The Central Concepts of Ordinary Language Philosophy in the Art of Marcel Broodthaers and Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos

Authors

  • Ivana Bašičević Antić

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i9.120

Keywords:

conceptual art, language games, performative, speech act, institutional critique

Abstract

While claiming that there are no fixed meanings behind words, Wittgenstein has focused attention on the possibilities of manipulation with linguistic categories. ‘Language game’ can be changed by rotations of the semantic field. On the trace of this philosophy, language became the most important media in many practices of visual arts of the second half of the 20th century. I will focus on two cases: Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos and Marcel Broodthaers.
Wittgenstein’s concept of ‘language game’ and Austin’s concept of the ‘performative’ have become the main tools in building delicate art projects like Broodthaers’ museum or Mangelos’ noart strategy. Here I’d like to prove that Broodthaers’ construction of a museum (Musée d’Art Moderne) was based on the same concept as Austin’s ‘performative’ and that the revolutionary act in this art project was to show that saying that something is art is not a given, it is not a statement. Who is declaring what art is, and how is this ‘action performed’ (Austin), is the main subject of Mangelos’ Picasso phenomenon. When Mangelos asks the spectator to think about the concept of ‘kitsch’ he draws our attention to those who have the power or the license to declare that some art is ‘kitsch’ and some is true art. This issue could be related to Clement Greenberg’s attempt to discard everything popular, commercial in art by naming it ‘kitsch’.
The main ideas of ordinary language philosophy were important for both Mangelos and Broodthaers. The idea that the language and more precisely, grammar of the language that defines the rules of connecting names and things is a place where the solution (solution meaning the answer to questions about the nature and definition of art) is hidden (behind the obvious), provided a very fruitful basis for their research.

Author Biography

Ivana Bašičević Antić

Art theoretician and manager in art
Serbia

References

Austine, J. L. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford Universtity Press, 1962.

Bašičević Antić, Ivana. “Being ‘The Other’ – Analysis of Three Artistic Cases: Nancy Spero, Cy Twombly and Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos.” AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 8 (2015): 81–91.

Bašičević, Vojin ed. Mangelos – Drugi o njemu. Novi Sad, 1996.

Buchloh, Benjamin. “Conceptual Art 1962–1969.” October 55 (Winter, 1990): 105–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/778941

Danto, Arthur. “The Artworld.” In Philosophy Looks at the Arts, edited by Joseph Margolis. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1987.

Haidu, Rachel. The Absence of Work. London: The MIT Press, 2010.

Mitrović, Radoš. “Pozicija i status autora, dela i umetničkog doživljaja u okviru koncepta estetike odsutnosti Hajnera Gebelsa.” AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 5 (2014): 64–69.

Moure, Gloria. Marcel Broodthaers: Collected Writings. Barcelona: Ediciones Poligrafa, 2012.

Rose, Barbara ed. Art as Art: The Selected Writings of Ad Reinhardt. New York: Viking, 1975.

Singerman, Howard ed. A Selected History of Contemporary Art 1945–1986. New York: Abeville Press Publishers, 1986.

Snauwaert, Dirk. Marcel Broodthaers, Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles, Section des Figures, 1972. http://moussemagazine.it/taac5-a/

Šuvaković, Miško. “Teorija umetnosti i analitička filozofija.” In Figure u pokretu – savremena zapadna estetika, filozofija i teorija umetnosti, edited by Miško Šuvaković and Aleš Erjavec. Beograd: Atoča 2009.

Walter, Benjamin. “O jeziku uopšte i jeziku ljudi.” In Eseji. Beograd: Nolit, 1974.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958.

Downloads

Published

15.04.2016

How to Cite

Bašičević Antić, I. (2016). The Central Concepts of Ordinary Language Philosophy in the Art of Marcel Broodthaers and Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos. AM Journal of Art and Media Studies, (9), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i9.120