Results 1 to 13 of 35
Thread: PostModernism:what is next?
November 5th, 2005 #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PostModernism:what is next?
I'm doing a paper for art history. The subject is an exploration of what is next after the postmodern period of art and history. I chose this topic because in studying the many periods of art the logical question is what is next after this period and what will lead us to the next step. This is a fascinating time historically and technology. Many of the rules set by the humanist of the Renaissance and enlightenment thinkers have been broken and abandoned, the world is getting smaller and smaller as we all merge, geo-politics seems to be setting the stage for WW3 and WW4, man and machine are beginning to become one and the same and many other things that make our time unique.
Will we all find ourselves going back to simpler times thus coming to a classical art?
Will the cultures of the world just segregate more and more having their own point of view of morality and critical thinking, a good example is the struggle of west and middle east, the rejection of postmodern culture and western pop culture by islamic fundamentalist? Will post modernism lead to more fundamentalist and extremist since cultures are merging leading to cultures losing their uniqueness and 'purity'?
Will we see greater examples of humanity having great technology and knowledge but a lack of wisdom and gross example of this lack of wisdom?
There are many problems that exist and I believe that the artist are the front runners in guiding humanity as we are the conscious of humanity. We are going to be the ones to write, paint, sculpt and film the course of the evolution human conscious. I feel that we make or break the sum of humanity.
Whats your opinion?
Hide this ad by registering as a memberNovember 5th, 2005 #2
November 5th, 2005 #3
There's a musician named Billy Childish who fancies himself something of an artist. Though I love his music, I personally dont go for his paintings. That's neither here nor there. He claims to have pioneered the last (or latest) art movement: Stuckism.
Personally I think it's alot of bullshit, but some good fodder for a school paper. And hasn't every art movement of the past 50 years been founded on bullshit anyhow?
November 6th, 2005 #4
November 6th, 2005 #5There are many problems that exist and I believe that the artist are the front runners in guiding humanity as we are the conscious of humanity. We are going to be the ones to write, paint, sculpt and film the course of the evolution human conscious. I feel that we make or break the sum of humanity.
November 6th, 2005 #6
It's almost impossible to say where art is going to go at any given time. It's usually a rebellion against the current state of art, but it's hard to tell what form it will take. Although, post-modernism is rather vague, and is based largely around the concept of rebellion, which makes it difficult to rebel against.
It's hard to imagine a shift away from post-modernist thought in the near future. It's a product of the society we live in. I think it will take a radical shift in society to change it. Through new technology redefining the way we live, perhaps, or a particularly significant event that changes the way we think (many point to the World Wars as the early origin of post-modernism).
November 6th, 2005 #7Originally Posted by TrevorDemented
Originally Posted by TrevorDemented
November 6th, 2005 #8
Well, I had a CalArts teacher say "Artists are the spirit of society. Artists touch the soul of the person."
That is, artists are manipulative SOB's that try to jerk your emotions around....that's my cynical translation.......and hopefully you think it's funny.
I don't know.
November 6th, 2005 #9
In the coming complete social and economic breakdown there will be no place for art.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
November 6th, 2005 #10
I believe that we will regress back trough the many periods of development. People will start to realise the importance of the more classical periods. In the most simplistic terms it’s the question, what do we do when we reach our limits? We analyse how we got there, head back to the start and then find alternative methods of progression. We need to learn to appreciate the development of art and the many sub divisions within that title.
The markets of art, graphics etc are saturated due to an increase in popularity. Institutes need to reconstruct the artistic curriculum so that they are more selective with their applicants. This in turn would increase the quality of the skills.
I feel that the reason we have not had any many developments within art over the last fifty years is because of the decrease in the academic structure. I cannot stress how important it is that if you wish to be true to your field you must study everything.
Something revolutionary is coming to the boards, my sketchbook coming soon
November 7th, 2005 #11
It sure sounds nice that the pendulum would swing back towards "quality" art, and, to some extent, that IS occurring...(Check out the Art Renewal Center). But, the sad truth is that the "don't wanna study, don't wanna practice, every brush stroke is a masterpiece" crowd is gaining speed.
"LowBrow Art" is gaining in popularity by leaps and bounds, but just as any other movement, some artists are more successful at it than others.
There will be a period of time when the line between wal-mart schlock from china, and talentless "artiste" schlock will become so blurred that crappy looking fake art will be imported from third-world countries, sold at fabulously affordable prices, and young people will fill forums with clone drawings of the crap...
Oh what a wonderful world that will be...
Change is Inevitable, Growth is Optional
I am The Choosen One!
Jason sez: Draw more from Life!
November 7th, 2005 #12Originally Posted by TrevorDemented
I don't think art today could possibly go back to how it was in, say, the 19th century or the with the romans/greeks. Back then painting was one of the main forms of social critique and commentary. Today, your average joe never steps into a gallery. He sits in front of his TV and he goes to movies. It's documentaries like Bowling for Columbine, shows like Threat Matrix (a piece of terror propaganda if ever I saw one) and the newsmedia that are really going to influence people.
There's also not the need (as such) in the fine art world to draw a realistic human figure. If somebody wants a piece of art to put up on their wall of a realistic human, they might as well get a nice photograph.
Art needs a different purpose, and so far I don't think it's totally got a hold of one. We always have commercial art, and that's important for most of us here, but I think art it has to be something more than just a method of self-expression. Otherwise it's just intellectual masturbation and won't say anything to the majority of people.
What I hope is whatever we decide comes after post-modernism, it'll be more open to every sort of art. Realism, abstraction, non-representational stuff, and also have appropriate education widely available for young artists to learn what they need to learn for their own goals.
November 7th, 2005 #13
Art doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The "next" movement can't be predicted at all because such movements are only recognized in retrospect, and they are generally (if they're TRUE movements) in reaction to the human condition as it exists affecting/forcing artists to react to what they see as a problem or benefit that they can feel comfortable dealing with. A "movement" will become come into being and obvious when it is needed...
Based on historical references, this has nothing to do with realism, classicism, modernism, etc., but the best way to react to contemporary non-art influences on the creatives. A door is opened and someone says, "Wha'thefuck?" What comes next artistically is the result of either "NICE!" or "Ugh!"
Again, based on historical references, we CAN make some "possible" predictions, all of which are probably DEAD WRONG...
1. Art will become even more propaganda-oriented and possibly take on the appearance of rapidly-produced posters due to the unsettled political situation. This has already started, and could advance to something similar to the art of the "underground" early soviet or US late 60s-early 70s. Easy computer access and generation will make this even easier and quicker than in the past.
2. A reaction may build to a point where contempt for "corporate" sterility in art and architecture will force some artsts into re-acquiring a passion for "craft," in order to counter the mass-produced world they are forced to survive in. This could show itself as a return to "primitive" and "decorative" arts as influences, as it did in the early 20th century. One-of-a-kind will become the rule, and true hands-on will be valued over polished precision.
3. A "luddite" backlash may form as the computer-driven art world starts to show its muscle on a broad scale. The art world might just split into two different camps, with a number of smaller "compromise" groups circling, one pushing the computer-generated artifact to the front, while the other returns to "pure" hands-on only.
One thing that will HAVE to be done is a realignment of definitions. The number of threads discussing "whether this is sculpture/fine/true art" in this forum alone attests to that. Personally, I see the two fields--comp and non-comp-- each reinforcing their own peculiar presence and approaches to art, then "cleaning house" to prove it. Both the non-trained person with big machine/software capability AND the non-trained non-comp pseudo artist will be shamed into learning the "proper" techniques and such before they become accepted. Sadly, I see the possibility here of the comp-only people becoming extremely conservative in approaches to art (classic realism ONLY accepted) because of the ease of using software to execute non-realistic artifacts. This alone could force the two camps into two different and diametrically opposed approaches to the creative process.
I'll be honest here, and mention that that last sentance was a warning to some of you guys here to become a little more tolerant of other approaches. The artist NEEDS an unfettered exposure to EVERY influence in order to develope properly. We need each other in order to become unique.