In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm
As much as religion and philosophy stir up discussions, there's no need to neglect art discussion.Just as in literature, art has historically swung back and forth on the pendulum of Romanticism vs. Rationalism, but in the age of the Internet and light-speed communications, the pendulum swings back and forth faster than ever. It seems like the idea of stylistic movements are dead, as anybody can display their art in a respectable fashion and the gallery is no longer restricted to influential nor good artists.The art world, more than ever, has become very hodge-podge when it comes to the styles, especially with groups such as the Outsider Artists who have stretched to boundaries of the art world by insisting that the untrained artist is just as credible as a trained one, maybe even better due to "untainted" style (sounds just like Gaguin's babbling when he went to Tahiti). There are hardly any more traditions to go by and now that the public masses has suddenly become indoctrinated to think that they are ignorant and will never understand art, the moment they see a piece of art that is crap but is being toted as a "breakthrough", they immediately feel ignorant of art and when they encounter other art feel that they canot trust their aesthetics.So here's my question. With the advances that art has taken throughout its history, starting with the basics of form and shape on cave walls, to the anti-art and pop-art of the post-modern period we live in, what is left for the art world to move towards and where is it going? Or where would you like it to go next? Would you want the art world to move onto something new, or perhaps revisit old ideas, such as the science-phobic no perspective Middle Ages art, or the Arts and Crafts Movement we had here in California? Or is there some virgin territory you feel needs to be discovered?~Eisprinz
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- Location: decentralized
This thread probably shouldn't have been as neglected as it has.Eisprinz: Just as in literature, art has historically swung back and forth on the pendulum of Romanticism vs. Rationalism...Hmm. Interesting theory, although I can't see the confirmation for it at the moment. Can you provide some evidence for the idea, or point me to a reference that makes the argument more explicit?It seems like the idea of stylistic movements are dead, as anybody can display their art in a respectable fashion and the gallery is no longer restricted to influential nor good artists.I see this as falling into two points:a) Yeah, there don't seem to be much of the way of concerted schools anymore, nothing on the order of, say, the pre-Raphaelites or Art Nouveau. That may be just a matter of perspective: a lot of these movements weren't really recognized as movements until much later. But I think it may also have to do with the nature of contemporary society, which is polyphonic (to borrow Mikhail Bhaktin's use of the term). There are so many voices and attitudes being expressed in the cultural arena that very few are really coming to the forefront. If there is a dominant movement, at the moment, I'd say it takes the form of mainstream commercial media, and that it to some degree disguises the fact that it is, in most respects, a kind of art movement. And...b) It would be easy to say that the assertion that the gallery is no longer restricted to "good" or influential artists is a subjective judgement, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'd say that there's some truth in that statement. Most people, in my experience, will look at any given work of art and disclaim it or express their own bewilderment and ignorance. The responses are usually something along the lines of, "My four year old could have painted this," or "I don't get it, but I like the colors." Part of it has to do, I think, with the lack of any recognized standards for art, and that relates back to my point about this being a polyphonic society. At any given time, most of us will only have the resources and experiences to appreciate a given range of art styles and motifs, and everything else just confuses us. And because our experiences and resources are so diverse, art judgements will vary widely. And while that means, on the one hand, that most of us (myself included) are apt to misunderstand a work of art that is, in a different context, totally worthwhile and compelling, it probably also means that a lot of us are mistakenly praising works of art that are quite banal and trite.So here's my question. With the advances that art has taken throughout its history, starting with the basics of form and shape on cave walls, to the anti-art and pop-art of the post-modern period we live in, what is left for the art world to move towards and where is it going?The only answer that I can really summon up is that we don't know, and we can't predict it. What makes a new movement in art really take hold is it's appeal to contemporary consciousness, and that takes place mostly beneath our notice, because we're at the sharp end of the wedge. If we could get an accurate read on society at the instant when art is coming to fruition, then we might stand some chance of guessing the forms it will produce, but since we're barred from that sort of broad view, save in retrospect, the best we can hope for is that we'll recognize the future when we see it.Or where would you like it to go next?I'd like for it to be more accessible. Or rather, I'd like for the popular culture to mediate more between the more outre, ambition works and the audience that has been, in recent years, bewildered and complacent. The lofty art of recent decades hasn't been, to my knowledge, completely esoteric and impenetrable, but at some point a process of mitosis seems to have divorced art from its audience, and most people are having trouble keeping abreast.such as the science-phobic no perspective Middle Ages artHeh, I don't think Medieval art was necessarily science-phobic, and while it never fastened onto the perspective of later Renaissance art, that isn't to say that it's without perspective. Rather, Medieval art makes perspective -- not to mention time and space -- fluid, and in doing so, achieves from tremendous and bizarre effects. In a lot of ways, I think that Medieval art was incredibly inventive and experimental, despite its reliance on conventional forms and figures.