The Decline of Art

[INVuRTS]

Were one to extrapolate the current trend in what has become acceptable for "art", one would be immediately distressed at the sight of the seemingly inexorable and undeniable rapid decline of true meaning and pleasure.

Art should be immediately tantalising to the senses, and have a clearly conveyed message.

I shouldn't need to have a curator tell me how a nondescript yellow blob on a blue background is symbolic of the transition between life and death, and how humanity is powerless over its own destiny.

It is none of that. It is a crude, base, lazy, half-baked attempt that does not deserve the square meter of gallery space it takes up.

I'm hardly saying I don't admire the progressive individuals--but they should stay just that. Progressive individuals.

Discussion: Could "art" ever encounter a singularity, and break out of this negative trend?

Is there a trend in the first place?

Does art need a singularity in order to break out of the trend?

What, to you, is art?

And anything else you would so deign to impart upon we ignorant plebs.

[t3hdragon]

You're referring to concept art which is mostly bull****. Don't generalize, it makes me feel like abandoning the pursuit of navigating the space between your facts and your uninformed opinions.

You saw a circle on a canvas and felt unsatisfied because you're not stupid. You don't want to open your mind to something conceptually and visually two dimensional. But not all art is like that.

Art may not be on the same level as it was in Da Vinci's time, but the reason is that we're no longer developing our culture. We make tourist attractions out of the past, but nobody's really interested in symbolism or representation. Like the cathedral in Cuenca, Ecuador. The majority of the buildings in Cuenca have a high amount of marble material used on the walls and floors, as back when most of the buildings were made, marble was cheap and in fashion. The cathedral itself is about the size of a football field, complete with 10+ 20-foot tall stained glass windows and to top it all off, an 80 foot tall, solid gold shrine you can kneel and pray at.

Would we do that sort of thing now? No. Because of ONE MAIN THING: art used to be rebellious, unique, and . It used to be innovative. Now, we've reached the point as humans where nothing we do is original.

What a sad state of affairs, no?

[Wratts]

Originally Posted by Chinmoku

Art should be immediately tantalising to the senses, and have a clearly conveyed message.

That's what you think about it. I disagree, believe that art must not necessarily "tantalize the senses", or have a clearly conveyed message. En contraire, I think that it can easily qualify for art without fulfilling any one of those two simple criteria you place over art like a yoke. Things like cold logic and knowledge are the pitiless borders of our world, and to me, art is the attempt to break through those boundaries.

Originally Posted by Chinmoku

I shouldn't need to have a curator tell me how a nondescript yellow blob on a blue background is symbolic of the transition between life and death, and how humanity is powerless over its own destiny.

It is none of that. It is a crude, base, lazy, half-baked attempt that does not deserve the square meter of gallery space it takes up.

Haha. Nice to see someone else thinks about a certain category of art like I do.

Could "art" ever encounter a singularity, and break out of this negative trend?
If you're thinking of a singularity as pinning down art into a judgment where it can be gauged and benchmarked to be referred to as greater or lesser art -- according to the measly two criteria you gave above -- then I dearly hope you see that true art regularly encounters "singularities". (That is, if my understanding of "singularity" matches yours.) In fact, the circumstance of art being created by individuals who've brought in their own innovations or original twists nobody expected, would prove that the history of art is pulsing with singularities.
But if you mean by "negative trend", for instance, that minimalism is considered to be "art", oh by golly do I hope that it's broken out of soon, or that at the very least, people grow some awareness for the essence of art, and not focus on the cancerous growths that art's original allures have produced and are festering in the mainstream.

Is there a trend in the first place?
There are always trends in any niche of mankind, not just in art.

Does art need a singularity in order to break out of the trend?
No, it doesn't. Creative minds seem to break out of trends with ease. And singularity required to break out of the trend? No, because one can break out of the trend if cleverly done, for instance going with a trend and bringing new innovations or schisms into it. As soon as the singularity is copied, it ceases to exist as such, and becomes the trend.

What, to you, is art?
Lately? Uhm, my latest fad is Graffitti. One big joyride of not getting caught by the police while marking the urban landscape with magnificent works of art, how is that not art?

But I concur with what t3hdragon posted above, "art" is nowhere quite as rebellious, unique, nor innovative as it used to be. Perhaps, you need to open your eyes to see that there is "art" everywhere, but seldomly will you find it swimming in the mainstream.

It comes as no wonder that artists of older days never became really famous until after they died. Perhaps wondrous however is that in days of medieval times and earlier, artists didn't sign their works. Now, what do these two facts tell us about art these days?

[Anga]

1) They tell us to truly be appreciated as an arist the possibility of future work must be exterminated. People like rarity.

2) An artist strives to go beyond the public and the public only catches up at a later time.

3) People want reconition for their work and don't create to just create anymore.

What I consider art is something that is able to transend the materials it was created with.

A piano note is just a note until it is played together and Mendelssohn comes pouring out. Art should touch you.

It can challenge you as well. Though in these times it seems that artist try too hard to be a challenge and gives up on the soul of the work.

It can make a statement. When my friend was abroad she and her fellows were at an exhibit with a number of revolving doors. She was the only one interested in going through the doors to hear the musical notes that would play when you went through them. Although she tried, by herself she couldn't hear what was truly possible.

Sometimes you can even lose yourself in art. You can stare at a photograph or painting for 20 mins and don't notice the time pass by.

[Wratts]

I think I have a crush on Anga, you know, that kind of crush where you secretly write affectionate letters filled with light-headed infatuation, but you're too afraid to come out about it openly? (Oops.)

If I can lose myself in someone, does that make that someone an artist or a piece of artwork penned by a divine feather?

Ahem, more on-topic; as for Graffitti, another thing that speaks for it as a high art is that you usually don't get paid to do it, but rather would have to pay if you get caught doing it! How ridiculous. Who wants to look at all those grey concrete and metal slabs anyway?

[Jesus]

Ive been observing and Im a fan of traditional styles. However, art can be anything. Just as long as it has a meaning, even if its purpose is to say that it dosnt have one. I think artsists attempt to create a work that they can sell, generally something that is aesthetically pleasing. Artists have to make a living too. Every now and then; however, they create just for the sake of art and when their not trying to sell to their market audiance their able to express themselves fully to themselves, even if no one else understands.

Art has always been trend followed. The renaissance is a prime expamle where mainstream artists changed their way of thinking. Artists will always learn and follow each other, and what is acceptted as art will always be changing.


Even though were mainly disscussing the visual aspects of art, as a musician Id like to mention the change of the aural arts as well. Not just the rise of popular guitar based bands singing catchy tunes, but also in those who still claim status as classical composers. Current composers and song wirters rarely follow the guidelines of the past, but rather move to ideas that are drasticly different. Some of its good and some of its bad. Its like that with all arts, you've just got to find what interests you.



PS/ Oh yea, I think Anga might be a little to cruel for your tastes, Wratts. I doubt she'd follow up on your offers anyway.
I could be wrong though.

Originally Posted by Anga

Wratts is so earnest and decent.

I think I have a non-sexual crush.

Either way, I wholly agree with this statement.

Originally Posted by Anga

What I consider art is something that is able to transend the materials it was created with.

Could "art" ever encounter a singularity, and break out of this negative trend?

There is no trend.

Is there a trend in the first place?

No.

Does art need a singularity in order to break out of the trend?

No.

What, to you, is art?

Anything claiming to be art is art in my opinion (excluding illegal things).

[Guerrilla]

my metal rose weeps of the coldness of love on the outside and the warmth and beauty on the inside of its shell.(art will keep moving on as long as theres people who would like to express emotions thro drawing or music not just tradition art.)

[Mo Hawk]

Andy Worhal FTW! Greatest "Modern Artist" EVER IMO!!!
Cambells GREAT piece of art
Brillo Box F'Ing hilarious!
and Marylin Monroe Foilio!

[Anga]

I think Wratts is an amazing person but love affairs that span the globe don't tend to go well....and I do believe I am a trifle too cruel for him. I still claim the right to admire him from afar.

Jesus, it's nice to know you are still watching even though I'm doing the agnostic thing.

All jokes aside, just because someone creates something for money does not make it any less art. I hope I didn't give that impression in my first post. If I thought that I wouldn't be able to appreciate the vast majority of work out there. The Sistine Chapel anyone?

Music is very dynamic. It's also much easier for someone to see all the influences on it and the roots that keep going back and back....

Music in the past century has gone through many changes. The fact that it is not something physical allows for more experimentation. It never seems to foget where it came from or where it's been. Even when it's trying to be revolutionary.

Everyone harkens back to something that's come before and putting their own mark on it. The heavy use of modes in gregorian chanting and jazz and some comtemporary for example. You see it in pop music with Christina Aguilera's new blues/jazz focus, in what a DJ does with his vinyl collection, or "Dani California". Even when someone breaks with tradition they are taking influence from it but using at as a guideline of what not to do. Now it's true their are sounds today with technology that weren't possible before. But even with those people will go back. Moogs were largely abandoned for digital then became almost a holy grail for musicians during the 90's.

What of the literary arts? How many Emily Dickinson's are there in the world today whose work is waiting to be discovered later? Is there a difference between what you consider literature and art?

[Wratts]

Well Anga, long-distance admiration and respect, I can live with such a wonderful mutual thing.

Originally Posted by Anga

All jokes aside, just because someone creates something for money does not make it any less art. I hope I didn't give that impression in my first post. If I thought that I wouldn't be able to appreciate the vast majority of work out there. The Sistine Chapel anyone?

I'm a bit more extreme about this part with the money... sure, it doesn't make it any less art, but it does make it harder for it to qualify as art in my eyes.

I'll give a completely different example than something so spectacular as the Sistine Chapel: If someone in the music business can sell their music via provocation (for instance, Madonna), this could qualify as an art in my eyes. However, considering how old, over-used, and wide-spread the use of provocation to sell something has gotten (you can study and learn it in courses for marketing and the likes), it's not really an art anymore, rather a technique. It's just a repetition.

To me, an art is something raw, more pure, less codified.

The more it's from the soul, the more spirit I can sense in a piece of artwork, no matter what its exact nature is - the more it is true art to me. It doesn't even have to appear like "art" on the first glance; to me an art can even be the essence of simply being the single only person to rebel against something that everybody else is going along with.

Originally Posted by DertyBomb

What, to you, is art?

Anything claiming to be art is art in my opinion (excluding illegal things).

I think that's a rather narrow-minded view of things...

If someone made art which deals in nudity and is thusly illegal in certain states or countries, it's not art at all?
If someone uses martial arts to defend those in need of such strength, but is technically committing an illegal act, it's no art at all?
If someone uses spraypaint to beautify an urban landmark which was paid by thieves, built by the wage-slaves of the thieves, and is guarded by the law because the thieves pay the law, and thus make the beautification illegal, it's not an art at all?
If someone wrote literature which was forbidden in a totalitarian regime, it's not art at all?

Excluding "illegal things" from the spectrum of something as broad as "art" is a highly ignorant stance, in my eyes, beside the point that you'll willingly accept anything else to be "art" as long as some person screams at the top of his/her lungs and just claims it's art.

But hey, I think ignorance is just another facet which can flow into arts... maybe your opinion is the future!

[iDiscipline]

surely art in its purest form is the expression of the artist of a thought, feeling, sensation or image that they feel the need to preserve, extrpolate upon or share.

the "non descript yellow blob" may indeed be a meditation on the journey between life and death. the artist has chosen the medium and manner of portrayal of this idea, but unfortunatly rendered it in a manner in which you find incomprehensible. but consider it this way. when you mentioned what the painting was, a yellow blob on a blue background, this to me immediatly sparked an image of the sun. it rises and sets, following a steady path. life in its very essence also follows a path between the rise of birth and the setting of death, and in the manner of the earth revolving around the sun, much of humanities endevours are an attempt to forestall or avoid the inevitable demise. such acts are inherrantly futile, in much the same way as trying to convince yourself that the earth does not revolve around the sun.

even in the most simple of images, there can be a much greater inherant meaning. no image is ever compleatly by accident, even Jackson Pollack had some finished result in mind with his action paintings.

fell free to disagree with what i've said, but i find that the most fun in modern art is to find and extrapolate meaning from the relationship between the title and the actual piece.

[Anga]

Originally Posted by iDiscipline

i find that the most fun in modern art is to find and extrapolate meaning from the relationship between the title and the actual piece.

I agree whole-heartedly. It is fun. But I feel a piece should pull at something inside you to be "art".

I once saw (or dreamed, in my current mind state the two are interchangeable) a series of black and white paintings depicting colors which were the titles of the pieces as well. It was breath taking. It's true that they needed the titles to fully understand the work, but even without knowing the artist's intentions they captivated you.

A simple image is just a compelling as a elaborate one. There was another peice I saw where the canvas was completely black. After staring at it for awhile though you began to see the varying shades and were pulled into the painting.

Originally Posted by Wratts

I'm a bit more extreme about this part with the money... sure, it doesn't make it any less art, but it does make it harder for it to qualify as art in my eyes

I don't consider that when I experience something. I'm all gut reaction and sensing when it comes to art. Though there is a correlation between something created for money and how much soul I get for it. Correlation not causation.

On my side it's less "long-distance admiration and respect" so much as I'm a quiet fangirl......yes, I realize the utter irony here.