I am sure that this happened the way described (although I am unable to fill in A, B and X due to ignorance).
Can I just say that there is no contemporary art, because the contemporary moment is always already past and thus an ideological reconstruction from a present that wants to control the future. This thought appropriated from Peter Osborne might make it necessary to think about other ways to order what is given. Re-reading George Kubler at the moment I am thinking that his concept of 'systematic time' might offer such an alternative because it confuses 'historic time' and makes us look at constellations of forms i.e. multiples. 'Contemporary art' is a historic notion - as long as we think it is (quote) 'the job of art criticism is to provide a reflection on contemporary art practice' we will repeat an ideology.
Mustafa Maluka's post seems to accept this ideology. By pointing out errors regarding the historical order, he is criticising the critic but NOT the system of criticism that is used. Does he think that an historicising art criticism can work, or does he think that it by definition has to produce such errors? If it is the latter it would be important question his own assumption and drop the notion of 'contemporary art'.
Contemporary Art
I am sure that this happened the way described (although I am unable to fill in A, B and X due to ignorance).
Can I just say that there is no contemporary art, because the contemporary moment is always already past and thus an ideological reconstruction from a present that wants to control the future. This thought appropriated from Peter Osborne might make it necessary to think about other ways to order what is given. Re-reading George Kubler at the moment I am thinking that his concept of 'systematic time' might offer such an alternative because it confuses 'historic time' and makes us look at constellations of forms i.e. multiples. 'Contemporary art' is a historic notion - as long as we think it is (quote) 'the job of art criticism is to provide a reflection on contemporary art practice' we will repeat an ideology.
Mustafa Maluka's post seems to accept this ideology. By pointing out errors regarding the historical order, he is criticising the critic but NOT the system of criticism that is used. Does he think that an historicising art criticism can work, or does he think that it by definition has to produce such errors? If it is the latter it would be important question his own assumption and drop the notion of 'contemporary art'.