2011. augusztus 30., kedd

Kortárs amerikai művészet - első kézből

Értesítem a tisztelt hallgatókat, hogy a 2011-12-es tanév I. szemeszterében kísérleti jelleggel egy az USA-ból érkezett vendégoktató, Ivey Ford tart előadásokat angol nyelven a kortárs amerikai művészet témájában, minden kedden 16.00-17.30 között a Fülep Lajos-teremben (Főépület, I. em. 112). Az órát BMVD-080.15 kóddal vehetik fel.
Az alábbiakban a kurzus részletes tervét olvashatják.



Ivey Ford

Course code: BMVD-080.15

Meetings: Tuesday, 16.00-17.30

Room: 112

Email: ivey.ford@gmail.com

Course Description:

This course introduces students to contemporary practices, theories and forms of criticism operating in the United States over the past 30 years. The primary aims in this course will be to develop visual literacy and familiarity with works and criticism, and to explore concepts and methods that are pertinent to grasping contemporary art as it exists in the United States today. We will consider key theoretical and aesthetic issues, such as globalization, methodology, institutional analysis, multimedia, identity politics and multiculturalism as well as focus on participatory art, activism and collectivity. The course readings are comprised of key texts prevalent in contemporary American art with a heavy emphasis on the writers from the MIT Press Journal, October magazine.

Course Readings:

Readings listed on the Plan are available online

Course Requirements:

Regular Attendance: You are required to attend the lectures. There are no exceptions to this rule: you cannot miss more than 3 classes and still pass the course. There will be an attendance sheet distributed each class. If you fail to sign it, then you will be considered absent. You cannot pass this course if you do not meet this requirement.

Readings: Readings are selected to facilitate your comprehension of lectures. Your ability to discuss the readings and to locate the primary issues in them will be tested in your written responses on the exams. I suggest that you keep notes so that when you prepare for the exams you will be able to analyze or discuss texts: why was the text written? What did the author hope to accomplish with this text? Why did this particular author write a text on this topic? Satisfactory responses on the exams will answer these questions. Your ability formally to analyze works will also be tested.


1. [25%] Undergraduate students: Your highest exam grade will be doubled after the completion of the third exam.

[25%] Graduate Students: two 5-7 minute presentations. I will announce topics and schedule presentations Week 1. Presentations will begin Week 2.

2. [75%] All students: 3 Exams (SEE THE PLAN BELOW) Exams will deal with weekly readings and class lectures so check the plan for the specific topics. These tests will include short-answer questions. Exams will differ between graduate and undergraduate students.



13 Sept.


20 Sept.


1. Spears, Dorothy. “Curators Wanted: Must Love Art and Travel.” New York Times (November 26, 2006).

2. Finkel, Jori. “You’ve seen the E-Mail, Now Buy the Art.” New York Times (February 4, 2007).

3. Vogel, Carol. “The Great Buildup.” New York Times (March 28, 2007).

4. Chaplin, Julia. “An Artsy Spin on the Grand Tour.” New York Times (May 27, 2007).

5. Cotter, Holland. “The Boom is Over: Long Live the Art.” New York Times (February 12, 2009).

6. San Chirico, Joanie. “The Social Revolution.” ARTnews (June 2011).

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

7. Geldzahler, Henry. “Determining Aesthetic Values.” In Theories of Contemporary Art. Edited by Richard Hertz, 114-126. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc., 1993.

8. Foster, Hal. “Contemporary Extracts.” e-flux journal no. 12 (January 2010). (condensed version of Foster, Hal. “Questionnaire on ‘The Contemporary.” October 130 (Fall 2009): 3-124.


27 Sept.


1. de Duve, Thierry. “When Form Has Become Attitude– And Beyond.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 19-31. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

2. Robertson, Jean and Craig McDaniel. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art After 1980. 2nd edition. Chapter 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

3. Brenson, Michael. “The Curator’s Moment.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 55-68. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

4. Becker, Carol. Social Responsibility and the Place of the Artist in Society. 1-21. Chicago: Lake View Press, 1990.


4 Oct.


1. Greenberg, Clement. “Modernist Painting” (1960). From: http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/modernism.html

2. Fried, Michael. “Art and Objecthood.” In Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews. 148-172. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

3. Krauss, Rosalind. “A View of Modernism.” In Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Edited by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. 976-979. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

1. Greenberg, Clement. “Avant Garde and Kitsch” (1939). In Art and Culture: Critical Essays. 3-21. Boston, 1961.

2. Steinberg, Leo. “from Other Criteria.” In Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Edited by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. 971-976. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Week 5: Exam #1 Weeks 1-4

11 Oct.


18 Oct.


1. Foster, Hal, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, and Benjamin H.D. Buchloh, eds. Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, and Postmodernism. Vol. 2. 32-39, 40-48. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

2. Harrison/Wood: Part VIII Ideas of the Postmodern (1013-1017); Jacque Derrida: (944-953); Baudrillard (1018-1020); Rosalind Krauss (1032-1037); Fredric Jameson (1046-1051).

3. Kipnis, Laura. “Repossessing Popular Culture.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 372-387. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

4. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” In Image, Music, Text. 142-148.Translated by Stephen Heath. London: Fontana Press, 1990.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

5. Foster, Hal. “Whatever Happened to Postmodernism.” In The Return of the Real. 205-226. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 1996.

6. Foster, Hal. “Obscene, Abject, Traumatic” October 78 (Fall 1996): 107-124.


25 Oct.


1. Foster, Hal. Roundtable “The Predicament of Contemporary Art.” In art since 1900: modernism, antimodernism, postmodernism. vol. 2. 671-679. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2004.

2. Nochlin, Linda. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” In Women, Art, and Power, and Other Essays. 145-178. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

1. Pollock, Griselda. “Differencing: Feminism’s Encounter with the Canon.” In Differencing the Canon: Feminism and the Writing of Art's Histories. 23-38. London: Routledge, 1999.

2. Buchloh, Benjamin H.D. “Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions.” October 55 (Winter 1990): 105-143.


1 Nov.


1. Foster, Hal, moderator, “Round Table: The Projected Image in Contemporary Art.” October 104 no.1 (Spring 2003): 71-96.

2. Ronell, Avital. “Haunted TV.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 204-212. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

3. Foster, Hal. “The Archival Impulse,” October 10 (Fall 2004): 3-22.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

4. Fraser, Andrea. “What’s Intangible, Transitory, Mediating, Participatory, and Rendered in the Public Sphere?” October 80 (Spring 1997): 111-117.

5. Krauss, Rosalind. “Reinventing the Medium.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 25, no. 2(Winter 1999): 289-305.


8 Nov.


1. Mercer, Kobena. “Looking for Trouble.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 360-371. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

2. Buren, Daniel. “The Function of the Museum.” In Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings. Edited by Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson, 102-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.

3. Pearlman, Jeanne. “Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art Case Study,” The Jewish Museum, New York City (2002): 1-25.

4. “Are art museums guilty of stealing?” The Periscope Post (12 November 2010).

5. Joselit, David. “Of War and Remembrance (Simon Leung’s Surf Vietnam),” Art in America 87.5 (May 1999): 142-145.

6. Panero, James. “Outsmarting Albert Barnes,” Philanthropy Magazine (Summer 2011): 12-19, 64-67.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

6. Krauss, Rosalind. “The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum.” October 54 (Autumn 1990): 3-17.

7. Fraser, Andrea. “From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique.” Artforum 44.1 (Sept 2005): 278-283, 332, 10.

Week 10: EXAM #2Weeks 6-9

15 Nov.


22 Nov.


1. Piper, Adrian. “Cornered: A Video Installation Project.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 182-186. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

2. Spivak, Gayatri. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. 24-28. London: Macmillan, 1988.

3. Wright Jr., Charles A. “The Mythology of Difference: Vulgar Identity Politics at the Whitney Biennial.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 182-186. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

4. Kinoshita. Yumi. “Case Study: American Neo-Imperialism, Interdisciplinarity and Identity.” Department of Art, University of California Santa Barbara (May 2006): 1-31.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

5. Scott, Joan W. “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity.” October 61 (Summer 1992): 12-19.

6. Carson, Juli. “On Discourse as Monument: Institutional Spaces and Feminist Problematics.” In Alternative Art New York: 1965-1985. Edited by Julie Ault. 121-157. New York and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.


29 Nov., 6 Dec.


1. Kester, Grant. “Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially-Engaged Art (2004).” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 76-88. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

2. Crimp, Douglas. “AIDS: Culture Analysis/ Cultural Activism.” In Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Edited by Simon Leung and Zoya Kocur, 141-149. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

3. Crimp, Douglas. “Gran Fury talks to Douglas Crimp.” ArtForum 41, no 8 (April 2003): 70-71.

4. Moore, Alan. “Artists’ Collectives Focus on New York, 1975-2000.” In Collectivism After Modernism: The Art of Social Imagination After 1945. Edited by Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette. 193-221. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

Additional Graduate Student Readings:

5. Gilman, Sander. “AIDS and Syphilis: The Iconography of Disease.” October 43: 87-107.

6. Drew, Jesse. “The Collective Camcorder in Art and Activism.” In Collectivism After Modernism: The Art of Social Imagination After 1945. Edited by Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette. 95-114. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.


13 Dec.

***FINAL EXAM TO BE ANNOUNCED*** The final exam covers Weeks 11-14


Presentations (Graduate Students Only): Presentations should develop from a close reading of works of art, critical terms and concepts from the assigned readings, and additional research. I encourage you to pay attention to sequencing, methods, composition, logics or paradoxes, artists’ statements, the context of exhibitions, and historical factors or events that relate to the works you choose to address. Several general points to keep in mind when you are analyzing works of art: try to discern the significance of the form, materials, and methods used; consider the critical reception of these works as well as to the statements made by the artist; always begin by asking yourself: what kinds of influences and aims are at issue; and which factors validate, support, or limit the experience of the work of art? Formal and stylistic analysis should play a part in all presentations. These factors should clearly relate to historical emergence of these works, and they should reinforce the basis and logic of comparisons and general discussion. By demonstrating your knowledge and understanding of these factors you will be able to give this short presentation meaning and this will allow you to hold the audience’s interest: this should always be a primary aim of your presentations!


“5” work give the reader a vivid impression of excellence in all of the listed criteria. A grade in the “5” range signifies work significantly better than the fine and superior work that most students do

“4” work gives the reader a strong impression of general superiority in all or nearly all of the listed criteria

“3” work barely meets the requirements listed above

“2” or “1” work is seriously deficient in one or more of the listed criteria

The University Rules, Including the Student Code of Conduct, and other documented policies of the department, college, and university related to academic integrity will be enforced. Any violation of these regulations, including acts of plagiarism or cheating, will be dealt with on an individual basis according to the severity of the misconduct.

Special Needs Policy: If you have any special needs related to your participation in this course, including identified visual impairment, hearing impairment, physical impairment, communication disorder, and/or specific learning disability that may influence your performance in this course, you should meet with the instructor to arrange for reasonable provisions to ensure an equitable opportunity to meet all the requirements of this course.

Nincsenek megjegyzések:

Újabb bejegyzés Régebbi bejegyzés Főoldal