new art is dead
- Started
- Last post
- 14 Responses
- unknown
some one was talking to me about art being not moviing anymore ... artists only doing over old styles ... those that arent are categorized contemporary artists and to be a contemporary artist u do not allow urself to be influenced by any other form or style of art ... hence what ever u do is lost since no one will use ur "progress" to further their own ... anywyas ... sems weird said quickly like this .. .but think about it ....
(BTW i did not agree with that person...)
- clone0
its just not accepted your shits not cool unless the guy you showed it to's friends like it only then will it be accepted and just for 2 min cuz he'll look at something else these so called art communities are relly just hangouts for people reveling in the same style so they bond the recreation kinda liek flattery is the highest compliment i guess. whatever
- bull0
I don't think it's so much a question of your work being 'cool'. Stuff becomes art, or even great art, because it addresses/questions certain accepted/implied truths of the global sphere of art. The reason these communities appear is sometimes because it has become appropriate or necessary to address a certain truth at a certain time. The state of society, politics, religion etc will naturally select which truths in the sphere of art are addressed. The factthat a load of people seem to do it simultaneously, forming what appears to be a little clique/club, is simply because they're all following the same logical path through art history a it relates to the rest of the world, and interpreting it as their own perspective dictates.
If you think of art as kind of a collective eyewitness account of the world at large, each artist becomes an individual witness, and their work becomes the visual representation of their interpretation of the truth of the event as it unfolds.
So, don't try to do work in rebellion against contemporary inclination. Just follow your own logic, and try to create something 'true' rather than something 'cool'.
The rest is how well you know your craft.
I reckon
- miracola0
WOW! You said it Bull. I couldn't have put it any better. Just do what your heart tells you , follow your own path and you'll be a better artist for it.
- exador0
"it looks cool?
that aint the answer i'm fuckin lookin for man...."important words i heard once in my early 20's....
more to do with art-direction and advertising than fine art...but still important...
the looks cool school of creativity ends up being pretty hollow and empty fairly quickly when you compare it to something that was well thought out, and has a solid sense of purpose...
the notion my art director at the time was trying to get across to me, was simple..
all the photoshop trickery in the world, and funky effects, and crap like that can't save you if you have NO IDEA...
read the creative brief.
THINK about it...
come up with a unique and novel solution to the problem...
then and only then will you have something worthy of showing others..
"the minute i hear the words "cuz it looks cool', i automatically assume you have either run out of ideas, or never HAD and original thought, and have now resorted to KPT filters in hopes of coming up with something .....10 years later, i try to always remember that...
not sure if it has any relevence to the original conversation...but i just thought id throw that in there
- Creon0
well, i certainly believe that art is moving in a direction. Not sure which direction however.
We seem to be reverting back to more modernist ideals, yet our 'styles' still suggest postmodernist theories.
Its almost as if we are combining the best of both theories: The technique of modernism and the introversion of post-modernism.
neo-modernism?!
At least thats the way i see it:)
- mbr0
Yes, it seems to be headed towards a New Modernism (as I like to call it - heh!) in art, architecture, graphics, and I guess you could even argue some music is retro-active (although I won't).
After postmodernism, and all it's applied glory, there was the rebellion against a 'structure', and deconstruction emegered. From there there was attempts to create 'emergence', or experiment with randomness, computers, etc. This correlated nicely with fractals, chaos theory, etc.. as science, art, and architecture often parallel each other during large movements.
Now we are moving past this random/chaos and cleaning it up a bit. Smoothing the edges.
It's gonna be cool, I think. Formal Modernism, clean but not sterile. Yeah, that's it ; )
- thosethat0
surely the phrase 'creative brief' means sh*te all to someone whose concerned with 'art'...
surely...
thats talking 'designer' language...
let's not confuse the two...
eh..?
- Bluejam0
The trouble with Art History, or any history that tries to define art is that it omits more than it reveals.
Therefore you never get to see the full picture. Just a snapshot.
Worth reading...
Good History/Bad History
by T.Kalman,J. Abbot Miller and Karrie JacobsPrint Magazine, March/April 1991
- thanton0
I don't think you'll get far trying to characterize the "new movement" in art. So maybe in that sense "new art" is dead. I don't think there will be any big, major movements, like modernism or post-modernism...
unless, like bluejam points out, art historians omit enough of what's going on now that they can characterize the age with a single word...
I think it's important to recognize diversity. It goes for art as well as everything else. Defining an 'art movement' is rather exclusive. You're better off just looking at work based on craft and sincerity.
- Creon0
i dont agree. a movement in art isnt something to embrace as the rules of creating art. it is merely a classification of certain aesthetics or styles over a period of time. post-modern artists were under that heading because they shared some similar ideas.... but, as is obvious in post-mod, they had nothing in common production wise. mike and doug starn were light years away from william wegman...but they were both considered postmodern because of their underlying ideals.
you say to embrace diversity, and i couldn't agree more. that is why any new movement will be a mixture of many styles that have come before us. just looking at some of the links in the broadcasts on this and many other sites, you can see unlimited artistic styles: minimalism, futurism, modernism, etc...however they are all created under one new movement.
we are concerned with our technical abilities as artists, just as modernists were. However, we are also concerned with our ideas and integrity, as the post-mods were.
its a great mix of these aesthetics, integrity, and technique that define our new era in art.
- robert4040
you all suck
- thanton0
I agree with you, creon. Post-mod is a very inclusive term, that's true. I guess by definition.
I remember in school hearing that some art critic (I think greenberg) said painting died with warhol. I studied painting, and I thought oh shit, he's right!
Why are we prone to that fear? I don't know, maybe it's the same reason the apocalypse is fascinating.
Anyway, I think those issues shouldn't affect us as people who create. That's the domain of art critics and historians.
Makes for good conversation though :•)
- Bluejam0
C'mon Robert404
If you're gonna bring down a thread to in order to satisfy your lower intelligence, please, do it with style...
...jeez, some people really lack imagination round here.
New Art isn't dead, the New Generation is.
- aquabotic0
i think to say "art is not moving anymore" is to assume that one has seen and experienced everything there is to offer out there
there is so much shit going on right nw it's impossible to get to everything
but to assume that something can be dead without scraping the shit out from underneath some bitch's fingernails in some dirty alleyway is to assume brutal ignorance
i guess what im saying is there's art out there for everyone.....CREATE YOUR OWN if youre not satisfied
good riddance! ha