The Genre

Greenhalgh’s definitions of the positivist and ironic practice seem, at their best, to be barriers that have little importance in the success and development of the contemporary art scene. From his definitions, I can think of few artists that can be truly identified as one or the other. In the essence of art lies the need not only for the utilization and consideration of traditional aesthetic and material qualities, but also for the critique that will “intensify and improve human experience by questioning the role and purpose of things”. Even the most traditional potter has, through the planning and creation of their pieces addressed the question of function, innovation and purpose. Why is a question that is embedded in the most basic art theory and practice. Even in the positivist search for the sublime lies the potential for the “art of engagement” and “commentary” of the ironic. Infact, it seems that without the critique and commentary the sublime or idol of the positivists cannot exist. The distinction between the positivist and ironic approach to permanence and loyalty is fascinating though I would challenge that adhering to one panel of thought over the other compromises the range and ability of an artist to create a breadth of effective work. Loyalty to a material or to a practive binds an artist to the prexisting restrictions and cultural perceptions associated with it. Coming from an art school education, it seems that there is little place for work that does not either critique, improve upon or aim to challenge and redefine the cultural uses and perceptions of materials and practice within the art world.