what's left of ART in the 21st century?
Goy Liath
artist gained total freedom to do as he pleased? of course, not in
authoritarian or totalitarian societies but in the democratic west,
painters, musicians, writers, sculptors, etc. etc. have had the
freedom to do whatever they damn pleased.
and as a result, 20th century probably produced the greatest amount of
great art in all fields.
think of all the greats in literature--kafka, proust, mann, mishima,
faulkner, hemingway, roth, etc.
in music, we had continuation of classical tradition as well as jazz
and rock and world music of all kinds.
in painting, we had matisse, picasso, dali, rothko, wyeth, and list
goes on.
well, maybe not so much in sculpture, at least not for me.
but we had great experimentation and achievement in architecture.
but already by the second half of the century, many people felt the
possibilities had been exhausted. there is now nothing in the way of
excitement that greets most new art, good or bad. we accept that
newness is a part of what art is about and so whatever that is new is
just normal.
also, what's supposedly new is now mostly recycled radicalism. we
understand this and call it postmodernism; we've hit deadends in all
fields. all we can do is look back and piece together the fragments
and shards left by liberating but also destructive modernism.
so, what is art in the 21th century? can anyone make a new statement
in painting, sculpture, literature, etc? can anyone shock or inspire
anymore? can anyone cause scandals? some controversial art leads to
heated political debates but there really is nothing in the sense of
scandal in the traditional sense. indeed, one suspects artists want a
real scandal to greet their work but there's either tepid support from
the 'radical' crowd, bored disdain from the snobs, and indifference
from everyone else.
also, mainstream popular culture is often far more scandalous than
that's offered in the sanctums of art. how can an artist shock anyone
when mainstream culture is dominated by thugs who sing gangsta rap and
dogfighting is promoted as cult of machismo? or in a world where
terrorists blow themselves up in the manner of performance artists?
avant garde art as a statement seem quaint and wimpy by comparison.
also, in our populist culture, no one even feels a strong sense of
duty that he should pay SOME token attention to what is Culture as
opposed to mere commercial junk.
so, were passion, possibility, and hope invested in traditional
artforms--literature, painting, sculpture, etc--buried in the 20th
century?
while we will always have great artists in these fields, will anything
generate vital interest? will artits be able to chart into new
territories with the traditional forms? or, are artists condemned to
merely use those forms to express old ideas and stories. after all,
what else can one do with painting that hasn't already been done
before? and aren't we all kinda tired of what passes for most modern
sculpture. i especially can't stand the giant metal structures
painted orange.
it's as though art grew up too fast in the 20th century. the
momemtun was too restless to allow full digestion of the implications
of newness. one new idea as overtaken by another new idea before it
even matured; each of them bold and striking but superceded by another
at breakneck speed.
so maybe 21st century art can be just that. finally, a moment to
abandon the cult of newness and explore the true implications of new
developments in art which have mostly been forgotten already.
some would say postmodernism is doing just this. i disagree.
postmodernism seems uninterested in the depths of past
accomplishments; instead, it takes a slapdash collagistic approach,
toying with the superficial qualities of past accomplishments...
...or it's just alot of installment art where they take some junk
taken from modern life which are supposed to evoke capitalist
exploitation, patriarchy, role of womenhood, etc and we're supposed to
connect the lame-ass PC dots in our head that modern society is fuc*ed
up. i think it's artists saying somethign we know already in a
pompous dorky way.
Allen
Goy Liath wrote:
> would it be fair to say that 20th century was the first in which the
> artist gained total freedom to do as he pleased? of course, not in
> authoritarian or totalitarian societies but in the democratic west,
> painters, musicians, writers, sculptors, etc. etc. have had the
> freedom to do whatever they damn pleased.
<snip blab blab blab>
Well, I see the shiftless wonder, the ee cummings wannabe, is still
hanging around. I thought that the boeginning of the junior high school
year would have kept him busy.
Allen
King Rundzap
> would it be fair to say that 20th century was the first in which the
> artist gained total freedom to do as he pleased?
That seems fair to me. Although I could see an objection along these
lines: "The impressionists (or post-impressionists, or whoever else
someone might make the argument about) had total freedom to do as they
pleased, and believe that anything they could imagine could be done in
painting and possibly accepted. The difference is that they couldn't
imagine work like Robert Motherwell or Cy Twombly, just as perhaps in
the present we can't imagine some work that will be imaginable in the
late 21st Century."
However, the problem I'd have with that objection would be that it's
difficult for us to imagine that Van Gogh, say, couldn't have imagined
someone doing "splotches" or "scribbles" on a canvas and leaving it at
that. It seems like that would have been imaginable, but didn't seem
acceptable to any artists, and certainly not to the public at that
point. So that's why your statement seems fair to me :-)
> of course, not in
> authoritarian or totalitarian societies but in the democratic west,
> painters, musicians, writers, sculptors, etc. etc. have had the
> freedom to do whatever they damn pleased.
Yes.
> and as a result, 20th century probably produced the greatest amount of
> great art in all fields.
> think of all the greats in literature--kafka, proust, mann, mishima,
> faulkner, hemingway, roth, etc.
Well, for me that's more like Clive Barker, Stephen King, Tom Robbins,
Thomas Berger, Dave Barry, etc., but yeah
> in music, we had continuation of classical tradition as well as jazz
> and rock and world music of all kinds.
And lots of other genres, yes.
> in painting, we had matisse, picasso, dali, rothko, wyeth, and list
> goes on.
Yes
> well, maybe not so much in sculpture, at least not for me.
> but we had great experimentation and achievement in architecture.
> but already by the second half of the century, many people felt the
> possibilities had been exhausted. there is now nothing in the way of
> excitement that greets most new art, good or bad. we accept that
> newness is a part of what art is about and so whatever that is new is
> just normal.
Most of the arts, except maybe architecture, have exhausted the
imaginable possibilities at this point in the sense of any general
idea you can think of, it's been done by someone. So there are no
"extended techniques" available any longer that could create some
unprecedented paradigm shift. Unless some unusual thinker comes along
and thinks of something everyone else overlooked as a possibility.
> also, what's supposedly new is now mostly recycled radicalism. we
> understand this and call it postmodernism;
That's not actually the definition of postmodernism, but I'm not sure
that matters for the thread.
> we've hit deadends in all
> fields. all we can do is look back and piece together the fragments
> and shards left by liberating but also destructive modernism.
Well, it leads to not valuing something novel for its own sake, since
there hasn't been anything novel that anyone has thought of for a long
time. Just about any stylistic way you could think of manipulating or
not manipulating canvas, bronze, musical notes, dance movements, words
on a page, etc. has been tried.
> so, what is art in the 21th century?
It will probably be people doing what they like or find value in
stylistically, in a sea of pluralism, and we'll come to value more the
individualism of the works in those styles rather than valuing them
for being novel conceptually.
> can anyone make a new statement
> in painting, sculpture, literature, etc?
Sure, since statements are not just novel things conceptually. Each
piece of art is unique, at least in fine detail.
> can anyone shock or inspire
> anymore? can anyone cause scandals?
In terms of conceptually doing those things, from a historical
perspective of histories of the arts, no, but in terms of particular
reactions from people or groups of people, sure, since there are a lot
of conservative people around who will object to all kinds of
actions/events whether they've been done before (and whether they're
aware of that) or not. Look at all of the recent furor over Piss
Christ (just a little over 10 years ago), the painting containing
elephant dung at the Brooklyn Museum (about 5 years ago), the recent
officially condoned vandalism of museums and artworks in Russia (in
the last year or so), etc.
> some controversial art leads to
> heated political debates but there really is nothing in the sense of
> scandal in the traditional sense.
Right--an easier way to say what I just said above, lol.
> indeed, one suspects artists want a
> real scandal to greet their work but there's either tepid support from
> the 'radical' crowd, bored disdain from the snobs, and indifference
> from everyone else.
I experience that a bit in my own work (well, except that I'm not
shooting for scandal, but I kind of expected it when I first started
showing publicly) when people frequently say that it's "beautiful",
even though I have severed limbs and heads, grotesque freaks,
sacriligeous elements, etc. in at least some of it.
> also, mainstream popular culture is often far more scandalous than
> that's offered in the sanctums of art. how can an artist shock anyone
> when mainstream culture is dominated by thugs who sing gangsta rap and
> dogfighting is promoted as cult of machismo?
Well, not that a lot of mainstream culture isn't shocked by rap.
There was a lot of commotion about Eminem in mainstream culture not
too long ago, for example. I think it's more than a lot of people in
mainstream culture try to ignore most of that stuff, or just don't
have time for it/their usually busy with other things, but sometimes
they're made aware of it despite their efforts, and then they'll start
bitching.
I'm a big horror fan who still follows the genre closely, and that
happens in waves in the horror industry, too. Most of the time the
mainstream ignores most of it, but occasionally something will
coincide such as when the film Idle Hands was opening on the same
weekend as the Columbine shootings, then the film gets a lot more
publicity, people start complaining about it, suggesting that films
shouldn't be so violent, congressmen try to gain votes by promising to
curb it, etc. . . . gradually the mainstream is distracted by
something else, and they go back to ignoring it, even though the
horror industry is doing the same thing as always.
I'm also a big heavy metal/hardcore fan--same thing for that stuff,
and occasionally people try to associate it with some event they're
upset about, then they raise a ruckus, but other things distract them
and they go back to ignoring it.
> or in a world where
> terrorists blow themselves up in the manner of performance artists?
LOL--just imagining performance artists blowing themselves up. I
guess Throbbing Gristle (whom I just mentioned in another thread) came
close to that with self-mutilations onstage, also G.G. Allin did stuff
like that, when I saw Skinny Puppy in Miami one time the singer held a
box of fireworks over his head while they were going off, etc.
> avant garde art as a statement seem quaint and wimpy by comparison.
> also, in our populist culture, no one even feels a strong sense of
> duty that he should pay SOME token attention to what is Culture as
> opposed to mere commercial junk.
Well, you know I'm going to object to that strongly. You Elitist!
Ahhhh!!!
> so, were passion, possibility, and hope invested in traditional
> artforms--literature, painting, sculpture, etc--buried in the 20th
> century?
I don't think so.
> while we will always have great artists in these fields, will anything
> generate vital interest?
Sure, as mentioned above. It just won't be new extended techniques .
. . probably. Again, just because you and I can't imagine any new
extended techniques, maybe someone else will be able to.
> will artits be able to chart into new
> territories with the traditional forms?
Something I just thought of, though--while there may not be new
extended techniques, really, there will probably be a lot of new
technology that could be exploited in different ways. Dali, for
example, started experimenting with holographic paintings in the early
70s. I'm sure a lot more new technology will arise. However, you're
still basically stuck doing the same kinds of conceptual things with
the new technologies.
> or, are artists condemned to
> merely use those forms to express old ideas and stories. after all,
> what else can one do with painting that hasn't already been done
> before? and aren't we all kinda tired of what passes for most modern
> sculpture. i especially can't stand the giant metal structures
> painted orange.
Sounds like a "Welcome To Florida" sign, lol.
> it's as though art grew up too fast in the 20th century. the
> momemtun was too restless to allow full digestion of the implications
> of newness. one new idea as overtaken by another new idea before it
> even matured; each of them bold and striking but superceded by another
> at breakneck speed.
No need to get pessimistic about it, though (if you are). The basic
concept of painting remained the same since pre-Lascaux to the 20th
century. So for thousands of years, artists weren't doing anything
radically new for paintings conceptually, just refining the concept
and doing new works under it. And from the 1400s or so to the 20th
century, there wasn't even a lot of refinement going on--more
explorations of different ideas and individual ways of executing them.
But you probably like a lot of the painting that occurred in that
era. So plenty of great art can still be created, and a lot of new
concepts have just been born--plenty of refinement to do, plenty of
individual works that can be done, etc.
> so maybe 21st century art can be just that. finally, a moment to
> abandon the cult of newness and explore the true implications of new
> developments in art which have mostly been forgotten already.
Oops, should have read this before I bothered typing all of the above
;-)
> some would say postmodernism is doing just this. i disagree.
> postmodernism seems uninterested in the depths of past
> accomplishments;
Well, postmodernism proper is a kind of rejection of enlightenment-era
(or for painting, Renaissance-era, we might be able to say) ideals and
theories. It is also wrapped up with self-reference, or various
senses of artistic irony, etc.
> instead, it takes a slapdash collagistic approach,
> toying with the superficial qualities of past accomplishments...
Remember that postmodernism is a movement with an ideology, not a
general term for a period of time. Same with modernism (a fact that
is often confused in this newsgroup). That is the way those terms are
used academically in the arts. It's different than the colloquial, or
pop-culture senses of the terms.
> ...or it's just alot of installment art where they take some junk
> taken from modern life which are supposed to evoke capitalist
> exploitation, patriarchy, role of womenhood, etc and we're supposed to
> connect the lame-ass PC dots in our head that modern society is fuc*ed
> up.
Some of that stuff would be classified as postmodern, and some
probably wouldn't be. But yeah, it's all wrapped up with particular
social and political views that a lot of people (including me) do not
happen to share.
> i think it's artists saying somethign we know already in a
> pompous dorky way.
Or something that we think is pompous, dorky and false (those social
and political views) being said in that way, lol. Sometimes I
appreciate an artwork, but once an artist opens his or her mouth about
that nonsense, I can't wait to get out of there.
--King Rundzap
Dr.Matt
"Anything goes" vs "What sells" have been themes of art at least since
the Apollonians met the Dionysians.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Anything goes" vs "What sells" have been themes of art at least since
> the Apollonians met the Dionysians.
I.e., since Nietszche?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
John Harkness
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>"Anything goes" vs "What sells" have been themes of art at least since
>the Apollonians met the Dionysians.
Who won that game, by the way?
I had a couple of bill on the Dionysians +6
John Harkness
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt
MadiHolmes
>>Who won that game, by the way?
>>
>>I had a couple of bill on the Dionysians +6
>>
>>John Harkness
>
>I'm not sure they ever agreed what game to play.
>
Wrestling would be my best guess...
MadiHolmes
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
news:414B53...@worldnet.att.net...
> Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> > "Anything goes" vs "What sells" have been themes of art at least since
> > the Apollonians met the Dionysians.
>
> I.e., since Nietszche?
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose,
Anything Goes.
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes
--
Frank in Seattle
___________
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Goy Liath
> "Anything goes" vs "What sells" have been themes of art at least since
> the Apollonians met the Dionysians.
not in most cultures and not thru most periods.
Ryan Tanaka
All artists have to do is just find a way to go beyond the public's
idea of "anything".
Ryan
Cal Dia
>In olden days a glimpse of stocking
>Was looked on as something shocking,
>But now, God knows,
>Anything Goes.
Oh how I wish I'd not given away my
Dr. Seuss encyclopedia...the Grinch knows,
how everything goes.
Dr.Matt
The shadchen knows! (from the gosh-awful extended pun with the same
final line)
Alan Watkins
They won 3-2. Apollo was sent off for a very high tackle. 1-1 at half time.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Cal Dia
alanwa...@aol.com says...
>Apollo was sent off for a very high tackle.
AHA...so that's how Venus de Milo lost those arms!
angel
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040917183434...@mb-m10.aol.com...
With Nietzsche as referee?