Mphil dissertation?
Oh hai
What the fuck is wrong with the art world these days? Experimentation is all well a good but it can be taken too far. Oh something new, very nice, is it art? This question seems to have been lost in some kind of desperate attempt for everyone to be cutting edge. Am I the only one who doesn't care if people don't think I'm cutting edge? Apparently I'm the only one who seems to be miffed about these things anyway.
You see the so-called 'modern' art world (ignoring that Picasso solidified modern art and he died --- years ago) is that it so arrogant about it own importance. We even now build enormous separate art galleries. There are art galleries and 'Modern art galleries'. All well and good in theory, but where are the Impressionist galleries, or the Baroque galleries, or the International Gothicism galleries (not kidding, that’s a real art movement). You see Modermism was a fantastic umbrella movement encompassing whole plethora of artistic movement mainly revolving around innovation and change. Fantastic! Brilliant! New ways of seeing the beautiful, new ways of seeing the sublime. Melt me into a gooey pile of art appreciation and wonder!
But oh-oh! Wait, this was a century ago. Modernism (if I've got my dates right) was supposed to end with Surrealism. I’m not going to explain why because I have done already and it took me 3000 words and the disappointment of 63%. Why are people still bleeding this relentless need for innovation without actually exploring the new thing that has been found?
Picasso, every art student’s favourite grumpy misogynist, was trying to break the paint-something-pretty mould, but he wasn’t starting a revolution. However, he and the other modernists made a good point. Rules, lines and boundaries in art content and media are bad. Ok, fair enough. But this creates an obsession with innovation that still hadn’t died. Which is where I come in with my main point: Just because something is new and different, doesn’t mean its art. It certainly doesn’t mean its good art.
Allow me to explain. The Surrealist (which I’m going to use as the last of the great innovators) created their own art movement from scratch. Had this happened before? I'm not sure it has, which in itself is interesting. Anyway, because they knew they were doing something new they pummelled this new thing till it died. They explored all the options, which in my scientifically brought up mind is what meant to happen to a new idea. If there is something new in the intellectual world it need to be tried tested and polished up nice and good before its released on the real world. If a scientist had an idea for a cancer drug, tried it and it looked like it worked on one type of cancer he wouldn’t then sell it as an all-encompassing cancer cure. It makes no sense. It boils down to this: experimental means exactly that. YOU ARE EXPERIEMENTING. It doesn’t mean you are right.
Unfortunately experimental is now used like a compliment akin to an artwork having good use of colour, accurate posturing or strongly set emotions etc etc. I'm not sure how this is justified. You see I'm of the belief that art is art. You can have good art and bad art but if something isn’t art it should fuck right off. And if we're not sure its art then it should go away and then come back when it knows what it is so I can either judge it or tell it to FUCK RIGHT OFF!
But oh no, apparently it doesn’t work like that. Anything can go into a gallery as long as it might be art, even vaguely art. And very irritatingly to prove these people (who ever they are I haven’t decided yet) wrong I need to define what art is. An infamously difficult and subjective thing to do. Worst of all the bastard post modernist, the worst of the fucking bunch, can cling onto the whole 'Its art because its done by and artist' defence without actually having to define what an artist is other than saying 'me' and pointing to themselves.
I can't shake the feeling that we've lost our way somewhat. If experimentation itself is art then anything can be art. Which leaves me clinging hopelessly on the slippery and painful edges of the 'everything is art' pit of cop-out, sliding unstoppably towards misanthropy, self loathing and giving it all up to work in Macky Dee's. The pays probably better anyway.
Please, someone help me!
What the fuck is wrong with the art world these days? Experimentation is all well a good but it can be taken too far. Oh something new, very nice, is it art? This question seems to have been lost in some kind of desperate attempt for everyone to be cutting edge. Am I the only one who doesn't care if people don't think I'm cutting edge? Apparently I'm the only one who seems to be miffed about these things anyway.
You see the so-called 'modern' art world (ignoring that Picasso solidified modern art and he died --- years ago) is that it so arrogant about it own importance. We even now build enormous separate art galleries. There are art galleries and 'Modern art galleries'. All well and good in theory, but where are the Impressionist galleries, or the Baroque galleries, or the International Gothicism galleries (not kidding, that’s a real art movement). You see Modermism was a fantastic umbrella movement encompassing whole plethora of artistic movement mainly revolving around innovation and change. Fantastic! Brilliant! New ways of seeing the beautiful, new ways of seeing the sublime. Melt me into a gooey pile of art appreciation and wonder!
But oh-oh! Wait, this was a century ago. Modernism (if I've got my dates right) was supposed to end with Surrealism. I’m not going to explain why because I have done already and it took me 3000 words and the disappointment of 63%. Why are people still bleeding this relentless need for innovation without actually exploring the new thing that has been found?
Picasso, every art student’s favourite grumpy misogynist, was trying to break the paint-something-pretty mould, but he wasn’t starting a revolution. However, he and the other modernists made a good point. Rules, lines and boundaries in art content and media are bad. Ok, fair enough. But this creates an obsession with innovation that still hadn’t died. Which is where I come in with my main point: Just because something is new and different, doesn’t mean its art. It certainly doesn’t mean its good art.
Allow me to explain. The Surrealist (which I’m going to use as the last of the great innovators) created their own art movement from scratch. Had this happened before? I'm not sure it has, which in itself is interesting. Anyway, because they knew they were doing something new they pummelled this new thing till it died. They explored all the options, which in my scientifically brought up mind is what meant to happen to a new idea. If there is something new in the intellectual world it need to be tried tested and polished up nice and good before its released on the real world. If a scientist had an idea for a cancer drug, tried it and it looked like it worked on one type of cancer he wouldn’t then sell it as an all-encompassing cancer cure. It makes no sense. It boils down to this: experimental means exactly that. YOU ARE EXPERIEMENTING. It doesn’t mean you are right.
Unfortunately experimental is now used like a compliment akin to an artwork having good use of colour, accurate posturing or strongly set emotions etc etc. I'm not sure how this is justified. You see I'm of the belief that art is art. You can have good art and bad art but if something isn’t art it should fuck right off. And if we're not sure its art then it should go away and then come back when it knows what it is so I can either judge it or tell it to FUCK RIGHT OFF!
But oh no, apparently it doesn’t work like that. Anything can go into a gallery as long as it might be art, even vaguely art. And very irritatingly to prove these people (who ever they are I haven’t decided yet) wrong I need to define what art is. An infamously difficult and subjective thing to do. Worst of all the bastard post modernist, the worst of the fucking bunch, can cling onto the whole 'Its art because its done by and artist' defence without actually having to define what an artist is other than saying 'me' and pointing to themselves.
I can't shake the feeling that we've lost our way somewhat. If experimentation itself is art then anything can be art. Which leaves me clinging hopelessly on the slippery and painful edges of the 'everything is art' pit of cop-out, sliding unstoppably towards misanthropy, self loathing and giving it all up to work in Macky Dee's. The pays probably better anyway.
Please, someone help me!