{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014373716632443531, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027378507871321013, 'mean_word_length': 5.221276595744681, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
After Aquarius dawned: how the revolutions of the sixties became the popular culture of the seventies

profoundly discredited by modern art. The question forms the background for a return to the much-discussed work of Gerhard Richter, whose very different brand of photorealism stages constant confrontations with modernist abstraction, as well as with the administrative orders of a divided postwar Germany. His claim that “what is good in art is always factual” translated into the decidedly non-painterly practice of producing and organizing paintings in ways that evoked the particular systems from which their motifs derived. In this approach, portrait photographs from a yearbook or a lexicon were no more vested in systemic realities than the color charts you find in home decoration stores; the modernist fetishization of pure color no less oriented toward the contingently factual than the photographic snapshot with all its potential failures. Again, Shannon shows his capacity for beautifully nuanced discussions of works, attentive to details that bring out the many political and esthetic ambiguities of the factualist approaches. And yet, the overarching narrative is a familiar one: if artists approach bureaucratic and scientific orders it is essentially to undo or undermine them. For perspectives on the ways in which 1960s art practices could also be said to function as test beds for new forms of power, readers would need to look elsewhere.