This gets tricky when we translate these moods and concerns to art history and try to chart a new path for Hermeneutics. Both modernism and postmodernism seem to have their canons. James Elkins, in Master Narratives and their Discontents claims that modernism's canon runs from Cezanne to Picasso to Abstract Expressionism, and that postmodernism's runs from Dada & Surrealism (especially the latter's photography, NOT its paintings), to anti-art, Fluxus, and finally to performance, installation and video. When looking at the contemporary artworld it isn't too hard to see what is most prevalent right now -- you might have seen the new Phaidon collection called 'Themes and Movements' which attempts to cover the major movements of the 20th century and includes Dada, Minimalism, Feminist Art, Surrealism, Photography, etc., but, predictably enough, not Abstract Expressionism, etc.
So if we look at the major art movements of the 20th century they seem to very easily sync up to motives founded in either Modernist Enlightenment values or Postmodern commitments.
Abstract Expressionism emphasizes high Greenbergian values like autonomy, uniqueness, authenticity. Much Feminist Art stresses postmodern difference and irreconcilability (postmodern 'values') and autonomy (modernist?). Minimalism stresses structure (the death of the subject / structuralism) with its stress on form. Dada/Surrealism is appreciated now for its radical contingency, stress on difference and the impossibility of communication (only signifiers, no signified, no meaning).
My question, then, is what is left in concrete art history that isn't yet claimed or more readily identified with either of the two positions that Hermeneutics is attempting steer a course between? How can a school of art criticism that is informed by these philosophical commitments arise without the ability to evaluate art (ie, claim that x is better than y because x embodies such-and-such qualities -- such evaluation and 'claiming X-art as their own' is present in both Modernism and Postmodernism). Maybe this question is too absolutist, attempting to too narrowly call a certain type of art Modernism's, or Postmodernism's or (possibly) Hermeneutics'... but even if this is the case, it still doesn't respond to the fact that this type of "claiming as part of one's canon" is going on in theory & art historical circles and "hermeneutical art criticism" is getting left out of all of the discussions. Influential books, like Elkins's, are being written on these Master Narratives for approaching art (Modernist/Postmodernist/Political/Technical) and I'm trying to see if there's room for another narrative...
"Be I (second version)," 1970.As an aside, Barnett Newman is a divisive character in that he is claimed by both High Modernists (as the ultimate Abstract Expressionist) and some Postmodernists (probably as a proto-Minimalist). This seems odd since minimalism was a reaction to Abstract Expressionism, but, if you'd like to share, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, if this is an area which interests you.
