Author
|
Topic: The death of Art? (Read 893 times) |
|
knives
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
  
 
|
 |
The death of Art?
« on: 2005-02-13 01:06:06 » |
 |
What path is society taking art?. Art is a reflection of the human mind, an expresion of it. So when I see art, sold like a popsicle or a hamburger it post the question whether this is art. Are the grammy awards really to award "art" or commercialism, the best artist is the one that sales more, but is it really the best one expressing human emotion. With so much suffering of humans in the world, is it really art when you always sing about love and a happy life. I wonder what will happen to art, will it lose it's significance, will it rot in an forgetful sea of antiquated nonsense and transform itself into pure utter sentimental comercialism?
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.24
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #1 on: 2005-02-22 16:44:15 » |
|
I'll be the last one to try to defend some of the atrocities that are peddled as art nowadays but at the same time, allow me a little critique of your statement. I think that art reflects the values, morals, fears, joys, etc of the artists, and therefore of the societies that produce it.
In a "consumer" society, I think it is normal to expect "consummable" art; art that you look at (or listen to, etc) and throw away. At the same time, there are also all sorts of other fringe artists who are inspired by fringe interests, and produce art that you might be more receptive to.
All art cannot please everybody. And even though many artists would hate to see their "unique" pieces described as such, I'll say that most art has to be mainstream. Isn't that what gives that "special" piece it's uniqueness anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #2 on: 2005-03-02 10:21:03 » |
|
Although I agree that most art has to be mainstream, at least in order to touch, and I also agree that art encompasses human emotions I posted my message because of that very reason. What are the emotions cultivated on todays mainstream consumistic art, is it anything that could be considered a feeling, or merely succumbing to your natural instincts bereft of culture, restraint, and dignity for others. I feel art is dying because it´s supposed to show emotions, the needs of changing or praising something that composes someones life, the colors, sounds, letters, forms, etc. on something that is to be exalted by the beauty and need of that certain thing in a individual, who represent a certain large part of his society. And from what today society exalts as beautiful, art can might as well rot, burn out in the incense of it's prior glory, when it was truly to show emotions worth saving for history to remember us.
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.24
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #3 on: 2005-03-02 10:52:37 » |
|
I think we can apply the criticism you make of contemporary art to all epochs. The Rococo art of the 18th century was seen as tastelesss and superficial compared to the more formal Baroque art. The Modernism of the 19th century, followed by the Cubism of the 20th were heavilly criticised and certainly not appreciated in their time as we appreciate them today.
I agree with you that there is a lot of junk today. I think that much of the junk originates from the fact that today, art is often commissioned by bureaucratic entities like governments, large associations, or corporations that don't really have the ability to care about the art; they care about the politics, revenues, and compliance to various legislated requirements. I don't expect much of this "art" to survive the test of time.
|
|
|
|
|
knives
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 43
Reputation: 5.01
Rate knives
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #4 on: 2005-03-07 14:46:00 » |
|
That certainly brings a sigh of relief, there is still hope I guess. Whatever way we go, art will be the mirror of society and the entity of our feelings. Let's just hope miss art can survive the the avalanche of junk that keeps surfacing today claiming to be and awarded as art.
|
God is just an equation,
who equals slavery.
God is just a perception,
of people's misery.
(Mindfuckers, Victor Rivera 2004)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #5 on: 2005-03-08 10:00:03 » |
|
Perhaps what we are seeing now in the world of art is mirrored by the internet's effect on writing. The average quality of writing has decreased steadily as technology and other social factors allowed a greater and greater portion of the population to publish (this forum is one example in millions). I first noticed this effect on usenet. At one point very early in its history it was probably worthwhile to read every message posted. By the time I found it in the late 80s, the oldtimers were already prophesizing the death of usenet due to more and more talentless hacks joining in. Then AOL joined in and the writing was on the wall. These days I don't bother reading any usenet groups.
But something interesting happened along the way. Though the average quality is probably at an all time low, the quality of the best is at an all time high. This is true because the distribution of quality is not evenly distributed, rather it is skewed heavily towards the low end. But the more players are in the game, the further it pushes out the high end of the curve. I suspect the same is true of art in general today. The only problem is finding it.
|
|
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.41
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #6 on: 2005-03-08 15:52:44 » |
|
Regarding art and emotion, values, etc.:
I do not think that art is necessarily an expression of any of that, actually. It is a personal experience, yes. But the intention is not necessarily to convey feeling, or philosophy, or values to an audience. If the art relies on conveying ideas to be appreciated then it is not good to me.
-white-center-(small).jpg)
Rothko
Gorky
Those painting are amazing to me and they are so, not because they are trying to convey emotions to me but because they are powerful and creative and revolutionary.
Regarding "uniqueness":
Ophis, the problem I have with your statement about the necessity of crap is that I feel crap is incidental. See, a peice is not good because it is a black sheep among the herd but it is a black sheep because it is good. I do not really feel that what is truly good is dependant upon the juxtaposition with voluminous crap.
That said...
I cannot help but feel that art is collapsing. I accept that in an given medium there is still innovative art being produced but I also feel it is mortal in that sense. One day, what I view to be good will be chained to the past as a mere element of history. Paintings as an example, I do not think there are any truly great artists working now. Grandmasters. There are a couple of old ones still alive but that is different. There are good artists but they are not amazing. They are not Picasso, or Motherwell, or Still, or Bacon. They are just the best we have. Maybe I am just looking at a fragment of a downward slope in a sea of mountains but I just cannot escape that fear.
|
|
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.41
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #7 on: 2005-03-08 16:21:21 » |
|
I was reminded of a discussion I had with a friend of mine a while back. It was about music but it carries over to art in general. I am known among my acquaintences to be very anti-pop, but I could not help but question the quality of what I like. And by "quality" I mean the following. I can go on and on about what makes my likes "better" but I can also ask, "Why is it not better if it pleases the most people?" If a given work of art has satisfied more people than another work of art, why is that not better? You can say that the contribution is in fact more positive. I absolutely hate Salvador Dali, but half the college students in the world have Dali posters in their rooms and none have posters of Manessier's or Elsworth Kelley's work. People enjoy Celine Dion more than they do National Health. More people are made happy by Steven Speilberg than they are by David Lynch. Who is better? I know what I want the answers to be but this argument is more quantifiable than the one I take comfort in.
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.24
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #8 on: 2005-03-08 16:27:09 » |
|
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2005-03-08 15:52:44 Regarding "uniqueness":
Ophis, the problem I have with your statement about the necessity of crap is that I feel crap is incidental. See, a peice is not good because it is a black sheep among the herd but it is a black sheep because it is good. I do not really feel that what is truly good is dependant upon the juxtaposition with voluminous crap. |
In order for something to be a "black sheep", it has to stand out against the majority doesn't it? So i'm not sure whether you mean that crap or goodness is incidental. Let's also not forget that all this is very subjective. I don't think that Britney Spears makes music that's anywhere as good and artistic (by my tastes) as Tom Waits. But then again, there are many (if not a majority) of (mostly younger) people out there who would vehemently disagree with me.
Quote:That said...
I cannot help but feel that art is collapsing. I accept that in an given medium there is still innovative art being produced but I also feel it is mortal in that sense. One day, what I view to be good will be chained to the past as a mere element of history. Paintings as an example, I do not think there are any truly great artists working now. Grandmasters. There are a couple of old ones still alive but that is different. There are good artists but they are not amazing. They are not Picasso, or Motherwell, or Still, or Bacon. They are just the best we have. Maybe I am just looking at a fragment of a downward slope in a sea of mountains but I just cannot escape that fear.
|
Now it's my turn to take exception. I think there are great masters out there that make art that will be appreciated just as much as that of the masters of the past. In fact, I think that we make greater art today than what's ever been made before. Of course that's all subjective again but with the test of time, some amount of consensus will emerge and we will find many of today's artists to be just as immortal as the Picassos and Van Gogh.
|
|
|
|
|
Ophis
Magister
Posts: 176
Reputation: 6.24
Rate Ophis
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #9 on: 2005-03-08 16:39:47 » |
|
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2005-03-08 16:21:21 I can go on and on about what makes my likes "better" but I can also ask, "Why is it not better if it pleases the most people?"
|
I think this is all a matter of subjectivity. It is not possible to say that someone's scale of value is "better" or "worse" than someone else's. It can only be said that one's scale of value resembles another's more than a third's; or that a particular scale of value is more conducive to a particular objective. Beyond that, it is totally arbitrary to say that Steven Spielberg is better (or worse) than David Lynch.
|
|
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.41
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #10 on: 2005-03-08 16:50:36 » |
|
Quote from: Ophis on 2005-03-08 16:27:09
In order for something to be a "black sheep", it has to stand out against the majority doesn't it? So i'm not sure whether you mean that crap or goodness is incidental. Let's also not forget that all this is very subjective. I don't think that Britney Spears makes music that's anywhere as good and artistic (by my tastes) as Tom Waits. But then again, there are many (if not a majority) of (mostly younger) people out there who would vehemently disagree with me.
|
I meant that in order for something to be different it needs to stand out but that art is not good because it stands out but rather that it stands out because it is good. It is incidental that the majority is crap in the scenario previously referenced.
Quote:Now it's my turn to take exception. I think there are great masters out there that make art that will be appreciated just as much as that of the masters of the past. In fact, I think that we make greater art today than what's ever been made before. Of course that's all subjective again but with the test of time, some amount of consensus will emerge and we will find many of today's artists to be just as immortal as the Picassos and Van Gogh.
|
Oh, I do accept that it is subjective. I assumed my tone would have made that clear. To rephrase/paraphrase, based on what I view as good art I cannot help but feel that the quality thereof is in a state of decline.
|
|
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.41
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:The death of Art?
« Reply #11 on: 2005-03-08 16:53:18 » |
|
Quote from: Ophis on 2005-03-08 16:39:47 I think this is all a matter of subjectivity. It is not possible to say that someone's scale of value is "better" or "worse" than someone else's. It can only be said that one's scale of value resembles another's more than a third's; or that a particular scale of value is more conducive to a particular objective. Beyond that, it is totally arbitrary to say that Steven Spielberg is better (or worse) than David Lynch.
|
I know it is essentially subjective. But I am mildly bothered by the fact that one is actually more quantifiable than the other, or at least it seems so at first glance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
