Chapters 4-6 in D’Alleva’s Look! Again, provide another interesting look on some of the most important foundations of art history. Focusing on the section on structuralism and post structuralism specifically (for the purpose of my short class presentation), I want to take this opportunity to reflect on a few specific pieces of D’Alleva’s arguments concerning these movements.
Between my senior capstone art history class and this class alike, the ideas of synchronic and diachronic aspects have presented themselves week after week in my reading. In this section in particular, myths are questioned using synchronic and diachronic approaches, and this breaks the form of structuralism into a more digestible format when compared to other theories of art history. I find it fascinating how structuralists could argue the need for rigidity in structural norms within culture, while individuals such as Levi-Strauss argue that the “structure” can also be looked at in this manner of synchronic vs. diachronic.
As Strauss says “myths are important because they provide a logical model capable of overcoming contradiction”, others argue that from this results the death of the author. Interestingly, I would disagree and prefer to blend the approaches, as the “number of codes available in the artist’s or author’s culture” seem to be something, that in my mind, can be undercover by the author via myth decoding.
Although this topic becomes increasingly “meta” the more that one divulges into the details, it is interesting to ask if structuralists and post structuralists can potentially work with each other instead of against each other. Offering each other solutions (at least potential) for the shortcomings and criticisms of each theory.