2004, Vol., No.16

Journal of History of Modern Art 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.77

pISSN : 1598-7728 / eISSN : 2733-9793
https://journal.kci.go.kr/kahoma

Formalism as a theoretical position of Aesthetics and art criticism is distinctively 'modern' in that it is a theory developed to strongly defend modern art against the concept and value of art in Classicism, ie. the imitation theory. Under formalism, there is a belief of the autonomy of art, and this belief is what formalism and modern art have in common. Nevertheless, the extension of formalism is not the same as that of modern art, because in the course of its development, modern art came to include Avant-Garde which negate the autonomy of art under the phrase of 'anti-aesthetic.' Therefore, we can only say that formalism is related to a certain stream of modern art, and this stream is modernism which has pursued the autonomy of art in the visual area. There are various positions in formalism as a theory to expand or defend modernism. It is generally regarded as a theory for the value of modernist art, but it can also be a theory for a definition of modernist art, for ontology of an artwork, or even for an art history. Categorical difference in formalism can be explicitly seen by the comparison of two famous 'formalist' art critics: Roger Fry and Clement Greenberg. Fry was concerned with the defense of the value of 'modern' painting, or purely visual image, which was totally different from the traditional picture, so for him, formalism means a theory related to the value of a modern work of art. However, Greenberg's concern was different from Fry's. He was interested in both the discernment of 'truly living' art from various sorts of phenomenon in modern art and the construction of the history of that 'truly living' art. With these two concerns, Greenberg's formalism becomes a unique theoretical complex. It is, first of all, a theory for the definition of art, and then it is a theory of art history.

From the early 1920s to the contemporary era, Precisionism has generally been regarded as a significant art movement in modern art history. The name of this movement appeared in major survey textbooks on Modern Art, explaining it as a unique, American version of modernist painting. Scholarship on Precisionism accumulated during the past 80 years. However, a closer look at Precisionism reveals that Precisionism does not suffice the conditions to be called an art movement By surveying documents and literature on Precisionism, this paper intends to reveal the politics embedded in the discursive formation of Precisionism and intends to seek more justifiable ways to discuss its significance. The paper is consisted of three parts. Chapter One deals with the emergence of Precisionism. Records show that Sheeler, O'Keeffe and Driggs all denied of being called a Precisionist even though they were considered to be the most important artists of the movement In addition, there were no organized group with any artistic goal behind the Precisionist movement. Precisionism was simply a tendency some American critics believed to have existed in the American art world during the 1920s. In other words, Precisionism was based on the assumption that certain qualities befitting the Precisionist aesthetics-whatever that might have been-existed. Chapter Two considers various scholars' effort to discuss Precisionism in relation to formalism. Milton Brown is particularly important for this reason because he was the first to establish theoretical grounds for such interpretation. Paradoxes and contradictions in other formalist studies are further explored in this chapter. Chapter Three examines contextual studies on Precisionism. Considering Precisionist painting within the rhetorics of scientific management, many of the contextual studies read Precisionism as a visual effect of Fordism or Taylorism. Such studies, however, by avoiding to discuss organic/agrarian imagery of O'Keeffe or Sheeler, forces a reductionist interpretation of the movement. Few studies done recently will focus on these organic/agrarian imagery acknowledging the ambivalence and complexities in the Precisionist movement, but the basic question remains: What exactly is Precisionism and how can it be defined? As such, the present scholarship on Precisionism reveals that Precisionism was a set of rhetorical construction fabricated by American critics and scholars for the past 80 years. Obsessed by the notion of creating an art culture that was distinctively American, the discourse of Precisionism evolved in to a gigantic scale and solidified its status in art history. However, this movement was more of a ghostly discourse which only happened in theory.

This article examines how early Conceptual art was formed and broken down in New York between 1964 and 1969, focusing on On Kawara and Joseph Kosuth. Kawara and Kosuth exchanged opinions, socialized with each other, and participated in several significant exhibitions that contributed to shaping Conceptual aspects of the newly-emerged art. The point of this thesis is on the give-and-take between the two in October 1969 when Kosuth published “Art after Philosophy” and Kawara wrote “Conceptual Art” on October 7 in his date painting journal. I n this first part of three part essay, Kosuth lineated his perspectives on the meaning of “con ceptual” and legitimized his word-based art and Kawaras date paintings. Yet Kosuth attempted to promote his art in the same essay by legitimizing his works in the tradition of Ad Reinhardt and by critiquing other conceptualists. This act discouraged artists such as Robert Barry and Lawrence Weiner , and eventually broke down the already loose group of artists. Despite Kosuths recognition of Kawaras art as “conceptual,” and their mutual friendship from 1967, the two also became estranged after 1969. I argue that the model of Kosuth s aggressive self-promotion in the international capital of contemporary art not only served to split off the New York conceptualists but also drove hermit-like Kawara to pursue decentralizing as his tactic.