art opinions pls
Out of context: Reply #28
- Started
- Last post
- 43 Responses
- MrAbominable0
Re Nmdtht's earlier comments:
" it seems that the difference between what is seen as art and what is seen as design is simply a matter of context. and context can change (you wouldn't have found a poster by, e.g., alphonse mucha in a museum in 1910, but now...). "
Not a question of context as much as construct. A Mucha poster can be a beautiful object, as anything well designed: Eames chair, A4, Persian rug, Powerbook, etc. Out of context, and beyond their use value, these objects are still beautiful but because of design, and partly for their power of innovation (and or fashion as in the style of illustion in a Mucha piece.)
Museums merely house objects, ie the Armani show at the Guggenheim, or the Shackelton exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. It doesn't make these items fine art. The institution elevates the object to icon and acts as a repository for the public trust.
"as for new media pushing fine art - sure, i think you can make a case for that. i also find it interesting how traditional media has incorporated the look and feel of digital imagery (oil paintings that look like they've been pixel stretched in ps, or paintings that look like they were done in illustrator)"
Yes you can find a thread of the culture of software and the internet in fine art practices but the reality is that faux vector graphics or the fashion of Richter in enlarged .jpgs however none of these things have impacted contemporary art practice. It's still a debate about image or pop-culture which have been in vogue for 30 years by the contemporary usage or longer if you consider Modernism a reaction to pop-culture.