Where is art going next.
I have asked this in the thread, What is art, but feel it needs to be a new thread because I am asking what will art become, I expect it will be different to what it is now, or was in the past.
There are many forces at work either stretching, appropriating, exploiting art. What we used to understand as art is rapidly becoming a historical period in the story of art. What is the next chapter?
There are many forces at work either stretching, appropriating, exploiting art. What we used to understand as art is rapidly becoming a historical period in the story of art. What is the next chapter?
Comments (99)
Presumably you’ve determined what art is?
So the question should be; where is art as I know it going next?
That’s not meant to be as scathing as it might sound. But true nevertheless, don’t you think?
Because shouldn’t it include dancing, acting and writing?
Edit: one direction is huge profits in investment of established artists. Another is more people calling themselves artists.
Yes it should include dancing, acting, composing and writing, but my focus will inevitably painting and 2dimensional art works.
Yes, there is a lot of money sloshing around in the establishment art world, with numerous effects, including the commercialisation of art along with the exploitation for corporate, or political reasons. Also, digital media and developments amount the young and via their mobile devices etc.
Is there an art movement I wonder?
I increasingly consider Fine Art to have fractured into many splinters, mini movements perhaps. With no over all direction, no where to go. Somehow the great art movements and periods of the twentieth century, which forged ahead broke the mold, are all past and Art is perhaps in a period of incubation, before the next big development.
https://medium.com/predict/the-21st-century-art-movement-what-is-it-a5db9dcc1d97
*I accept that my not finding it serious Art may be my problem and that I'm sure the artists thought it was.
I think the question is how, if at all, will art survive it's commodification (Spotify for music, million dollar sales of Jeff Koons/et. al works, etc). This ties back to points I've tried to make about the relationship between art and religion, and I don't at all think this is small fry. This is the whole crux of this question. The intuition, or imagination, or whatever, was always connected to the spiritual in humanity. So the real question we're dealing with here is "what happens to art when the spiritual is removed?". Or, the more important question would be "what happens to humanity when art is removed?"
Quoting Noble Dust
Can anything survive commodification? The problem seems to be that despite something being commodified people still regard it as the genuine thing. That may be because they’re ignorant about art, or even quality for that matter. When so many people call themselves an artist what does it mean anymore. There’s a difference between being a painter and being an artist but people will tell you without pause that they’re an artist, and of course the whole self esteem movement insists that we’re all creative, we’re all artists.
I think the answer is in your tone, here. An artist makes art despite everything; A fair-weather "creative" makes "art" until the going gets tough (the self-esteem quota isn't being met, etc).
I guess the question is how interested is the public in art? And how are they exposed to it? And how are they to judge in ignorance? The public flock to big exhibitions on The Impressionists, the Cubists or Post Impressionists, because they have faith in the history and art institutes. But most of the public would shy away from private galleries; they don’t trust, or can’t understand, what they’re looking at.
On the other hand the most successful of artists have a relationship with members of what might be called the establishment. This is the history of art. They’re the ones who find some value in art. It’s difficult to know if it’s genuine, but they’re the ones who become collectors, which gives the work it’s value. Of course there’s the whole academic circle as well, which operates alongside. To tell the truth I put more faith in the collectors than the academic world.
All very valid points. It's true that money and art have been hand in hand over the course of history. I think the point I'm trying to make is admittedly pretty opinionated, if not controversial. But, it's the idea that the truly artistic expression is an expression of something higher; quite literally something supra-physical. So, how this relates to monetary problems is that true artistic expression "burns up the world" (to quote Nikolai Berdyaev); it essentially spits in the face of determinism with pure rage. So, the truly artistic is inherently apophatic; it's almost Gnostic.
Just one initial thought, it occurred to me that the people look to the establishment figures to define art and direct them in its appreciation. What happens when these establishment figures lose their way, lose their moral compass?
Quoting Noble Dust
Sometime ago I started an OP titled “Morality and the arts”. This was the OP;
“ In her book “Wickedness” Mary Midgley wrote that ‘It is one main function of cultures to accumulate insights on this matter (morality; our motivation, ambivalence, wasted efforts, damage) , to express them in clear ways as far as possible, and so to maintain a rich treasury of past thought and experience which will save us the trouble of continually starting again from scratch. In this work ... an enormously important part is played by what we call the arts ... From the earliest myths to the most recent novels, all writing that is not fundamentally cheap and frivolous is meant to throw light on the difficulties of the human situation ... ‘
I’m interested in views people out there might have on this, that our morals and human situation are explored and reaffirmed in the arts. Of course this is assuming that morality exists and is not constructed.
What has just come to mind is that the arts have become so shallow and meaningless that if we continue to look to them for insights we will be misguided by the content”.
I think this is largely true. I'm not an art historian so I only have my lay knowledge to go on, but I struggle to think of any art older than 50 years or so that wasn't supposed to either look nice, have some religious/spiritual significance, or inspire people to be 'better'. In fact, it seems quite a strict split with visual and musical arts being aesthetic or religious and stories being inspiring. This trend towards mistaking art for journalism seems to be quite recent and I don't think it's a good direction for the reasons you give.
The trouble is with the Brecht quote that @Bitter Crank gave earlier. I think it's unavoidable that art is both of those things. It can't help but be a mirror to society because artists are both from, and sell to, society. It also acts to shape society as art strongly influences how we feel and act.
So what's created is a positive feedback loop. These systems tend to magnify the effects of small errors. So, to give an example, if an artist reflects inner city life as being brutal and gang-dominated, those growing up with such art will be more likely to act as if it is and so make it more so. The next artist reflects it as such, and the next generation make it so...
This is fine if artists are (as I think many intuitively used to be) careful to err on the side of 'betterment'. That way, any effect of their work is most likely to be positive.
Nowadays what seems to sell best is gritty, violent or bland 'realism'. Which does not so easily avoid the problems of positive feedback.
I agree that for art there is an aesthetic hierarchy like the spiritual hierarchy in religion and that for art over the historical period of civilisations art has been largely controlled and has mirrored this hierarchy. Meaning that we have inherited an aesthetic of high art, which has a pinnacle, a godhead at the top, inhabited by great artists who have the greatest, most noble moral and philosophical considerations at the front and centre of their great work. Leonardo Da Vinci being the archetype. With a hierarchy of prestigious institutions below to whom devotees will flock.
As an alternative to this edifice, with commercialism maybe we will end up with a baby cartoon dragon as the epitome of high Art, with a Disney logo on its bum.
I fear that this ideal I describe is a fragile human creation and that we strike it down to our own detriment.
I had a profound experience a few years ago which illustrates this quite well. I was eating a picnic in a wood with my wife, it was very quiet and suddenly an old man appeared. With a foreign accent he asked where are you heading. Immediately we were transported to a sense of a meeting between fellow pilgrims in a medieval period. As we talked I realised he was a retired Spanish architect. He said we haven't made any progress since the classical period. We weren't sure what he was saying and questioned him in essence what he was saying was the Classical Order was the high point of human civilisation and we had been going downhill ever since. He was referring specifically to architecture, but I took it to mean in all things. To him progress was to build the most solid foundations a human can muster, like the godhead, the Leonardo Da Vinci foundation stone upon which civilisation is built. To him the fact that I knew how to make a square, a tool with a precise 90 degree angle out of a few pieces of wood(straight planed wood) was the highest indication of my knowledge.
That's their mistake, not mine or yours.
The problem, and why it's so easily dismissed, is there's not really a formal or logical argument to make in favor of the connection between spirituality and art. It's experiential, and not theoretical. And maybe that means the concept really doesn't have a place on the forum, but then the question arises of the whole meta-concept of a "philosophy of art". Can it only be done theoretically? If so, does that meta-concept preclude the very possibility of art having a higher purpose? If so, who's wrong: the theoretical philosopher of art, or the artist making the assertion of art's higher purpose? Again, the problem is that, when you begin theoretically, there's not even a question of the artist being wrong; he is. But that doesn't mean he's in fact wrong. If we're going to do philosophy about art, we have to use art's tools: the intuition, the imagination, the connection to the spiritual. Otherwise it's meaningless, or at best, severely handicapped.
Of course this is true. If there's any argument to be made in favor of the idea that art explores and reaffirms the human situation and morals, etc., it's that a lot of that post modern art we might view as meaningless or shallow is, in fact, performing that same function: exploring, and even reaffirming the human situation. We live in a situation where this shallowness and meaninglessness is an expression of the poverty of the human spirit, devoid of a spiritual foundation ("higher", or whatever other word is more comfortable). But even now, there's something of a swing back to some sort of foundation. At least in classical music, there is a large amount of tonal, rather than atonal music being written currently; there has been even since the 70's with minimalism. I think minimalism is another great example, an argument, even. We completely wiped out tonality, as the world wars wiped out so much human "tonality", but now we're slowly beginning again at ground zero: Terry Riley's "In C" being an example (I don't even like that piece that much, but it illustrates the idea). If you've ever taken piano lessons, you know there's nothing more foundational to learning theory and tonality than the key of C...
One example in the visual arts is Makoto Fujimura, who combines classical Japenese Nihonga with abstraction. He's been working for 20-30 years at this point, so these changes have been going on for awhile. But of course Jeff Koons is still making giant balloon dog sculptures and selling them for millions.
One other point I'd like to make is that this idea of art affirming or exploring the situation isn't something that necessarily happens consciously in the artist. Handel writing the Messiah was a situation of 1) getting paid by the church (making a living) and 2) we can assume he was just living within the zeitgeist of his time. Artists are always immersed in the culture of their time, and I think this gives credence to the idea that vapid and meaningless art also expresses the human situation just as sacred music did during the enlightenment, for instance.
Quoting Punshhh
This hierarchy as you called it did control art with its aesthetics. For many years it reflected religious and social mores about morality and beauty. These were the vision and creation of God, about God’s world on earth. All art reflected God’s vision. Morality existed in beauty, beauty was a set of aesthetics, morality was aesthetics, God set down morals for man to live by. Art had to be created in that sense because it could be nothing else, it could have no purpose.
Philosophy challenged God’s existence. Man now created and it wasn’t by the rules of God’s vision, it didn’t require rules about perspective, colour, replicating life, good and bad, beauty or horror. It was a totally free act and it was all man’s. Now he could create whatever he could imagine. This is a primitive act, driven by primitive impulses. Mysticism is part of it in the fact that it’s a primitive action. But I would not call it mysticism. I think that confuses things, as if art has a higher purpose.
(1)Art has been commodified for a long time. Botticelli, for example, was directing a workshop of lesser-artists,in order to complete commissions, for patrons, for money.
(2) There is, without a doubt, a human capacity to approach pure aesthetic experience, something that borders on the mystical.
(3) It's hard to reach this. For most of us, we usually fall short, even if we can understand where the aesthetic experience is tending. Or maybe we have a few peak experiences, we try to repeat, or understand.
(4). It's probably the case that art has always been torn between these two impulses, commercial and aesthetic. Maybe not always commodification, per se - but certainly producing art for social purposes has been there for a long time, probably since the beginning.
(5) Aesthetic creation probably always takes place within a differentiated milieu. I mean this : You remember a very meaningful aesthetic experience. You see trends in the art world that don't reach that. You set yourself against those trends. That probably goes on forever.
Good points, thanks for the reminder that money has always been a big factor in art.
Quoting csalisbury
I think this is related to what I'm trying to say about art being a reflection of the human situation; that meaningful aesthetic experience is certainly individual and personal, but as a human participating in the human situation, your response is a reflection of where you are in that situation. And if you then react to trends you don't like by, for instance, trying to create an aesthetic you do like, then you're one individual contributing to that process of art reflecting the human situation. If you're a hobbyist, you may not influence it much, but if you become successful, you might.
Quoting Noble Dust
Only a particular kind of work can find itself acting as a mirror. To mean anything it has be seen, it has to make itself known. It’s something about the artist’s obsession that drives the work, that creates the noise that gets it the attention. It’s no place for shrinking violets.
Edit: I don’t want to get mystical, but it’s almost like the art finds the artist.
I think I'm following. Let me test that:
I understand you to be saying something like this : art is created in a shared environment. It's a broad, bigger world, in which artists are embedded. If that broader world is dim and bombed-out, or otherwise dark, but that's a massive part of your lived individual experience, it's part of your reality, it's part of what you're trying to express. If you're in a 'bombed-out world' of Jeff Koontz bubble statues, then that's part of it. And a reaction against it, is still linked back to the world. If there's a full aesthetic experience to be had, it has to take into account the landscape it emerges from?
The question to be asked first is, where are we going, because that’s where art goes.
Edit: unless it’s severely controlled like Communust Russia. But then it simply reveals the Russian zeitgeist.
If you know where you're going, though, you can just punch it into the gps, and get the route sketched out.
What kind of work is that?
Quoting Brett
If you're referring to a hobbyist contributing to art's exploration of the human situation, then that is a complicated premise, yes. Art does need to be scene by an audience; I've always said the audience is something like half of the work itself, or at least a third. But the size of an audience is relative; an obscure band like Oceansize certainly has contributed to this process; just read some of the youtube comments. Are they Coldplay? Of course not. Do 8 comments on that particular youtube video constitute an audience, and thus participation in this process? Or the 18,000 views (not alot)? Where's the cut off if not? Edit: make it through to the end of that song for the full effect..
Yes, you've said it better than I did. :up:
And to my argument, look at Mikhail Bulgakov. He quietly but persistently railed against Stalinist Russia, sending Stalin letters pleading him to allow his plays to be performed and novels to be published. A few were, but ultimately he died in poverty, a typical story. But read The Master And Margherita, and you will feel all of that rage against oppression, suffering, and the surge upward to find meaning. And the novel gets read more and more with each year. It does indeed express the anguish of that situation. Censorship could not and has not quelled it. It's also outrageously funny, which only underlines the pathos he was able to express.
By "muck" are you talking about personal baggage, etc? I would say that certainly has to play an integral role, and it doesn't have to be the stereotype of a super introspective, personal, almost private expression. It's easier said than done, but personal issues are reflected universally as well; so reflecting them in the work can be a universal expression. If that's not what you meant, then let me know.
Quoting csalisbury
It's a great film. I don't know him super well, but I would wager that that film expressed something personal as well, but in a masterful way.
Not necessarily personal baggage, though that can be part of it, or it. I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience. There's probably a neat conceptual paradox that's something like : the universal experience is always the failure to reach the universal. Or something like that. ick. But it's too late and I gotta go to sleep!
Quoting csalisbury
So more like theory over direct experience/creativity? Are you talking about the creative process as an artist, or as the experience as an audience member?
I think what he means is that, for example, if you are a philosopher, or a writer of theory, you end up with a whole lot of internal dialogues going round in your head, or positions, opinions, arguments. So when you want to get creative you have to muscle your way past them to find a quiet place in which to explore a creative process.
For a painter, for example, this not usually an issue, as your mind might be quite clear. But it comes from different places in the subconscious instead. For me it is easy to become immersed in a creative process with a pallet knife and some paint, but somewhere along the process, something happens subconsciously which distracts me, leads me down a creative dead end, I get hung up on a technical difficulty in something I wanted to follow, I find myself trying to copy something I saw another artist doing. So I have to stop, contemplate all these things, identify them, use them in a constructive way, or throw them out. Sometimes they are persistent like ear worms.
You might find that in order to simply be creative you have to resolve to just go with it whatever happens, ignore anything which comes into your head. Decide not to want anyone to see it, who might have a critical eye.
I see this as a supportive structure, a matrix in which people could dwell and all their psychological and intellectual needs were met and they could be creative within the expression and confines of that world. If and when they were praised they would be elevated higher up the structure in an orchestrated way, adhering the the highest principles set down by the gods.
But without the supportive structure, what will fill that void, the arts institutions? Without it the arts will fragment and vernacularise.
Yes it's not mysticism, as that is a precise discipline in the communion between the self and god/s. But "a higher purpose" whether there is actually a higher purpose, or not, is something which must be allowed within art. As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm.
For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely.
Quoting Punshhh
What exactly is it you mean by “a higher purpose”?
Quoting Punshhh
I don’t understand this.
Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative.
Quoting csalisbury
Yes, the world of the imitator, the fake, the thief.
Quoting Punshhh
And what does this make the artist?
I think my wording was a bit clumsy there. I think my analogy of the science fiction writer illustrates it,
"For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely."
Art is fiction, so any kind of spirituality, or mysticism depicted is only fictional and so not the artist saying this is reality, or the truth of existence. It's no more than a decorative aspect of the work. If the viewer interprets this as some kind of divine message, that is their choice and not a sufficient reason for censure.
If one is of the opinion or conviction there there is a divine art up there, then the artist is attempting to depict this through some kind of artistic vision.
Alternatively if one is of the opinion or conviction that there is no divine art up there, then the artist is simply including some spiritual, or divine content in their art, which they have been inspired to do from something they have seen in the human world, in which religious motifs can be found.
As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm.
— Punshhh
So did you mean if spirituality is not respected by the artist.?
Right. I'm more experienced in art than philosophy myself, and I find that there's two truths to the creative process. One is that disciplined, steady work ultimately brings the best results; practicing the craft, "forcing" oneself to sit down and work, is important. I find that, at worst, when I do this, I can last maybe two hours, and at least have something down, even if not exciting. But, eventually (days or months later), along comes an idea, and I can work for 5-7 hours straight. Those instances are more rare, but they consistently yield the best work. But paradoxically, the second truth to the process, is that sometimes, even when I'm not disciplined and not working much, something from the unconscious/spirit/creative brain will still bubble over, and I'll write something good. Usually my stamina is lower, so I can't work as long, but it's the same creative urge. So, that process of the creative emanation exists in and of itself, but it's best served when you are disciplined in the work.
Quoting Punshhh
Your post seems to suggest that artists are trying to include some sort of spiritual aspect to their work, regardless of what they believe. That all work contains the divine, or fake divine.
To be clear, this isn't what I'm saying by "higher purpose". I don't have any answers as to what the higher purpose is, I just am of the conviction that there is one, and that the history of art, as it coincides with history at large, demonstrates this.
I practice mysticism and the core consideration is that the divine, or higher purpose is entirely unknowable to a human and any interpretation of it( including whether it exists or not) is a human fiction( fiction in a sense that any human interpretation of reality is inaccurate and an expression of the ideas that human, or humanity has)
I see art as a human creation and if it contains a spiritual dimension that is fine, because it is a fiction, whether there is a divine world, or not. If there is a divine world then we will never know how it would be different from a world where there isn't a divine world. Likewise, if there isn't a divine world we will never know how it would be different from a world where there is a divine world.
So there isn't at any point a kind of art, which incorporates anything spiritual, which isn't valid, or is false, or is in any way deluded.
Does this mean we have millions of mini art movements? And who decides which artists, or art work, will be elevated to the national, or world stage?
Well, there isn't any current new art movements.
If I am wrong, please tell me which it is/are.
If I am right, perhaps what needs to change is not the artists, but the expectations of the nation, or world stage. Perhaps artists are sick of being controlled by those who are not artists but have the money to say what is currently art.
I asked who would decide which of these artists are to be elevated to a world stage? I suggest who that turns out to be dictates what the public thinks, because the public does not see the art of the others who have not been elevated, especially if they are not involved in a movement.
I'd agree with that, it's not just the money, but also the institutions.
There is the phenomena that the artist strives to develop a skill, a style, something which appeals to a number of people, or what is praised by a number of people, at the beginning of their career, or sometimes their whole career, while in obscurity. With the money and commodification starting later on, perhaps after the artist has finished working.
Perhaps this aspiring artist is looking to do something that people like, or they might disregard such considerations completely. An example of this is Edward Degas, he sculpted maquettes of ballet dancers solely for the purpose of helping him to paint 3D figures. He did not intend them to be viewed by the public. Now following his death they are now greatly admired by the public. For me these sculptures are some of the finest sculpture of the human body ever produced.
So if art happens with the artist, there are some works free of commercialisation, although this might be a rarity. The public do seem to have a particular interest in these pieces which were not meant to be viewed.
I wholeheartedly agree, this is perhaps a danger with a philosophy of art, or the role of the critic. Often the public, or collectors will follow a particular preference regardless of what commentators on art say.
I think it is important for these commentators to pay attention to the whole experience of an artist who they comment on, and if they are philosophising, or offering a critique they should attempt to convey the philosophy of that artist, or at least not ingnore or devalue it. Or a critique should respect the intention and technique of the artist.
Now that art has, at least in theory, become all encompassing, what can a critic say now? Surely anything they say which isn't praising the work is to diminish it. Likewise, what is the point of a philosophy of art, again it limits art, although it can do the job of cataloging, or creating archives.
Now, at least in theory, the artist is king. The trouble with this is, what does the artist do now? Vernacularise perhaps, what does the art world do, split into a cult of indivualism? Who is it who chooses which artist, or which art work is good and therefore worthy of being elevated to a global exposure? Without the structured art world which was provided by the religious inheritance and the institutions which developed from it. What system, or institution is going to moderate the art scene.
Does it still all depend on patronage?
If so and an artist wishes to attain recognition, or to earn a living from their work again they are beholden to the patrons and who moderates the patrons?
This being the case art is not free, is not all encompassing, unless the artists intention is to ignore what anyone else might think.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, perfectly put, that's what I was trying to get at.
For me (drawing/poetry/short stories) I'm wildly blocked up creatively, and I'm lucky if I can go a minute without getting distracted, and trapped in thought. Sometimes, it's theory/philosophy stuff which pulls me out of it; more often, I imagine this person or that person and I either criticize myself through their eyes, or, in this weird mechanical way, I start to try to mold whatever I'm doing to something I think they (or my mental construct of who they are) would approve of. It's pretty hard to shake.
Both. I really think there's a point at which those two things converge. Now it's rare for me to experience either immersion in the work of others, or creative immersion (I'm certainly not a natural artist, or aesthete), but if I look back at the few times I have been immersed, in either, they seem similar. My experience has been that when you're really in the flow, creatively, it's like you're following something that's directing you, and uncovering things. When you're really immersed experiencing another's art, it's like you're following whatever they're following, and also seeing something uncovered.
I certainly don't disagree. The distinction I'd make is being active (creation) vs. passive (experiencing as an audience member).
Edit: but I think I would make that enough of a distinction to say that the "flow" isn't exactly the same.
I think all creative people have their cross to bare, because the creative process requires one to develop inventive patterns of thought beyond what is normal in human psychology. This includes contemplation, focussing on undefinable, or ambiguous concepts. In some this extends to brainstorming, forcing, straining the mind to push forward. I am doing this at the moment and have been having intense dreams where I am struggling mentally to achieve something. Last night In my dream I was sitting with a pencil and paper straining my mind to breaking point to come to a design which cracked some Gordian knot, it felt like trying to square the circle. Unusually it was productive and I woke up with a concept which was rather like twisting a slinky spring in on itself like an Escher drawing. And a vision for how I can use it to finish off a painting which went wrong a couple of months ago.
You might not be surprised that I would advise a little gentle meditation training, and or mindfulness. I found these very beneficial in the past, I think I ought to do a bit more at the moment as I am getting distracted to easily.
Immediately reminded me of having sex. If you've had sex, you haven't just had sex, you've also lost your virginity.
Historical? It's just that the local crafts store and automation have made given tons if us the time to copy rembrandts and so he doesn't seem so divine if we're all doing it.
Art is a cultural touchstone, so in some ways it always comes back around to the same things, but technology gives us more: more time, more potential.
One cycle I see in art is from raw to refined. A new explosion of art starts raw. As things progress, processes become more exact. Something is lost in that transition.
When refinement becomes too rigid, art is born again as something new and half-assed.
I ask because I can't see where art can go now, because it's already been everywhere and we've past the realisation that everything can be art, or art can be anything. So is that it now? Do we just repeat something?
Is this what you mean by half-assed.
Does art now divide into before modernism and after modernism and never the twain shall meet?
All those things grew organically out of their times. Cubism, like Surrealism, was about discovering and presenting the truth.
Cubism said become free of the static point of view because that stasis is the lie.
Surrealism said... actually I'm not sure. That the way to the truth is to go inward instead of outward?
What is it that preoccupies our contemporary generation? What would they say about truth? Do they even care about truth?
So what does the next movement say? It can't say anything that hasn't been said before, in theory, by implication of what modernism said.
If we look at what happened after modernism, I can't think of anything in art which has regained that level of meaning.
I expect that the next movement might be digital and related to digital gaming themes. Themes which seem to be determined by fantasy, science fiction, cartoon imagery. When it comes to high Art, I expect it will emerge from Artificial Intelligence via digital imagery. Such a source might produce things we can't come up with any other way.
So art helps itself to find out what it is, or will be?
Yes if "art" means an art movement, or something that a number of artists coalesce around. But life might not be like that any more. It might for example all be dictated by the media. Also where canart go after modernism? That said it all, surely.
Quoting Razorback kitten
I don’t think that’s what frank meant at all.
This is what he said; “ All those things grew organically out of their times.“
The time happened first, the art grew out of that, maybe simultaneously, but certainly not before.
Quoting frank
This is what the next art will grow from. You may not even recognise it as art, you might reject it, but it will exist. Just read the newspaper, watch the news, go on the internet, not to be informed but to see what others take in, which is nothing actually. More use of cartoons, animated toothbrushes, talking bananas, and that’s the advertising for adults. Taylor Swift: political activist, a candle that smells like Gwyneth Paltrow’s vagina. Truth, who can say what it means anymore.
Maybe your life’s the new art. Greta Thunberg to trademark her name. We all become products, we’re all art, we’re all artists. Everything’s priceless, nothings for sale, we all live the illusion, we’re all perfect, we don’t have to do anything except be.
From @ZhouBoTong on the OP “What is art?”; “Does that mean life/existence is professional space manipulation?”.
There’s the next art; the space you fill.
So no under standing of the artwork and it’s intent is necessary, just the interpretation of the viewer. So, art is what I say it is, not the artist.
I went through an Andy Warhol stage. I started putting empty coffee bags on the kitchen wall and had a moment where I "got it." It's not exactly that the empty bag is art, it's the experience that opens up to the viewer.
When people did back-breaking work 12 hours a day, every day, their minds became numb. If they had time to walk into and dwell in the world of associations and feelings bound up in a coffee bag, they were too tired to do it.
Andy Warhol reflects a time of technology-driven egalitarianism and prosperity. I'm not sure how to express where the art is here, but it's something only rich people could have had access to in the past. Does that make sense?
It also made me think of Andy Warhol and how he turned a mundane tomato soup can into a work of art while rendering the Mona Lisa mundane.
In some sense, a purported piece of art that makes you question art is a work of art.
Could you say more about that?
Yes.
In addition, I strongly recommend people read Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. The technology age has a similar democratizing effect upon culture as did the mass production age as described by Veblen. Technology provides information and entertainment to the masses in the same way that mass production brought material goods to the masses. Technology fills in the leisure spaces with entertainment in the same way emulation of the habits of the leisure class filled the leisure spaces created by the automation of mass production.
That fits with what Warhol was. When technology gives people more time, they don't use it to relax, they use it to go faster, get more stuff done, run the economy hotter.
They resist being arrested by simple stuff as if they're hungry for action. This may be getting more social-criticism than Warhol really is, but it's there.
I agree.
The mass emulation of the leisure class is a mass emulation of the superficial trappings of leisure rather than of leisure.
This all seems in line with my thinking (the bolded bit in particular, but I think it all works). I am not sure why we are so opposed in the other art thread. I think my hatred of Shakespeare is clouding our understanding of each other??
Well I have gone through a bit of a change of heart in these conversations, or tied things down a bit better anyway.
I realise now that my definition of modern art is more narrow than the academic definition. For me it was the 1950-60's, with abstract expressionism and conceptual art, I suppose this was the epicentre. With pop art emerging from it with Warhol. I agree with your experience, although I didn't get it in the way you mean, I don't think. For me it was an intellectual understanding, or realisation of what they were saying, but I didn't like it and saw it as largely pointless. I do accept that it needed saying and that they went about it in the right way in order to do that, but it wasn't for me. I was more interested in artists like Dali, Klee, Picasso, Kandinsky. I grew up with a print of Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus on my wall, my mum had bought when we went to Barcelona when I was I think 6 years old, I don't remember the Dali museum, but I remember the reverence for the work and contemplated the painting many times as I was growing up.
For me I saw the modern art movement through the prism of this painting and subsequently through Dali's other work.
There is a quality of transformation in the minds eye from one thing to another, or the appearance, or hallucination of something else, things not being as they seem, or seeming to be something else. An interesting take on the world of art.
I didn't get into surrealism until recently. Have you ever painted that way? Like Dali?
Dali developed what he called the Paranoiac-critical method, which is a psychological language which informed his work and through which the viewer can interpret the imagery. So his work is like an exploration of his subconscious mind.
This is a cartoon I did during the Iraq war, it is of a Dream I imagined Tony Blair having in which everything goes wrong and he finds himself decending into hell. Blair is the green fellow, the guy with the cross is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, Bush and saddam Hussain are the other skeletons.
Your cartoons are very cool. :up:
What are copyright laws in relation to art and entertainment, or the fine line between 'plagiarism' / theft and inspiration, or independently coming up with a similar concept?
(e.x. I used to play the Metal Gear Solid games when I was younger; some of it borrowed themes from James Bond, but it wasn't considered similar enough to be plagiarism).
(Or in other cases, I've heard of bands such as Coldplay being sued by other artists such as Joe Satriani, however it was determined that it wasn't 'appropriated', but rather that the artist independently came up with a similar song; given that all music is based a similar music theory, this is not unlikely).
I would think that this also applies to other mediums, that any copyright is primarily referring to a work in a specified medium.
I think the problem you identify regarding music copyright is often an injustice. I have heard examples which don't sound like the original, or only have a tenuous link. I see this as a problem with the legal profession.
Possibly.
As far as defining it, I'm not an expert, I doubt there's any perfect mathematical way to do it, though I do that most people would reasonably distinguish between a Mozart symphony and someone "farting" into an audio recorder and calling it "music".
At least as much as people would distinguish between a legitimate sport or competition like chess or baseball with some measure of organized rules, versus one beating their head against a rock and calling it a "sport". Even if expression, spontaneity, or innovation is a component as well, and it's not solely reducible to purely 'formal' or mathematical rules, I'd still be tempted to argue there would be something akin to logic behind it.
Here's several questions found in this muddle;
Will there be new genres of art?
Is it all heading towards metal?
What tool will the next generation artist prefer?
Will art effect culture more intricately?
Will more people enjoy art in coming times?
Will we finally be able to define art soon?
Is Da Vinci's mona lisa still priceless?
[I]none of which I think are the process of this thread[/i]
Welcome to the forum.
You literally got a video of some girl making herself throw up on a constant loop. Things like an empty white room with the lights being turned on and off. And of course, what started it all, DuChamp's urinal.
I imagine before it becomes so ridiculous that even the outside observer with no interest in art can look at it and be like.. no, this isn't anything. We'll have scenes of literal excrement (which has basically already been done, see "Artist's Shit", though you can't blame the artist for turning 90 cans of something you normally pay people to get rid of into $300,000+ EACH, can you?) on a sidewalk, something as mundane and lacking substance as a blurred selfie photo (that's going to be my idea, nobody steal it.), etc.
Pretty sure I posted this here but for anyone who hasn't seen it and is interested in art it's definitely worth the watch.
A pile of excrement on a city sidewalk. You could call it a savage commentary of the uncaring nature of modern day life and how far we've come, or how far we've fallen. It reminds us not only of social ills but of innovation and progress, the sidewalk, social services, etc.
A blurry selfie photo. A quiet commentary on the bustling nature of modern day society, how "rushed" we've become in a hurry to get to the next place or do the next thing we can't even live in the moment anymore. A tragedy or a blessing. Truly up to the beholder.
An unkempt bed sheet with ejaculate on it. A jarring commentary on the loss of cadence in- and formerly sacred nature of- love and romance. How values have fallen with such myopia toward pleasure chasing and away from matters of the heart, home, and family.
--
Who knows maybe we could all become one of the best, most respected artists of our day by just being lazy and disgusting with no artistic skill whatsoever. Who'd have thunk it.
Just imagine. The fact I'm not wrong. I could get up one morning, get drunk, take a dump outside at the corner, take a bad selfie, defile my bed, take pictures of it all, and end up a multi-millionaire world famous artist in no time at all. The fact that this process as I described is actually possible is quite disturbing. I look at it like urban music. Trying to maintain and restore values and virtue gets you ignored, in debt, and perhaps a slap or much worse. Helping to aid the degradation and destruction of the very values that brought us to where we are today, gets you fame and fortune. That's what the arts and media have become. Curious, to say the least.
It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition).
The artist’s job is to make these experiences available to other human beings. He can go on meditating and deepening it if he wants to, but it is not required for him to do so. Not everyone can be all things.
I agree with your view of the artist as being one of enabling the audience to be able to access certain experiences. I think most great novelists and music artists do provide gateways into alternate realities and it is their perception which is central to their greatness.
Anyway, "where is art going?"
Take a moment to consider what, to us, is grotesque? I gave it some thought and the first thing to cross my mind was evil. Of course we have the "beautiful" painting of Tarquin and Lucretia by Titian depicting rape and countless, again "beautiful", works of Jesus' crucifixion about what is essentially torture and killing but, all paintings with evil as a theme evoke, if one gives adequate attention to what's being conveyed, disgust/revulsion and that's as antithetical to pleasing as one can get. Evil can't be made into an art and if it is, it'll contradict the essence of art viz. beauty for evil is inherently grotesque.
It must be then that if art is given the opportunity, it'll reduce/eliminate evil (the mother of all that's grotesque) for its raison d'etre is to beautify. Paradise for theists/Utopia for non-theists (places where evil is nonexistent) - that's where art is going.
Umberto Eco has a great art book on this called "On Ugliness." It's a discussion on the aesthetics of ugliness that is set up semi-chronilogically, and topically. You have monsters in antiquity, passions and torture, the uncanny, Satan and the Satan adjacent.
Aside from the actual narrative it has tons of quality reproductions of art from across the ages of all things evil and ugly, and a ton of excerpts from "horror" work across the ages. Functional tests like witch hunters guides to modern horror to Shakespeare. It's a favorite coffee table book of mine.
I guess the take away would be that, while the philosophy of aesthetics has generally focused on what is beautiful, and defined ugliness and evil in relation to that, art also serves a purpose is defining and exploring evil.
Trend wise, Greek sculpture and Medieval art has lots of dark undertones and horror that aren't always placed in the context of a "good." Subject matter in general seems to get a LOT cheerier after the Baroque period. The impressionists for instance, tend to have bright scenes, while romantic art has these gorgeous land scapes. I might be generalizing, but a trip through art museums chronologicaly always seems to get gradually happier for me.
This changes when you hit contemporary art. A lot of photography I've seen lately has very dark subject matter. War, racial injustice, poverty. A return to ugliness.
--
Unrelated, I think stylistically art is going to become more interactive and exploritory. With Sleep No More and Then She Fell in NYC, you have the transformation of a typical play into a haunted house type scenerio where each audience member sees different scenes as events play out across a large building simultaneously. The audience also gets brought into the performance. VR art (the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art has some up right now) is a promising direction, allowing exploration into a scene.
I agree with this in principle. I think we will start to see some very radical experimentation with visual effects in the medium of time. In ancient times stories, plays, and poems were the main form of temporally extended art. Then music took the center stage for temporal expression, with melodies, harmonies, chords etc.. Now, in modern times we have untapped technology as the potential for all sorts of temporally extended visual displays. Until now, the field has been mostly confined to moving pictures, movies, which are basically recorded stories or plays, though special effects paly an important role in movies. But that's where the industry has led the artists, to the movies. In reality though, movies as an art form are very basic, and the technology which exists right now provides so much potential for artistic expression using temporal visual effects, it's time for the artists to lead the industry. The visual changes within the temporal medium can be so much more rapid and dramatic than the changes found in music, as demonstrated by the simple strobe light.
At the same time the artist and his message does interest me. He seems to be trying to prove a point, one I'm not sure he himself even understands fully but nonetheless it does capture the mind and touch on philosophy.