Over the last three days, I have been reading and re-reading Christopher L.C.E. Whitcomb's excellent essay on Modernism in the art history timeline. He begins and ends his article with references to Suzi Gablik's Has Modernism Failed? (1984) with her view towards the hypothetical conclusion that "the end of Art is near". In particular, she asserts that if we as an art community and society hold that "anything can be considered art", then Innovation is no longer possible or desireable. I am not sure I see the connection. I have considered it axiomatic for quite some time that "anything created by man is formed for the purpose and use of man." That would even include art as an Occupation, art as a Statement, art as an Aesthetic, or art as a Recreation. Different purposes.
I liked the model of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" propounded in the paper and it appears to be suitable for the dynamic of art's social-political impact throughout history. Does Art only express and reflect current events through the eyes of the artist or can Art Change the World? Action or reaction? How much is this a chicken-and-the-egg syndrome?
The proposed objective of Modernism is the "creation of a better society". There are two alternative Antithetical reactions to the Thesis "society is better": (1) society is actually better or (2) society is not better. To make a judgement on that issue is a matter of opinion, is it not? If society has reached its epitome and reached the ideal of human actualization and full potential, then the influence of art has been accomplished. Perhaps then, Art as Celebration would become a genre. If society still has room for continuous improvement, then Art can still have a potential impact on creating a better world through Art as Statement.
Perhaps the Synthesis is that (1) the world isn't completely better if Artists need to earn a living with Art as Occupation; (2) Perhaps the world isn't better if Artists want to Change the World through Art as Statement; (3) Perhaps for some but not all recreational Artists, Art as Recreation is an escape and avoidance from other less relaxing and more taxing endeavors; or (4) Perhaps Art as Aesthetic allows us to portray Beauty and Truth as noble ideals in a world that isn't quite as Utopian.
So if Art isn't ended, where is Art heading in the future and what Innovation might be on the horizon? If we accept the Thesis that "Art is Original Expression" and contains symbols, icons, and meaning that reflect who the Artist is at a point in time and culture, then Art is Never Done. Rather, it reflects current social-political dynamics for the Artist as Creator. For instance, mention is made in the article about Earth Art and Performance Art that redefines Art into genre that is difficult to categorize into historical genre. Each of these types is Art that is Fleeting and Momentary. A sign of the times that reflects an Artist's Worldview of Expression.
Perhaps then, I could propose that we would expect to see the (continued) influence of a number of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dynamics in Art in the future reflecting current social-political influences:
I liked the model of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" propounded in the paper and it appears to be suitable for the dynamic of art's social-political impact throughout history. Does Art only express and reflect current events through the eyes of the artist or can Art Change the World? Action or reaction? How much is this a chicken-and-the-egg syndrome?
The proposed objective of Modernism is the "creation of a better society". There are two alternative Antithetical reactions to the Thesis "society is better": (1) society is actually better or (2) society is not better. To make a judgement on that issue is a matter of opinion, is it not? If society has reached its epitome and reached the ideal of human actualization and full potential, then the influence of art has been accomplished. Perhaps then, Art as Celebration would become a genre. If society still has room for continuous improvement, then Art can still have a potential impact on creating a better world through Art as Statement.
Perhaps the Synthesis is that (1) the world isn't completely better if Artists need to earn a living with Art as Occupation; (2) Perhaps the world isn't better if Artists want to Change the World through Art as Statement; (3) Perhaps for some but not all recreational Artists, Art as Recreation is an escape and avoidance from other less relaxing and more taxing endeavors; or (4) Perhaps Art as Aesthetic allows us to portray Beauty and Truth as noble ideals in a world that isn't quite as Utopian.
So if Art isn't ended, where is Art heading in the future and what Innovation might be on the horizon? If we accept the Thesis that "Art is Original Expression" and contains symbols, icons, and meaning that reflect who the Artist is at a point in time and culture, then Art is Never Done. Rather, it reflects current social-political dynamics for the Artist as Creator. For instance, mention is made in the article about Earth Art and Performance Art that redefines Art into genre that is difficult to categorize into historical genre. Each of these types is Art that is Fleeting and Momentary. A sign of the times that reflects an Artist's Worldview of Expression.
Perhaps then, I could propose that we would expect to see the (continued) influence of a number of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dynamics in Art in the future reflecting current social-political influences:
- Western Cultural Imperative on Third World Countries versus Emerging Global Cultures and Diversity
- Individual Imperatives for Freedom versus Rule of Authority and Tyranny
- Bipolar Schisms, Separateness, and Isolation versus Unity and Connectedness
- Haves versus Have-Nots
- Art for the Elite versus Art for and of the Masses
- Fundamental Religions versus Cultism versus Atheism versus Nihilism
- Big Government versus Big Business versus Big Religion versus Individual Self
- Centralized Power versus De-centralized Power
- Original Art versus Copy Art (The China Influence)
- Control versus Chaos
- Quality of Life versus Survival
- Found Art with Recycling-Upcycled Materials versus Traditional Media
- Charitable Giving versus Art for Investment Return
- Disenfranchised Extremism Topics versus Mainstream Art Topics
- Great Master Works versus Art as Occupation versus Daily Painting Initiative versus Amateur Art
No comments:
Post a Comment