when he claims that art is a creative act (Duchamp, 1957, p.819).

Duchamp and the Dadaists share the same view about the intellectual rigidity in art and artistic movements. In addition to this, they were also reacting to the constraining conservative arm of society. This is to say that their emphasis on everyday objects also has a political import. Two common themes may be said to characterize their artistic creations (1) the apparent irrationality, as an opposition to the conservative forms of art and (2) a refusal to adopt a standard of what would count as an artwork.

Within this context, Duchamps aesthetic theory, if one may classify it as such, enabled the development of the ideas of dematerialization, hybridized form, and non-traditional media as important aspects in the creation of culture as he emphasized that every connotation associated to an object is a product of social consensus. By dematerializing his artwork as he disassociated the usual connotations associated with objects, Duchamp along with the Dadaists created hybrid forms of objects which are results of the combination of new senses to specific referents. This processes of dematerialization and hybridization created a non-traditional media as it disassociates the work from the artist thereby creating a continuously evolving work of art, the evolution of which is apparent in the continuous addition of different and even opposing connotations to a work of art. As Ball claims, The new art is sympathetic because in an age of total disruption it has conserved the will-to-the image because it is inclined to force the image, even through the means and parts to be antagonistic (1927, p.247). In other word, the new art enabled by the Dadaists allowed the continuous introduction of various different and opposing views not only towards works of art but also towards social institutions.

Answer to Question Number Four
Art works can be considered as products of a shared history of different societies in their different periods of development. The artist, very much like the works he creates, can also be considered as a product of his different contexts. These statements point out that artworks and artists are always situated or indexed to a particular context, in a particular period in history. This is not to say that the artist and the artworks merely reflect the social, political, economic, and even intellectual contexts of their time. While it is true that the artist is, to a certain extent, conditioned by his contexts, the artist can go beyond these contexts and articulate or bring to existence a new way of looking at things.
In the art world, a fine example of transcending these contexts can be seen in the development of Impressionism and Expressionism. It is important to note that impressionism is in itself, a revolt from its very own contexts. Impressionists, unlike Rene Descartes solitary ego, consider the self as always situated in space and time, bombarded and affected by a multitude of impressions. Whereas Descartes puts premium on the perceiver or the subject, the impressionists put premium on the very act of perceiving. The act of perception is more important than either the perceived or the perceiver (Kronegger, 1973, p. 40). Such being the case, for the impressionists like Charles Baudelaire, an artist is best characterized as a flaneur, a keen observer of modern life, who puts into canvass or into words the multitude of impressions in the everyday affairs of real human beings caught up in the paradoxes of human existence. The paradox is that the while the artist finds himself struggling against the status quo, he inevitably finds himself participating on it at the same time.

Expressionists, on many counts, disagree with impressionists on the very nature and function of art in human life. For expressionists like Hermann Bahr, Charles Baudelaires characterization of the artist as flaneur brings to the fore the unfortunate idea that the artist merely records what heshe observes nothing more, nothing less. If this is the case, the artist is no different from the empirical scientist who merely records observable data in his investigation. Expressionism can be characterized by a yearning or longing for soul, an element which is perhaps, lost in the maze of modernity. Such being the case, expressionists consider that one of the main functions of art is social criticism. The artist, however, does not stop at social criticism. He is willing to do something about it.

The dialectic relationship between impressionism and expressionism is thus made clear. Though they are not completely diametrically opposing views, their differences are difficult to reconcile. First, they have different views on artistic production itself. Does the artist merely record impressions in the same way as a gramophone records sounds For the expressionist, the clear answer is, No. Second, although both impressionism and expressionism can provide us with fertile grounds for critiquing modernity, the formers passivity on the role of the artist and the function of art does not sit well with the latters. To elucidate, expressionists like Bahr conceives of modernity as destructive of the human spirit and this is a form of judgment, an assessment of the value or worth of something whereas, impressionists merely observe and record impressions. It is for this reason that expressionists yearn for the soul. Expressionism is the symbol of the unknown in us in which we confide, hoping that it will save us (Bahr, 2003, p. 116).