Postmodern Structuralism
Rip Cronk
Chapter 2
Structuralism
Drawing on parallels between art and language, artists in the late 1960's began adapting structural linguistics as a conceptual reference for assessing art's methodological integrity. A new branch of aesthetics developed from the theories of de Saussure, Barthes, Wittgenstein, Lacan and Levi-Strauss (among others). This group found commonality in their emphasis on language in the development of personality. The realization that the figure of speech had more to do with what could be known than the subject it addressed prompted artists and critics to abandon traditional philosophical and psychological models for understanding art. The new aesthetic incorporated the assumption that beneath art lay an internal logic that could be understood through language theory. Art was conceived as a primitive language combining visual signs and linguistic principles.
As an aesthetic, Structuralism was not concerned with form or depicted subject matter, but focused instead on the language that exists between compositional elements and the conventions of art. The idea and its context became the subject. Where Formalists were limited to manipulating elements within a medium, there were no restrictions on the medium for the Structuralist. Structuralism freed the artist from the precious object, the originality of the product, the integrity of the medium and the quality of presence. Without the restrictive maxims of Modernism, and without the validation of the subjective response, art could be redefined to include almost anything. Language and concept, as well as any novel gestalt, became source material. Artists would mix media and include theory and environment as elements of the work. By contrast, the Formalists had contemplated the art object without regard to surrounding spaces. The Structuralist rejected the Formalist’s concern for relationships within the composition. The primary object, like the blank canvas, stood for itself. There was no attempt at illusion.
The Structural aesthetic denied the connotative powers of visual imagery. Chosen images and products were often intentionally lifeless and without transcendent potential. The transcendent visual encounter sought by the Modernist was purposely played down or eliminated. Structuralism separated meaning from affect. It shifted the importance from image to idea. The product communicated the idea.
In the history of art theory, Romanticism lionized the artist. Formalism focused on the object. Structuralism centered on process and systems analysis. The Structuralist sought the rules that made art. It was based on logical operations instead of straightforward intuition of perceptual gestalts. The artist turned from considerations of formal perception to approach art in self-analytic conceptual terms. Where Modernists looked at art as a medium of self-expression and formal innovation, the Structuralist utilized the object as a sign to be manipulated in the exploration of art's structural properties. Where it might be said that Formalism reduced art to formula, Structuralism diagrammed art like a sentence.
The Structuralists attempted to release art from the psychology of perception. They denounced the perceptual criteria of Modernism and relied on conceptually substantiated art statements. The viewer was expected to "follow his predetermined premise to its conclusion avoiding subjectivity." (LeWitt, quoted by Lucy R. Lippard, "10 Structuralists in 20 Paragraphs") Structural art was not intended to inspire the viewer through aesthetic perception. Rather, the work was a model for the analytic reappraisal of art. Where the Formalist's intent was to enrapture the viewer, the Structuralist challenged the established priorities of art at a theoretical level. The intent was to provoke aesthetic sensibilities into the realization of art as a semiotic device. Artists abandoned transcendent aesthetics for a system of values based on man's greatest attribute, the contemplative intellect. Structuralists rejected what earlier movements took for granted -- that art communicates non-discursive ontological knowledge. A question of primary interest to the Formalist, 'what is the knowledge that logic cannot know?,' fell outside what Structural aesthetics acknowledged as meaningful. The artist resigned himself to exploring art's discursive significance and definable values.
Postmodern Dilemma: In the 1970’s aesthetic discourse abandoned the rhetoric of Formalism. The emphasis shifted from the perceptual gestalts of Formalism to the propositional logic of structural aesthetics. This proved to be both enlightening and disappointing. While freeing the artist from the erroneous assumptions of occidental philosophy, postmodern aesthetic theories did not adequately consider the relevance of the metaphysical experience in art. In their rejection of traditional psychological models, postmodern aesthetics relegated the development of personality to the acquisition of language with little or no regard for the central roles of propensity and ontological knowledge. Structural aesthetics acknowledged the gulf existing between convention and knowledge but failed to recognize the vital nature of cultural mythology that incorporates the two.
Art is not based on rhetoric or in the objectively perceived, or within itself as a system. Meaning in art is not grounded on artist’s intent or historical context or reductive aesthetics or language theory without first accounting for the role of the viewer as an active participant in the process. The art encounter cannot be written out of the script. Art is grounded in the encounter, and in the role the encounter plays as a civilizing force. It can be studied as a set of objects and concepts independent of the viewer, but for art to be seen as inspiring a sense of truth, whether that of aesthetic symbolism or mathematical idealism, requires an hypothesis that accounts for the ontological aspect of knowledge and defines art's role in the generation of culture. Without acknowledging art’s effect on the viewer, Structuralism played to a limited esoteric audience.
The nihilism of postmodern aesthetics did little to revise the brittle myths and oppressive ideology that structure art into society. Nor did it inspire art with the potential to integrate the disenfranchised population. While the negation of outmoded philosophic principles opened new horizons in art, the devaluation of the art experience effectively reduced art to economic and academic priorities in a scheme that further empowered elitism and entrenched the status quo. For the artist, the nihilism of postmodern art presented a dead end. Propositional logic cannot discover anything that is not implied by the stifling ideology that sets the parameters of the inquiry. It could deconstruct the myth and little else. The systems analysis of Structuralism provided an inadequate tool for exploring or explaining the non-rational, holistic nature of art appreciation. Art does not read like a sentence. For the rational intellect, elements of the composition are plastic signs; signifiers to be manipulated in syntactic arrangements, but in the aesthetic experience, the same elements become a symbolic whole.
Despite the conceptual nature of postmodern Structuralism, the underlying preoccupation with gestalt recognition, self-discovery and historical context persevered. And there was still the traditional exhibitionism and narcissism of the art activity. Postmodern art, as with the paintings of Modernism, challenged its own existence as art. Both pushed the envelope or they were of little value. In a tradition that started with the Impressionists, postmodernism continued to isolate self-analytic signifiers to reflect on the nature of art. Modern and postmodern were both art about art. High Modern and postmodern were as similar as two peas from Pollock's pod. It was only after structural linguistics provided a new theoretical framework for speaking about art that deconstructive strategies took on the look of a new direction. The art establishment assimilated the radical implications of postmodernism without breaking stride. Modern and postmodern art supported the same established hierarchy of universities, galleries and art publications with measured innovations aimed at insuring recognition, obtaining tenure and gaining monetary reward.
