Читать книгу Anywhere or Not At All - Peter Osborne - Страница 5

Introduction

In his joint biography of the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, François Dosse tells the story of the meeting between Deleuze and the painter Francis Bacon, about whom Deleuze had recently written with much enthusiasm in his book Francis Bacon: Logic of Sensation. Bacon had apparently responded to the book with equal admiration: ‘It’s as if this guy were watching over my shoulder while I was painting.’ ‘What was supposed to be a great meeting’, Dosse recounts, ‘turned into a disaster.’ Deleuze’s editor, Joachim Vital, also a great admirer of Bacon, arranged the meeting. He described it as follows:

The meal was awful, as awful as their discussion … They smiled at each other, complimented each other, and smiled again. We were flabbergasted by their platitudes. We tried to salvage the discussion, mentioning Egyptian art, Greek tragedy, Dogen, Shakespeare, Swinburne, Proust, Kafka, Turner, Goya, Manet, Van Gogh’s letters to his brother Theo, Artaud, Beckett. Each one tried to take the ball and run with it alone, ignoring the other one.¹

This often happens when philosophy meets art. When philosophy meets contemporary art, the situation can be even worse. Contemporary art is badly known. To transform our distance from it into that ‘unique appearance of a distance, however near it may be’,² upon which experience of its art character depends, however – to use our ignorance as a spur to knowledge – is more difficult than is suggested by most of the writing that this situation provokes. To make contemporary art the object of some kind of reflective philosophical experience – in an affective engagement with the most fundamental claims made upon us by such art – seems, at times, almost impossible. This is ironic given the well-remarked-upon ‘conceptual’ character of so much contemporary art. Yet it is precisely this conceptual character that is most often the source of misunderstanding: the idea that such art requires no more than a conceptual interpretation, for example; or that such an understanding is purely or ideally linguistic, in the sense of being reducible to direct propositional expression. ‘Straw conceptualism’, as this might be called, is one means of sustaining ignorance about contemporary art (which does not mean that there are not some artists whose works are made of such straw). The alternative reduction of art to its aesthetic dimension – pure sensuous particularity – with which the projection of a straw conceptualism is often antithetically associated, is another. The idea that contemporary art is somehow exempt from historical judgement in the present, by virtue of its contemporaneity, is a third.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to a critical knowledge of contemporary art, though, is the common-sense belief that the phrase ‘contemporary art’ has no critically meaningful referent; that it designates no more than the radically heterogeneous empirical totality of artworks produced within the duration of a particular present (our present); that it is, thus, not a proper part of a critical vocabulary at all. Certainly the expression is often used in that way. However, both the conceptual grammar of the phrase – its dependence upon a difference from an art that is not contemporary – and the affirmative inflection of this difference in current usage (contemporary art is more living, more actual, and thus to be valued more highly than other art with which it, paradoxically, shares time) mitigate against such an indifferent empiricism. So what kind of discourse is required to render the idea of contemporary art critically intelligible?

That is the question addressed in this book, in part experimentally, by trying to produce such a discourse. This is a discourse, first, that is neither merely empirical nor temporally inclusive. Not all art that is recently produced, or would call itself or be called by others ‘contemporary’, can be understood to be contemporary in an art-critically significant sense. ‘Contemporary’ is, at base, a critical and therefore a selective concept: it promotes and it excludes. To claim something is contemporary is to make a claim for its significance in participating in the actuality of the present – a claim over and against that of other things, some of which themselves may make a similar claim on contemporaneity. So, second, we need a discourse that is responsible to the general critical concept of the contemporary – that is, which engages with the philosophy of time. The notion of the present at stake in art’s contemporaneity is not a simple one. Nor does it stand outside of history. This means, third, that such a discourse must be reflexively grounded in the semantic history of ‘the contemporary’ as a critical category, and attend to the peculiarly privileged role within it of its applications to art. Fourth, such a discourse, though reflexively historically derived, must nonetheless impose certain critical demands upon the art that it interprets. The dominant category of modernist art criticism was for many years, up until the 1960s, the category of medium. The subsequent dissolution of the limits of mediums as the ontological bases of art practices, and the establishment of a complex and fluid field of generically artistic practices, has posed new problems of critical judgement to which the concept of the contemporary represents an increasingly powerful response. However, this concept must be constructed rather than merely discovered. Finally, in recognition of both the individuality and the contingent historical character of art, a critical discourse of contemporary art can only develop through the interpretative confrontation with individual works. It must participate in the on-going critical history of art, as well as in the revival of a philosophical art criticism. Such, broadly speaking, is the kind of discourse about contemporary art that this book attempts to inhabit and to produce. Its outcome may be polemically condensed into a single and simple, speculative proposition: contemporary art is postconceptual art. For reasons of dialectical method, the book as a whole is required to get a sense of precisely what this proposition means in practice and how it functions interpretatively. I shall use the remainder of this introduction to expand upon the intellectual context, method and structure of the book.

Criticism, History, Philosophy

In 1965, as part of his response to a series of ‘Charges to the Art Critic’ from the directors of a seminar on art education at Pennsylvania State University, and in studied contrast to the growing formalism of the dominant-but-declining modernist criticism of his rival, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg declared: ‘Art criticism today is art history, though not necessarily the art history of the art historian.’³ This assertion appears remarkable today, nearly fifty years later, and not just because of its insistence upon the historical dimension of a practice that has become ever more preoccupied with synchronic relations – in particular, between art and other cultural forms. It is remarkable because, in asserting the independence of the historical dimension of criticism from the discipline of art history, it raises the fundamental but rarely discussed question of precisely what kind of art history art criticism is (or should be), and what its relations to the art history of the art historian might be. This is a question that goes to the heart of thinking about contemporary art, the privileged object of art criticism, not least because it concerns the historical, rather than the merely chronological, determination of contemporaneity. That is to say, it demands a commitment from art criticism to a certain philosophy of time.

Both art criticism and art history have changed since 1965. There are fewer grounds for the condescension of the critic towards the art historian today, and more reasons for a reversal of the relation – in part, because of the historicization of the 1960s itself, with the invention of the burgeoning genre of the history of contemporary art. But the question of the specific character of that art history which art criticism is, or might be, has not merely remained unanswered; it has become further obscured from view. Art criticism and art history has each had its own problems to deal with. Intellectually serious criticism of contemporary art remains in the grip of a constantly renewed, self-declared crisis.⁴ This crisis is cultural-economic or ‘institutional’ in origin (contingent upon transformations in the social character of art institutions during the 1980s and 1990s, and their diminishing need for the mediations of a historically oriented criticism), but it is nonetheless intellectual for that. Where it thrives as a cultural force, outside of the academy, art criticism largely concentrates on literary aspects of journalistic presentation and often treats its object as little more than an occasion for communications of a more general kind.⁵ Meanwhile, art history has been transformed as a part of broader changes in the disciplines of the arts and humanities in Anglo-American academies. Yet successive widening of the intellectual scope of the discipline – via the new social history of art, feminism, semiotics, psychoanalysis and postcolonial studies, towards the euphoric horizon of studies in ‘visual culture’ – have not brought it any closer to adequate forms of specifically art-critical judgement, although they have produced a network of discursive affinities between the new art histories and contemporary art itself, at the level of that art’s thematic concerns. This is, in part, a result of convergent trends in art-historical and art education. Meanwhile the history of contemporary art – a genre dominated by second-generation October art historians – remains largely documentary and reconstructive in character. Its professional formation discourages art-critical judgement, although it often involves a documenting and reconstruction of critical positions held by artists and critics at the time: a kind of criticism by historical proxy. Studies in visual culture often appear closer to art-critical discourse than art-historical ones – indeed, they increasingly occupy institutional spaces of criticism – despite their even greater distance from questions of art judgement. However, this appearance covers over and hence helps to sustain the general absence of historically grounded criticism of contemporary art.

The situation dates back to the failure of the project of a ‘critical postmodernism’ in the face of the problem of judgement, in the early 1980s. Hal Foster identified the problem early on, but made little headway with it theoretically.⁶ Just how blocked it would become can be seen twenty years later in the October roundtable discussion, ‘The Present Conditions of Art Criticism’, in which the very idea of critical judgement caused consternation among the discussants, most of whom still associated it, exclusively, with a late Greenbergian notion of ‘quality’.⁷ Thierry de Duve attempted to break the impasse with his return to Kant after Duchamp, replacing the former’s ‘This is beautiful’ with the latter’s ‘This is art’, while insisting that the latter continue ‘to be read as an aesthetic reflexive judgment with a claim to universality in the strictest Kantian sense’, despite the accompanying claim that the term ‘art’ functions in the judgement as a ‘proper name’.⁸ Ultimately this foundered on philosophical confusions about both Kant and naming alike. Nonetheless it set a standard for the articulation of art-historical, art-critical and post-Kantian philosophical discourses to which little subsequent work has aspired.

Meanwhile the general theories of representation, both epistemological and political, which predominate in studies of visual culture – usually, if unwittingly, semiotic culturalist variants of the liberal pluralism of US political science – have shown themselves to be singularly ill-suited to grasping the specific and deeply problematic character of the experience of contemporary art. The character and object-domain of the field remain plural and contested, their relations to art unresolved. But the situation is exacerbated, rather than mitigated, by the covert visual essentialism that has inadvertently but inevitably accompanied the formation of the new proto-discipline, in an ironic reprise of the terms of its original adversary, formalist modernism.⁹ For the supplement of ‘the visual’ restores to cultural analysis an aesthetic idealism of vision at the very historical moment in which art’s visuality, however pronounced, is its least distinguishing trait. Moreover, in so far as ‘the visual’ is the constituting focus of conceptual interest in visual culture, whether as a given or a construct, it is in principle indifferent to, and hence cuts across, the art/non-art distinction, which cannot be reduced to any particular visual regimes – notwithstanding Michael Fried’s generalization of his optical reduction of Greenberg’s medium-specific conception of modernist painting.¹⁰ Fried’s opticalism is currently enjoying a revival on the back of the popularity of theories of the gaze (which function as one form of theoretical compensation for the aesthetic deficit of the semiotic paradigm), a renewed interest in Greenberg’s work, and the resurgence of photographic theory. Yet it remains conceptually removed from the main critical problems posed by the field of contemporary art in general, as Jeff Wall acknowledges in his defence of a Friedian position, by bifurcating the field into two critically discrete domains, the larger of which falls outside the scope of Friedian criticism altogether.¹¹ Fried’s more specifically art-critical contribution to recent debates, alongside those of T.J. Clark, has been historical, in the everyday sense of referring to the art of the past: namely, to develop a criticism through and within conventional art history – a criticism of now ‘historical’ art – rather than vice versa (that is, to develop the historical aspect of criticism of contemporary art, to which Rosenberg was referring).¹²

Under these conditions, it is useful to approach the questions implicit in Rosenberg’s declaration – specifically, what kind of art history art criticism (ideally) is and what its relations to ‘the art history of the art historian’ might be – from a more philosophical standpoint. For, as Rosenberg himself suggested, ‘both art criticism and art history need to scan more thoroughly their philosophical substructures’ if they are to acquire a more adequate sense of their mutual relations.¹³ And in fact, surprisingly in many respects, there has been a resurgence of interest in explicitly philosophical discourses about art over the last two decades as part of the recomposition and diversification of art discourses that has accompanied the industrialization of its institutions. Whether these particular philosophical discourses are adequate to the comprehension and judgement of contemporary art, however, is another matter. While there has been much philosophizing about art, there has been little philosophizing of contemporary art.

The revival of interest in explicitly philosophical discourses about art has taken place against the background of what some have seen as a general ‘legitimation crisis’ in contemporary art.¹⁴ No doubt, recourse to the established cultural authority of philosophy has played a role here, in association with its relative self-legitimating ‘difficulty’. But philosophy’s intellectual contribution has been more than ideological. For contrary to the positivistic protestation of Jean-Marie Schaeffer that art itself ‘will get along very well on its own’ – that is, without critical discourse – this is perhaps less true now than it has ever been. The ‘artistic act’ may indeed be ‘irreducible to the way it legitimates itself’, but this means neither that it is non-discursive, nor that the discourses from which it draws its resources are necessarily non-philosophical.¹⁵ Conceptual art, in its canonical sense, surely put paid to any enduring illusions about that – whatever else one may think about it. Indeed, it is precisely the acknowledgement of the immanently philosophical character of contemporary art that led to the revival of the claim, by Arthur Danto among others, that art has ended.¹⁶ Yet this claim could just as easily be read as an inverted (and disavowed) acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the prevailing philosophical discourse on art (namely, ‘aesthetics’) to the distinctive character of contemporary art: an implicit acknowledgement of inadequacy turned aggressively outwards into a judgement against its cause (namely, the claim of such artworks to the hallowed signifier ‘art’) and thereby ultimately against contemporaneity itself. Hence Danto’s subsequent coinage of the term ‘post-historical art’.¹⁷

Schaeffer returns this claim to its philosophical context when he argues that what he calls ‘the speculative tradition’ (which runs from Jena Romanticism to Heidegger) misunderstood art from the outset. In this respect, for Schaeffer, the legitimation crisis of contemporary art is the delayed effect of art’s philosophical sacralization by Romanticism at the end of the eighteenth century. However, in so far as it derives from a claim for art’s autonomy (by virtue of which it is able to usurp a certain philosophical function from philosophy itself), this sacralization is actually constitutive of ‘art’ in its modern sense. The aetiology, then, is broadly correct, yet the diagnosis and treatment Schaeffer proposes – a philosophical ‘de-sacralization’ of art, or what we might call metaphysical disinvestment – are precisely wrong. For, to the extent that there is a legitimation crisis of contemporary art (and one might be excused for believing it oversold, since the market provides sufficient legitimation of its own: ‘creative industry’), it is actually a sign of the continuing, if problematic criticality of contemporary art – a sign of the fact that art’s authority and critical function remain problems within contemporary culture, a problem for which art’s continuing if uncertain critical and metaphysical dimensions are a conceptual condition.

Danto and Schaeffer represent alternative variants of one primarily negative way in which late analytical philosophy has contributed to recent art-critical discourse. Each is a positivist of a different kind: an analytical-Hegelian positivist and a logical positivist, respectively.¹⁸ However, far more significant has been the affirmative turn towards the conceptual resources of the post-Kantian European philosophical tradition, in the wake of the gradual diffusion of an interest in post-structuralism into Anglo-American art criticism. Heideggerian, Merleau-Pontean and a variety of post-phenomenological approaches – associated with Lyotard and Derrida, and more recently, Deleuze, Jacques Rancière and Alain Badiou – have all enjoyed sustained attention. This has revived interest in the place of art within the German idealist philosophies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: Kant, Schiller, Hegel and the Romantics, but also Schelling, to a lesser degree Schopenhauer, and of course, Nietzsche.

There is little doubt that this return to the post-Kantian European tradition has been, in part, a culturally conservative phenomenon, despite the radicalism associated with its more recent main French proponents. It is ‘against Cultural Studies’ (in its initial formation, at least) and against certain kinds of both ‘difficult’ and ‘popular’ contemporary art. But it has also performed a crucial critical function by raising theoretical issues associated with the idea of art in its distinction from other cultural forms of representation – issues that are literally dissolved by the semiotic reductionism and sociologism of most cultural-theoretical approaches. Furthermore, in its recent Rancièrean and (on occasion) Deleuzean guises, it has provided a medium for posing, once again, the now-classical modern question of art’s relationship to politics, after a period in which both directly intellectual and political issues were progressively excluded from critical discourse.¹⁹ These are issues that have to be addressed if the dearth of theoretically serious critical writing about contemporary art is to be overcome. However, this turn to the European philosophical tradition as a resource for art-critical discourse has as yet failed to achieve a convincing critical-theoretical purchase on contemporary art, because it has failed to come to terms with the decisive historical transformation in the ontology of the artwork that is constitutive of its very contemporaneity. If one considers the works exhibited at the growing number of international biennali, for example, or Documenta – events that in large part constitute the extensive definition of contemporary art – one will find little that most philosophers who write about art are able to engage with concretely in a manner that also engages the discourses and concerns of the art world itself. Although the growing curatorial tendency to aestheticize much recent art, including video work, is one point of convergence.

Thus, while these philosophical discourses on art pose a theoretical challenge to most contemporary art writing, by raising questions about ‘aesthetic’, about judgement, about subjectivity, about ‘nature’, and about the ontology of the artwork – which semiotic discourses of cultural theory are unable to ask – they have largely been unable to respond to their own questions other than via discussion of the art of the past. The most they have largely been able to offer – when not declaring art at an end – is thus an artistically conservative recoding of the values of contemporary art. Writings by Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty have played a central role here in the last twenty years, as have the apparently more avant-garde versions of French philosophical theory, which present themselves as philosophies of the new, such as those of Deleuze and Badiou. There has been an inability to grasp contemporary art philosophically in its contemporaneity and hence in its decisive difference from art of the past. The reason for this is two-fold. The first is a continuing conflation of ‘art’ and ‘aesthetic’; the second is an inability to think the concept of art at once philosophically and historically with any kind of futurity.

Art, Aesthetic, Futurity

The first of these reasons, the conflation of art and aesthetic, so thoroughly pervades both philosophical and popular discourses about art that the term ‘aesthetics’ (Ästhetik) has long been used, and continues to be used, as the very name for the philosophical discourse on art – a practice that was already so commonplace in Germany by the 1820s than even Hegel succumbed to it, despite his explicit recognition of its inappropriateness, at the beginning of his Lectures on the topic. With the closure of the brief, polemically anti-aesthetic interlude of conceptual art, the slippage has once again largely disappeared from view. In fact, it has recently been actively propounded by Rancière’s influential conception of the ‘aesthetic regime’ of art, by which Rancière appears to believe art is still governed.²⁰ Badiou’s ‘inaesthetics’, on the other hand, while apparently the opposite of aesthetics, is actually just a paradoxical, alternative formulation of the radically singularizing vision of aesthetic as the philosophical truth of art. As the description of ‘the strictly intra-philosophical effects produced by the independent existence of some works of art’, inaesthetics is precisely what has traditionally been designated by ‘aesthetics’ as the discourse of the aesthetic conception of art. As Badiou himself puts it, in his third maxim of affirmationist art: ‘The truth of which art is the process is always the truth of the sensible qua sensible …’²¹

The second reason for the failure to grasp art’s contemporaneity philosophically – the aforementioned inability to think the concept of art at once philosophically and historically with any kind of futurity – has a more complicated philosophical distribution. It derives, in part, from the aforementioned de-historicizing function of ‘aesthetic’ in its conceptual distinction from ‘art’, and in part from a more general refusal of the temporal logic of historical totalization, in its futural, performative or hypothetical dimension, which is inextricable from the critical act of historical judgements of the present (see Chapter 1, below). Heideggerian ontology of art, for example, whilst philosophically ‘anti-aesthetic’, is so in the name of a Romanticism of Being, to which ‘art’ is appended as an ‘original’ appearing. The history of art is thereby subordinated to an epochal history of Being in which the present’s openness to the future functions only as the basis for a ‘return to origin’.²² Ontological in a quite different, but equally unhistorical sense, yet naturalistically futural, Deleuze’s proposition that ‘the work of art is a being of sensation and nothing else’ offers a post-Heideggerian, neo-Nietzschean ontology of art as a diagrammatic construction of forces. Deleuze and Guattari are as insistent on the difference of their ontological concept of ‘affect’ from ‘aesthetic’ as they are on that between the concepts of ‘percept’ and ‘perception’. Yet it is precisely the ontological depth of this notion of sensation that makes it only indifferently applicable to art, in a principled exclusion of both its conceptual and historical aspects, which parallels the indifference of ‘aesthetic’ to the art/non-art distinction, while nonetheless functioning meta-critically as the criterion differentiating art from ‘philosophy’ and ‘science’. The problem is that, today, the art/non-art distinction does not primarily concern art’s transcendental difference from these other intellectual practices (in a reprise of the neo-Kantian discourse of spheres of validity), but rather its difference from the literality of the everyday.²³

There is no critically relevant pure ‘aesthetics’ of contemporary art, because contemporary art is not an aesthetic art in any philosophically significant sense of the term. And there is no critically relevant non-historical ontology of art, because the modern art of which contemporary art remains a distinctive development is irreducibly historical in the temporal structure of its significance. More specifically, it will be argued, contemporary art is historically determined as a postconceptual art. As such, it actualizes the idea of the work of art to be found in the Jena Romantic philosophy of art, under new historical conditions. The art history that ‘art criticism [ideally] is’ is the art history of a historically reflective (that is, post-Hegelian) Romantic philosophy of art. This was the legacy bequeathed, in an earlier period, to Adorno by Walter Benjamin. It is handed down to us today, developed and transformed (mediated by the subsequent history of modernism) by Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory.²⁴

Aesthetic Theory towers above all other twentieth-century philosophical texts about art. More than any other, it provides us with the philosophical means to clarify the distinction between ‘art’ and ‘aesthetic’ in the context of contemporary art. Yet it is itself on occasion not exempt from this terminological confusion, although Adorno is more careful than his English translators.²⁵ In so far as the present book adopts a systematic philosophical approach to the comprehension and judgement of contemporary art, that approach is thus best described as ‘post-Adornian’, or at least that of a philosophy of art ‘after Aesthetic Theory’. But it is a quite specific Adorno that is at stake: not the Kant-orientated Adorno of a recent philosophical aesthetics invested in the recovery of modernist painting,²⁶ but an Adorno strongly inflected by Benjamin’s mediating concept of cultural form, which in Adorno’s own work rarely extends beyond the social form of the commodity.²⁷ Benjamin’s writings span the decisive years of early twentieth-century Europe, 1913–40; Adorno’s mature work, from Dialectic of Enlightenment to Aesthetic Theory (1944–69), gave them an afterlife under rather different Euro-American conditions. The ‘contemporary art’ that still finds its constantly renewed origins in the 1960s begins at the historical point at which Adorno’s work breaks off, as a series of new departures, which left behind the impasse of that particular modernism that traced itself back to the latter half of the nineteenth century, within which Adorno himself remained trapped. Writing about such art and its conditions today may set out from what Benjamin and Adorno achieved, but it cannot be restricted merely to extending their work. This threefold appropriative, critical and differential relation to their legacy is marked here, in particular, by the transdisciplinary dynamics of the construction of the book’s central concepts: contemporary, art, aesthetic, modernism, medium (/post-medium/transmedia), transcategoriality, conceptual art/postconceptual art, distributive unity, art-space and art-time.

This book thus aspires to be philosophical in its interpretative mode, not in a narrowly disciplinary sense, but rather in line with the ‘philosophizing beyond philosophy’ that Adorno identified as a distinctive feature of Benjamin’s thought. This ‘beyond philosophy’ was, and remains, necessarily at once intellectual and institutional. In Benjamin, its intellectual form was, broadly speaking, that of a modified early German Romantic philosophical model of criticism. Institutionally, it inhabited what critical spaces it could find in the public sphere of intellectual journalism. Adorno mimicked those aspirations, from the safe haven of the university, making occasional sorties into public life (radio), and dealing with academic disciplines negatively, through mutual critique. One task of contemporary criticism is to renew this legacy and develop it further, transforming it again, through critical engagement with the concrete manifestations of an increasingly transnationalized contemporary, postconceptual art. To do so would be to restore to art criticism its central role in constituting the history of art, not simply at the level of its canon, but at the level of the historical temporality of art itself. Today the theoretical register of a more comprehensive intellectual mode of address is less strictly Romantic and more that of a fluid, philosophically reflective transdisciplinarity.²⁸ The place of philosophy as a discipline within philosophical thought more generally is, one might say, at its best, akin to that of ‘laboratory’ constructivism within the history of Soviet constructivism: an experimental activity on forms, divorced from life, and the positivities of other knowledges, in the anticipation – or hope, at least – of some subsequent integration into life practice and experience.

It is only possible to grasp the critical issues at stake in contemporary art by moving across (and in the process, reworking the relations between) an array of disciplinary formations, ancient, modern and new: philosophy, art history, art criticism, sociology, psychoanalysis, urban studies, architecture, political theory, literary history and ‘theory’ per se – to name but the most prominent. Here, these articulations and crossings are made from the standpoint of a conception of philosophy that recognizes the constitutive role of non-philosophical discourses and experiences in all philosophizing, along with its irreducibility to them. The para-academic, part-public institutions that provided the occasions for the composition of early versions of parts of this book provided the institutional conditions determining their specific transdisciplinarities. I have retained some traces of this trandisciplinary process of construction in the discursive structure of the book, which deliberately exhibits occasional abrupt shifts in discursive register and modes of argumentation, within what I hope is nonetheless an articulated whole.

Loosely Romantic

Chapter 1 deals with the core temporal meaning of ‘contemporary art’ as the art of contemporaneity. What is ‘the contemporary’? Different, often implicit, answers to this question overdetermine the concept of contemporary art. Chapter 2 approaches the postconceptual character of contemporary art, first negatively, through a critique of the conflation of art and aesthetic, and then positively, through the idea of a historical ontology of the artwork. The early Romantic philosophical sources of the structure of postconceptual art are then themselves directly deployed in an interpretation of a work by Sol LeWitt. Chapter 3 provides a critical engagement with some of the philosophical confusions of the literature on modernism. It develops a new philosophical concept of modernism consistent with the idea of the historical ontology of the artwork, and explores the consequences for modernist criticism of the destruction of the ontological significance of ‘medium’. Chapter 4 examines the work of the US artist Robert Smithson as an exemplary instance of the transcategorial character of postconceptual art, produced as a consequence of the critical destruction of ‘medium’. Chapter 5 explores the necessarily ‘distributive’ character of the unity of postconceptual works, though an investigation of photographic ontology and the radicalization of its immanent multiplicity of visualizations brought about by digital technology. Chapter 6 outlines the elements for a construction of the concept of art space, within the terms of a historical ontology of urban form. Chapter 7 reflects, correspondingly, on the temporal dimensions of art space – attention, memory, expectation – associated with the idea of the postconceptual work as a ‘project’, introduced in Chapter 2 and further elaborated through the idea of project space, at the end of Chapter 6.

The structure of the book is, philosophically, loosely Romantic, in the sense that it may be read as a series of seven collections of fragments (hence also as seven fragments), with systematic intent. The radical particularity of the history of art, and the radical nominalism of contemporary art, vitiate any attempt at formally systematic comprehension or presentation, but they demand a constructive systematic intent nonetheless. Whatever unity there is to the book is thus a distributive one, which is carried equally within its parts as across the whole. In order to register the non-conceptual dimension of the historical character of its object (‘contemporary art’), I have retained a relationship to the contingencies of the realizations of some particular artistic projects in most chapters. Work by Walid Raad/The Atlas Group provides the artistic bookends that hold the text together. However, the intention is not to construct (or reproduce) a canon, but to develop a critical practice of philosophical interpretation.