A New Art Movement

[JUN]

Don't you guys think it's about time ? I look around and everyone's so tired. Everyone's tired of everything and everyone seems so down and so depressed, even those who are happy they just seem to be fooling themselves into ignorance and detachment from the problems that overwhelm mankind.

So I got to thinking that... With all this "END OF THE WORLD" talk and "Age of Aquarius" talk that we might really be heading for something, a renewal in our values and a renewal in the way we treat each other. Wonderful times seem to be nearing due to the cyclical behavior of Man's history.

We are in deep shit right now, deep deep shit. So only good things can come after this, only good things.

So, after all the shit we're going through now I've been speculating on what is this renewal going to be all about and all I can think of is the exact opposite: We're going from a total chaos and lack of social organization to a world where organization and intentions to help are actually good. All that talk about "we are the society" that I've been doing lately is precisely about this.

We will learn, everyone will learn, the hard way that we need to respect each other and most of all we will remember ourselves of our own fragility, there will be a renewal of our values and of our attitudes.

In this line of thought... I've been speculating on what Art Movement will arrive with this new view on the world and I think it will all be related to Art being accepted as something with a purpose to help people instead of it being just something made out of jealousy and obsession.

We all know that Art is only Art if it is conceived with purposes and feelings and whims behind it, and people enjoy different types of art because all art has different personal origins thus relating to different personal ends. But this is something that artists are refusing nowadays.

Modern Art is nothing short of bullshit in my opinion, it is no more than an self-masturbatory exercise where the artist close within itself and does pointless works. So what I'm hoping for is a new art movement where artists will be connected, again, to the world and to it's problems, rather than behaving like little obsessed kids with their little hobbies.

Now... please, go ahead and discuss this with me.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Modern Art is nothing short of bullshit in my opinion, it is no more than an self-masturbatory exercise where the artist close within itself and does pointless works.

I agree, modern art in particular is just so opinionated that it becomes difficult for any honestly open minded person to take it seriously, i.e. many artists create art that's nothing more than a manifestation/characterization of their personal identity, cultural background and/or political opinions.

Art should be timeless, a medium through which the philosopher/artist reaches out to the community and helps them attain a deeper understanding of their own lives; not by forcing hir thoughts upon them, instead by provoking the audience to think for themselves.

 

[Anthile]

Art is always a simulacrum of the real world. The art work represents the era and culture it was made in. What does that say about our time, considering that your assumptions are right?

 

[JUN]

Art is always a simulacrum of the real world. The art work represents the era and culture it was made in. What does that say about our time, considering that your assumptions are right?

Yes, we all know that everything which is ART is nothing more than the perception of our world conveyed into form. So my thoughts are: we live in a bullshit time where people are all up on their INDIVIDUALITY and everyone wants to be SO DIFFERENT and no one cares about anything at all... Apathy is cool. Being mediocre and an asshole is cool, these things are valued in a personality nowadays and those who care and who try to act respectful and "mr. nice guys" are the one's who are the losers.

We got it all wrong nowadays my friends, we got it all fucking wrong.

The world is turned upside down and everyone's tired of having to fight with themselves and their natural willingness to belong to a society in order to be self-centered assholes.

 

[Sugarpop]

I'm not sure I see this regular/cyclic/simulacral behavior of art. Could any of you elaborate?

 

[Zero]

I'm not a huge postmodern fan, but given the medium postmodern and the "art movement" that's happening is completely different.

Since the modern and postmodern periods, which are vaguely defined, there haven't been huge leaps in movements. The reason there were such huge movements before were because people gave more merit to subject as society (and rebelling against definitions), not the individual. The art movements today are abstract and based on the idea of individual expression and individual personality.

Arts before the arts we see now in cooperated completely different things, but they had a general "need to be met by society".

Arts are changing quite rapidly. We've gone from a individualness to a everyone-ness. There are ... the layman's arts. You don't have to be an artist to create art and the definition of art is undefined. The vagueness of the field, now, makes it shit.

If there is no true definition to art, then there is no art. However, if there is a definition to painting, to life drawing, to writing, then there is lingering hope.

But then, there is some hope in the fact that art is becoming big again, because it's for everyone's usage and however it will be used. It's probably lost a great deal of it's value since humanity's phase after the enlightenment.

 

[Polaris]

Art is also a form of expression for those who find it hard to express in other ways. If one cannot express in the way that feels more natural to oneself, then what is the point of expression.

There has to be a self-centred component in art, it is a method of dealing (I hate that word, but cannot think of a better one right now) with all the complexities of human-kind.

Art is selfish, yes, but the fact that it is expressed through a medium makes it a tool for communication, bonding, puzzlement, wonder and also sometimes (inevitably) alienation of the people who share in the experience of an art work. It may be self-centred, but comes from a need to share. I think art breaks down barriers, and is a wonderful tool of communication.

 

[Zero]

Why do I even try?

 

[Polaris]

Why do I even try?

hmmm..I see what you mean.

 

[Zero]

hmmm..I see what you mean.

Lol, thanks.

 

[echoplex]

I think it's possible for an artist to put themselves into their art without it being about themselves. I guess it's just a matter of where you draw the line. How much "me" makes a work of art self-absorbed, as opposed to just self-aware? Then again, what good is self-awareness without awareness of your relation to everything else? There be questions ahead.

But meh, I think alot of it is a function of capitalism. Artists create identities to distinguish themselves from the competition. Although the fact that these often shallow identities actually sell is what annoys me. Don't just blame the pusher, blame the junkie too.

 

[merzbau]

interesting art to me is involved with extremity, boundaries, contrasts, tension, uncertainty and the surreal because those are the things that represent to me the truth of the human condition. there is good stuff out there, but it's drowned out by all the dross. i agree the current trend towards mawkish, or biographical art (eg. tracy emin), is dull beyond belief. all that communicates to me is the confusion and mediocrity of the person who made it. would i expect them to care about the insignificant details of my life? what pair of socks i wore on the 15th of november? how many apples i ate last tuesday? but then, i don't see the point of twitter either... digression.

the modern art world is a product of commercial interests, suited to the tastes of those who have the money to buy it, and the artist's role is to act as a gladiator in the field of self-actualisation, living the romantic, exciting lifestyle of one who is able use their imagination to live an interesting life, and that individual is encapsulated in purchasable nuggets for the spectators who seek to consume, experience and live vicariously through them. but no-one actually wants to be an artist, because in reality surviving off your creative ability sucks, unless you're cunning enough to sell yourself, which makes you more of a marketing phenomenon than an artist.

the problem is that we are conditioned to see the core purpose of society as something other than art, creativity, literature etc. until this changes, art will remain a commodity.

 

[Kuu]

Arts are changing quite rapidly. We've gone from a individualness to a everyone-ness. There are ... the layman's arts. You don't have to be an artist to create art and the definition of art is undefined. The vagueness of the field, now, makes it shit.

If there is no true definition to art, then there is no art. However, if there is a definition to painting, to life drawing, to writing, then there is lingering hope.

Yes. I hate this word, art. Everyone seems to use it as if they know what it means, and yet they don't ever agree... I think I have talked about this somewhere in this forum before...

Edit: I think the concept itself has outlived its usefulness, and it is only vestigial of past ideologies... this false Art / Not-Art dichotomy. I would much rather deconstruct it and assimilate its constituent ideas into other concepts, redefining contemporary culture into something that makes sense and is actually coherent with our current understanding of existence.

So...(opens can of worms)... what *is* art?

the modern art world is a product of commercial interests, suited to the tastes of those who have the money to buy it, and the artist's role is to act as a gladiator in the field of self-actualisation, living the romantic, exciting lifestyle of one who is able use their imagination to live an interesting life, and that individual is encapsulated in purchasable nuggets for the spectators who seek to consume, experience and live vicariously through them. but no-one actually wants to be an artist, because in reality surviving off your creative ability sucks, unless you're cunning enough to sell yourself, which makes you more of a marketing phenomenon than an artist.

the problem is that we are conditioned to see the core purpose of society as something other than art, creativity, literature etc. until this changes, art will remain a commodity.

Yes, yes.

Humanity doesn't seem to realize it lacks a collective purpose. But of course, who gets to decide it and why?

 

[merzbau]

having thought a bit more, the statement i made above was overly simplistic.

what is important is not that the creation of art is undervalued, but that the necessary freedom to express the natural creativity and expression of the members of a civilisation (from which art emerges) is undervalued.
every one of us makes a decision to use our imagination in the way we live our lives, it's in everything we create, every decision, every interaction with the world.
so the art produced is only secondary to the life; it's merely the byproduct of a schema of being. because the byproduct is profitable for some it's regarded as more important, but this is a mistake.

the art world also seems obsessed with art history, and the leaving of a cultural legacy, due in part to the fact that we remember previous civilisations by the artifacts they leave, paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc. but this focus on impressing subsequent civilisations misses the point. we should be focused on how life is now - how we use our imaginations now, to benefit the present, not the illusory future.

 

[Polaris]

having thought a bit more, the statement i made above was overly simplistic.

what is important is not that the creation of art is undervalued, but that the necessary freedom to express the natural creativity and expression of the members of a civilisation (from which art emerges) is undervalued.
every one of us makes a decision to use our imagination in the way we live our lives, it's in everything we create, every decision, every interaction with the world.
so the art produced is only secondary to the life; it's merely the byproduct of a schema of being. because the byproduct is profitable for some it's regarded as more important, but this is a mistake.

the art world also seems obsessed with art history, and the leaving of a cultural legacy, due in part to the fact that we remember previous civilisations by the artifacts they leave, paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc. but this focus on impressing subsequent civilisations misses the point. we should be focused on how life is now - how we use our imaginations now, to benefit the present, not the illusory future.

It could not have been put more elegantly. The exploitation of Indigenous Australian art is a perfect example. Destroy the people, but preserve the art. Enough to make anyone feel ill.

 

[Zero]

(Art) History = Answers

Questions(-Answers)+Philosophy= Redundant.

 

[Waterstiller]

I like my art in the form of sculpted sound waves.

And there are so, so, many movements these days.

 

[shoeless]

we live in an age of technology, you know. the way i see it, art is still art; art is still timeless; art is still alive. it's just completely undermined by the growth of technology. that's where society's focus is at, right now.

traditional media in art is dying -- i mean, really, who the hell paints anymore? now we've got photoshop and an endless supply of "references". now anyone with a working index finger can be an "artist", and since so much of the "art" we see is online, it's all starting to blend in together and look the same. it's stale. it's whatever.

once we can separate ourselves from technology, and maybe, shit, i dunno, get off our asses and attend an actual art gallery for a change... then maybe we'll be taking a step in the right direction.

but as it is... i don't have a lot of hope for the modern world, with regard to art. but, who knows what'll happen.

i figure if there's going to be any great movements any time soon, it'll have to be in a media accessible to everyone -- that is, more than likely, in music.

 

[Latro]

All I really have to add here is this; it's informed a lot of my general opinions on this subject and expresses rather different ideas from those mentioned here:
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Art-E-H-Gombrich/dp/0714832472
First sentences:
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists."
(The capital A is important).

 

[Waterstiller]

From the Amazon summary of that book: "As his title indicates, he presents the whole of art history as a chronological narrative."

What if the next art movement is about dismantling the chronological narrative? I'm really finding this stuff fascinating.

 

[Da Blob]

Hmmm I believe my very first post on this forum was titled Art versus Science
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=32607&highlight=grasshopper#post32607

I suggested that all the Humanities were "liberal Arts" and were pretty much doomed in the Science-exalting world we live in...

Personally I think that New Art will be software or software related. I use the Adobe Creative Suite a lot and I know there is software for about all forms of creativity in the Humanities. I think that art therapy is extremely therapeutic and everyone can benefit from exercising creativity - My problem, (being a snob, I guess) is locating the handful of masterpieces when there are billions of artists. I am actually haunted by the fact that there are incredible masterpieces already out there hidden amongst billions of attempted works of art.

I guess that is the challenge. Art, is primarily for the artists, but where are the art lovers going to find art to love ?

 

[merzbau]

expresses rather different ideas from those mentioned here:
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Art-E-H-Gombrich/dp/0714832472

First sentences:
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists."
(The capital A is important).

au contraire, mon ami... this is something i mentioned in my last post..!

we live in an age of technology, you know. the way i see it, art is still art; art is still timeless; art is still alive. it's just completely undermined by the growth of technology. that's where society's focus is at, right now.

technological media may present strong competition for traditional art media, but think of the popularity of film - a medium whose growth can be directly attributed to technology. and film was only the first medium in the modern age to benefit from technology; since the splitting of the atom, we've been living in the age of the cut-up, our tools have evolved to the level where we can cut and rearrange reality as easily as i'm typing this now.
technology allows us to experience things in a totally different way, inwards as well as outwards, and synaesthetically, enhancing our senses and bringing our awareness to a unified level. that's exciting, because humans have never had those abilities before.

once we can separate ourselves from technology, and maybe, shit, i dunno, get off our asses and attend an actual art gallery for a change... then maybe we'll be taking a step in the right direction.

a lot of ordinary people don't attend galleries for the reason that a lot of what those galleries display is essentially irrelevant to them.
i think you have to have a understanding of context and history to appreciate the fragmented and disjointed tapestry of art these days. just as i have not acquired the requisite knowledge to appreciate an opera, many opera lovers are not able to appreciate 70s era punk.

but as i mentioned before, commercialism in art schools has tainted the art world, it has become very cloistered and academic, especially in the field of "conceptual art". traditionally, art was always concerned with illuminating mankind's ineffable aspirations to the spiritual, and was embued with the hopes and wishes for transcendence beyond the mortal which every peasant and noble was involved in. now art is controlled by money, it has become a near impenetrable fortress, hostile to the uninitiated, and irrelevant to those who don't speak the same language as art critics.

 

[Kuu]

merzbau basically said most of what I wanted to say... :/


I disagree with shoeless' aversion to technology. I do agree that most of what is done with it is crap. That is because it is imitating another medium, instead of using its own strengths... The true potential of technology as a tool for artistic expression has yet to be fully exploited. Imitating painting digitally is pathetic, like developing a supercomputer to have it do 1+1. I believe good... (ugh) "art" ... is that which uses a mediums full potential masterfully. By that definition, most of what is called "digital art" is at best mediocre, since it totally misses the point of it being "digital". Videogames are the few that are approaching what I could consider a true expression of the medium, a very contemporary form of artistic expression. Hypertext is interesting too. There are many more.

I also hold no particular interest in the craft of "art", which is the hole in which a lot of people fall..... I guess if I made a sculpture in 3d modelling software and printed it out, some people would decry it as not "art", because I didn't craft it with stone and chisel... But the craft is irrelevant, it is the idea, the intent... that is "artistic". At least that is how I see it. Sure, digital painting has brought the craft of visual expression to the masses... and modern art basically tossed craft out the window... but artistry cannot be democratized. That is why most contemporary "art" IS vacuous. In the "art world" you can see a lot of craftsmanship (at best), but a horrible lack of artistry, and a whole lot of BS trying to cover up the lack of it. But artistry still lives. Mostly outside museums and galleries... on the fringe, beyond the traditional conception of "art" and the fetishistic attachment to objects, which are merely tools.

I recall the story of a famous "photographer", who didn't even manipulate the camera himself. Others manipulated for him, and he would direct them to achieve his desired effects for the shot. He "made" the shot, had the idea, the creativity, the vision. The others simply manipulated the tools, they were technicians, craftsmen. Who is the artist?

Similarly, in an orchestra. The musicians play the instruments, the director conducts. But they are merely puppets, performers, tools. The artist is the composer. Hir might not even know musical notation, that is another craft, and still be a great, intuitive composer...

In architecture, at least contemporary.. the builders contribute nothing besides manpower. It is the designers who are the artists... and in many cases, the designers themselves are rarely the ones who draw the plans... thats also just a craft that is left to subordinates.

This is what bugs me with the obsession with technicalities, like guitarists obsessing over being virtuosos. Sure, you can play 300,000 notes per second... but your music is still shit. You are still only a mere Guitar Operator, not an artist.

I can write many examples, but I think it is enough to see the distinction between artistry and craft.



In this view, science is not opposed to artistry, but in fact it uses it a lot.

(I had written a lot more stuff but it was getting extremely convulted and incoherent so I deleted it all )


EDIT: LOL my preference of NPness over SJness is totally showing haha...