This is an unedited version of a paper on the following article:
Rosalind Krauss, â??The Originality of the Avant-Garde,â? 1981
Originality and repetition are seen constantly in modernist work. How can two seemingly disparate words coexist in an artistâ??s work and what does this say about avant-garde art?
Rosalind Krauss examines ideas of originality and the concept of avant-garde to dispel myths about artistic genius and expression that modern society has held in such high regard for the last century.
Much emphasis has been placed on the concept of originality in art. But as Krauss points out in this article, some art forms such as photography and sculpture are not concerned with the concept of authenticity. The original work (negative or plaster) is not the final product and was never intended to be. We place more value on reproductions created closer to the â??originalâ? mold or negative and made by the artistâ??s own hand, but does it really matter?
In the age of reproduction and appropriation, does originality mean anything? Artists such as Sherry Levine have based their work on this question. Is a painting of a landscape by Eliot Porter and original? The artist is merely borrowing from nature. When Weston took photos of his son, he used classical poses that reference Greek and Roman sculpture. By photographing copies of Westonâ??s work, is Levine breaking copyrighting laws, or merely appropriating a copy of a copy? When seen through this lens, it seems pointless to attempt to find origins.
Where does originality live? Is it in the imagination? Is it in the execution of the work? It seems all our ideas of originality can be brought into question. Monetâ??s work was considered by critics and historians to be pure artistic expression. His paintings gave the illusion of spontaneity that points towards this idea of artistic originality. But many of his works were created systematically and in tandem to one another, over periods of several years. Monetâ??s working process and the critical reviews of his work were disparate.
Is the origin of art hidden in the system of its creation? Many artists have been drawn to the grid. A common thread in all of their work is the belief that they were uncovering something original, that they were tapping into the primordial essence of art. The grid is seen by many as an absolute beginning, silent and empty. Its form seems impervious to language, narrative, and hierarchical structure. Artists such as Martin, Mondrian, Malevich, Léger, Picaso, Schmitters, Cornell, Reinhardt, Johns, Andre, Hesse, LeWitt, Ryman and more all found their own singular voice within the confines of the grid. But Krauss feels that once these artists found the grid, their work stopped developing and they were forever stuck in a repetitive cycle. Grid works, similar to Rodin, Weston, etc., reveal a system of reproductions with no original.
The twentieth century was focused on the importance new, original art. Avant-garde artists have been defined by their roles of forging original ideas in art. Rules of conduct include a belief in self-resurrection, and that only â??trueâ? avant-garde work can come from a sort of rebirth. The art must always be looking forward, never back. Postmodernist art of any variety has been described as being founded in a criticism of previously established modernist ideas. If this truly is a defining feature of postmodernist art, it can therefore never be avant-garde. Postmodernist artists such as Sherry Levine have taken on the role of deconstructing the idea of originality in modernist art, thus stripping modernist artâ??s previous title of avant-garde. Did avant-garde art never truly exist? Has originality in art always been a fiction?