Lars Saari
PhD (Art History), University of Turku, Finnland
THREE KINDS OF QUALITY: ON VALUE JUDGEMENTS IN MODERNISTIC, CONCEPTUAL AND CONTEMPORARY (SOCIOPOLITICAL) ART
??? ????? ????????? : ? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????????, ????????????? ? ?????????? (???????????????????) ?????????
Journal 3/2007 (Museum of Applied Art), pages 23-26
UDC:
7.038.53/.54.09
7.038.01
Abstract (original language):
Are quality arguments at all relevant to the contemporary art discourses? Although quality arguments are nowadays seldom used or explicated in the verbalization of the evaluation process of art it still seems at least implicitly to be assumed that art works worth attention not only are able to provoke discursive interest but also should possess some set of qualities.
If the quality issue is relevant as it is supposed to be it is up to discourse analysis to extrapolate the quality arguments from the speech acts of artists, curators and critics. It should be possible to verbalize the silent quality discourses, which, as a hypothesis, are estimated to be typical for, and each different from one other, at least in (high) modernistic, conceptual and contemporary art, which seem to rely more and more on sociopolitical themes and content. If a modernistic and a conceptual set of quality arguments can be defined, what would their equivalent be in the context of sociopolitical art and art criticism?
Key words: (original language)
Quality, evaluation, modernism, conceptual art, sociopolitical art, silent norms, ethical quality
Summary:
? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????. ????????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????. ?? ????, ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??????????.
??? ?? ???? ?????????, ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????, ????????, ?? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ? ????? ???? ????????????, ? ????? ? ?? ??? ?????????????? ???????.
????????? ????????? ????????? ? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???????? ? ????????? ? ?????? ???????. ??????? ???????????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?????????????, ???????????? ? ?????? ???? ??????????. ???? ?????????? (???????????? ??????????? ????????????) ?????? ???????? ? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????. ???????????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? (? ????????????) ?????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, ??? ? ?? ???? ?????? ?????????.
????? ????? ???????? ? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????????? (??????????????????) ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????, ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????????. ???? ?? ????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ????? ? ????? ???? ?? ????????? ?????????, ????????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????, ??? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ????????? ??????????
You can download PDF of the article 
(170 KB)