Recent Posts
OK people, what I'm blahing about in this post is not an idea in it's extreme as I've liked to previously. My rave here is of a questioning affair. What I'm asking is relative to art in our times having soul. I am shamelessly proposing that not enough art today has feeling. Again, as I've done before I have to state that this proposal is only made comparitively to history. (If we compare art today to all previous creations, how does it rate in terms of soul factor?). I'll whinge but not because there's no soul left in the art wortld, but because there's not enough. Art that I thought did have soul was, admittedly, that of Picasso even though I don't consider myself a great fan. And he was relentless about it too. He continued makeing art with that calibre of intensity until he died. Gaugain or Van Gogh were two others. I'm not mentioning them in terms of their artistic statements, but on that particular emotive quality of their work. Gaugain may have been a bit rough around the edges, but his brush was on fire, there's evivdence almost in the physical marks on the canvas... a vitality in his marks- energetic evidence of life. I can't say that most prominent work these days has those qualities. Van Gogh's work had these graphic attributes as well. Heck, even the Beatles had it. But like most musicians who have a streak of honesty in their sound, there is a difference between an honest effort and good music. Another artist that deserves mention for this matter is Egon Schiele, who's influences borrowed from Japonisme lend his expressive touch channelled into linework. Bacon's intensity is isolated to his subject matter and execution of aesthetic concept rather than being evident in his brush strokes. Not all emotive artworks ever made have said raw intensity intrinsic to the physical quality of the media used. It's a conscious effort made by the artist at the time of concepton that leaves the work to retain these qualities. Works of this nature relect life, energy back at you. I won't say they give you life, but they seem to energize something within, stimulate you more, on an energetic level. It's this spark that the work has to ignite in you as viewer, even if indirectly, through some subverted, sly, methodical conceptual sarcastic parody. A little irony works wonders. Satire can stimulate an energetic response through its theoretical ploys. But nothing should be repeated for iits own sake. Satire has become fashionable, but like anything should only be used if the effect is instigative of an appropriate reaction.
Beauty doen't have to be roses and prettiness, it can be hard and confronting as well. I guess it's obvious that asesthetics don't have to be agreeable or soothing, they can be arresting in a challlenjging manner too. Aesthetics in the true sense doesn't mean prettiness, it means qualities of attractive character. Sometimes you can be attracted to ugly things on an intriuging or facinating level. Like some horror movie fans who get into gore (`gorehounds'). They have magazine communities based on this `brand' of movie genre. These buffs would admit there's something attractive about gore films or maybe splatter horror. It's a style of aesthetic, a qualitative characteristic of the medium that they enjoy most over others. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which understates the originality of each different appreciator's unique taste in art. Any great artist will accept that he can't please all palates. We've had periods in the west of both ends of the spectrum, take the gothic period in nortrhern european church art where the church-state dictated that all art must be made for the church and a common style (gothic) was prevalent, narrowing creative scope as a result. Lots of gargoyles sculpted and other twisted concoctions as a product of so much creative repression (sometimes humourous!). Bosch had his surreal moments during the middle ages as a result perhaps of much cultural turmoil and upheavel, providing scarier creations than the gothic period i.m.h.o. And when things were economically fruitful, the baroque period produced some exhuburently flowery expressions of the beauty and colour of life. A period of which kind of reminds me of where we are now and also of where we were in the 80's for a brief spell. In times of sociological complacency, creatives have always violently protested against such norms of the slumbering suburban self-contented consciousness. After the first World War, the Dadaists who had retreated to a caberet joint in Zurich started thier random little protests after the horror they had recently faced in Europe. The ramifications of these gatherings of hilarious and defiant poetic perfomances triggered a ripple-effect of art movements past the devastions of WWII, through pop art (who hailed Duchamp as their king), post-pop, post-modernism to art in its present day practices. Punks like Jeff Koons are to be applauded and respected for their resiliant and defiant support for this tradition, regardless of how much money is thrown around. Any artist who can stand up againt the hypocrisy of the system he/she lives in with work that challenges it in a confonting, arresting, provocative and maybe graphic way needs the support of his/her community and even their attention for a moment. There might be something important, apropriate or integral to our own livelihood being said.
What can we conclude about the absence of beauty in contemporary art? And by contemporary art I mean art that's made today, in our lifetime? On the outset, it doesn't lack beauty, it has some form of beauty, The blind can tell you that culture today has aesthetics, my argument is not that culture today has no aestheticas but that the aesthetics irt does have are found to be qualitatively in need of integrity. Much art that's made is beginning to borrow aesthetics from electronic stye qualities of mark-making and aesthetic characteristics intrinsic to that medium's technical paramaters. While I don't see this as problematic, it's only one-sided- but not one-ended. Computer- generated art, art made with computer-aided tools have characteristic qualities, all of which are objective and neutral as tools, none of which are flawed. Art today and commercial art have slipped into the comfotable groove of computer-aided production and design, all of which is valid and real art at the same time. The only danger is that we can become too comfortable with the limited range of aesthetics it has to offer, ignoring the wider spectrum of possibilities. I guess I'm not a purist or valiant canvaser of `traditional', `organic' art making processors but I'm serious about the archival registration that popular fashional processes have on our time in history. Not all fashion has been memorable, even if important. Most of my work comes from the old-school method of art-making, but most of that training hasn't been by choice, just by circumstance. I don't consider this school of thought as being the more valid place to learn. I know it's not ultimately. Art-making is art-making, who am I to say what is art and what isn't. It doesn't matter how you get there. What matters is where you get to in the end, not the mode of transport. (Zen philosophy can't be ruled out either). We have to be careful not to get lost on the way.
How effective the work is can be determined on what effect it has on your behaviour... what does it make you do? Good art should move the earth for you, not just tickle you or suggest a couple of things conceptually. It should instigate some sort of change in the way you feel, make you react somehow and thus change your behabviour. The aesthetics is the vehicle for this action. electronic art is not the blame for our numbness of stimulated response to passionless art. How can a tool be blamed for bad art? It's like an artist blaming his tools for his poor effort. Ourt numbness is two-fold. Our qulaity of work is reflective of a mass-numbness of productive efforts. Our reliance on technology comes into play in our present lack of creativity. Like a kid who watches too much television and doesn't get out much. As a species, we like to be inspired by popular culture, the Arts. What happens when that source of insipration dries up?
What role should art have in todys's war-torn global community? In the west at least it shoul be as an aid, not necessarily first aid for the remedy of the post-S11 cloud of doom, but come to think about it, maybe to some degree. Not as sympathy exactly but perhaps as reassuring reminders of where we were before that cloud of paranoia came over. There were some intense things going on, great things in the process of being accomplished. The problem with cycles of conservatism is that we're left being too aware of each other at the end of the period after so much critical analysis of each other's professional behaviour. Recently I've noticed in the mass-media a wave of `community awareness' slots investigating our new social consciousness concerning post-S11 paranoia and the impact it has on the way we think about commuting in public and the threat of public insecurity causing us to regard our community with a notion of fear. While governments induce this in the media preceding election time, the blame cannot rest on them alone. As a collective, we outweigh the beurocracy in number 100/1 or something. As hoipolloi we not only have the power but have strentgth in numbers. And that's just the start of it, regardless of how much we plug ourselves into brain-draining television sets every night, the mass-media doesn't control us in terms of how we think as a collective, it only claims to.The French are prime examples of this concept. They of all people know what it means to be an empowered numerical conglomerate. In South America as well, these communities not only were aware culturally and continuously throughout history of the potential of a force collected but acted on it. The word revolution was a physical reality for them, sealed in blood. I'm not suggesting some sort of re-enactment in the west, but there's definitely things to be learnt from these communities. The potential of a collective mind, a sense of being a collective entity. Sociologically, we're at the point of losing what what we have in this drepartment, theories presently circulating hard and fast sbout the ever increasing deterioration of the fabric of society and all. Art in history has had a role in the strengthening of this sense of the collective as an expression of it, as a product of society's collective cuture and in worse forms, propaganda. I don't see art as having these proprerties nowadays, it's lost somewhwere between the worlds of the internet and advertising with commercial art gluing them together somehow. While art is not dead, it does need resuscitating. It has a job to do, and it's out like a light.
Aesthetics meaning qualities of character, not necessarily `lovely' looking attributes. Aesthetics meaning qualities that make the work omit a strength due to the nature of that attribute. For example, aspects of the work that the artist intentionally contributed to it during the making of it that determine the final overall character of he work. Different works of art have strengths in different areas, depending on what the artist emphasised during the creative process. That's the reason why we love art. There's an infinite amount of creations to be made and thus appreciated.
[ Click here to read more ]
Aesthetics can be decided in the eye of the beholder, it's obvious that things work this way, whether I think something is beautiful or whether someone else doesn't. Or that I consider a work of art to hold values of good aesthetic appeal and others don't. No one can say that Henry Moore's sculpture is beautiful on the whole, there must remain a possibility for opinion on this matter, otherwise art cannot be art in its deserved state of freedom. Whether something has qualitative aesthetics or not or whether something is beautiful or not must remain a subjective decision reserved for the individual spectataor alone. No one can dictate to me what good art is. I can't dictate that to you either, this is is the nature of art and the reason why it will stay a fair game so to speak. If this state of liberality doesn't stay open-ended, there can be no option to go ahead and make beautiful things and most importantly in the way that you as an individual feel like expressing yourself. This is why I steer away from anything that tries to tell me how aesthetically prolific any one work of art is. It's your prerogative as art fan/critic to take the liberty deciding yourself, that way you can call your experience of that exhibition or whatever it was by which means you were confronted with the work, your own. You had a personal experience with that art medium. Also you can take your opinion of the artwork and add it into the divine equation/ formula that you are continuously in the process of working out. It refers (or doesn't) somehow to those theories of yours relating to life, the universe and great art-making. Most importantly you're in a position as humble art-maker to say whatever the hell you damn well please which is where you should be. Being bigotted is not a danger, it might sound that way, but only in theory. One cannot be close-minded and truly creative at the same time. The subjective nature of this process states that the practitioner can make aesthetic claims- about objective concepts(!). In this realm there is therefore room for ammendment and development. Room to breathe. Also, on the topic of lyricism, one can be as poetic as one chooses to, regardless of having to prove to his/her audience that their work falls within the standards of what's hot and what's not. Someone is bound to think it's not anyway. There's a lot to be said for the allowance of a fighting chance. At the end of the day, there are things we all agree on as well, like some inter-connected pool of appreciations that somehow cross-wire to form a general common conception of `beauty'.
For something to be beautiful, it must A) have integrity and B) arouse your sense of attraction on some level other than that of your crotch, not excluding that necessarily. it's these two factors that combined cause an elevation of your metaphysical capacities. Art must have this function, but it's not required for it to qualify as art by definition. i'm just saying that good art has to have these qualities. And beauty can have a masculine spirit about it too. When I was in Italy earlier this year looking at Michaelangelo's David, I noticed that the crowd ogling around this beautiful work of art were all straight- looking males. There was a definite sense of empathy radiating out of the sculptor's intent inherent in the work. This crowd of mostly middle- aged men were not getting off on some vintage homoerotica, they were taking refuge in the shadow of an icon of heroic male empowerment. It almost brought a tear to my eye. There's something about art of the Renaissance that's shamelessly erotic without being graphic. I'm not saying this is an ideal attribute but how many times have I soaked up the glow of an old miid-millenium master's work without being turned on. I know I've felt aroused, but not on that level, well sometimes maybe. Then again, really beautiful artwork like music or something can have an aphrodisiac effect, but that's another blog. Art without these qualities is just not interesting. It's like being attracted to someone before you end up doing anything sexual with them. In any qualitative romantic relationship, no one meets and then gets busy immediately, there's an energetic appeal to begin with, a poetic event of sorts, which is never purely a sexual act. There might be a cerebral exchange of a type, characteristics which stimulate you, a seductive enchantment takes place. It's this period before home base that the world of aesthetics is about. There's something erotic going on but not quite sexual. Then there's art which has this and pushes the boundaries further in a certain direction.
BERNINI'S ECSTASY OF ST. THERESA
The backbone of the art industry is without a doubt the institutions that create the ideologies that the work is theoretically based on. If our learning institutions are not sound, neither will the industry be. The core of what art schools teach is based on curriculum, not the system's structure, mechanics of operation and so forth. Beurocracy determines what is being taught in the curriculum, and also in the classroom. It's this internal communitiy that's at risk of being corrupted, and often is to some degree. There's the relationship between other education facilities like broader- disciplined universities and their influence on society's ideological standards- which I believe are more important on the wider community's ideological health than art schools. The importance of their existence for and their contribution to society's general intelligence for eg., can't be more valued, especially in the threat of today's pending sociological crisis. It'd be too simple to suggest a need for an amalgamated effort of all learning institutions as a collective force. Without ignoring the independence needed on the part of other institutions for the integrity of their dispensation, their necessity can hardly be sidelined in its role as key player. Whilst the intellectual standards of the masses reflect the inner states of art schools' communities, the health of the communities have greater influence on the masses in comparison.
So what's the proposal? The solution? It's easy to theorise about it, but the reality is more complex, tied up with cultural infastructure. The basis of our culture in the West is conservative, but not like we were in the 60's. We look back on the cultural revolution of the 60's with nostalgia, at least someone we're related to had some sort of involvement in it, albeit armchair. We're a different bunch now, open to change, particularly cultural. I'm not suggesting we revolt against capitalism and bomb out our heads with drugs, we tried that. We don't need a new religion or political theory either, a shift in culture should happen as a result of a collective effort, however that turns out. It requires people to do stuff for a start, and nothing particularly grand. Just because our dilemma seems gigantic, doesn't mean we need to execute excessive acts to counteract it. Changes in history have always resulted from people acting to fiulfill a cultural need. We've definitely got a need for some sort of community orientated form of creative culture. The technology that's separating us can be utilised to facilitate it. And the whole deal can be commercially viable too. How could it not? Maybe everyone's just adjusting to the new change that technology has dealt us. Isolation and individualisation are our greatest enemies as a (global) community. Crime has been a huge factor in the the past 20-30 years that's led eveyone to keep to themselves. It's increase has scared people into their own self-made prison cells. And I'm not talking about the criminals. Greater changes than desired here have happened in worse circumstances. I'm of the persuasion that we're suffering from mass- ccomplacency. The next step is apathy.
What's with all of this art that has no beauty? Some would argue that art is about beauty alone, that this is the entire meaning of art, period. Art has to have aesthetic qualities as an inherent characteristic, that is, there has to be something about the piece that is beautiful. Not pretty, but pleasing to the eye. Or more than that, outright beautiful (see my other blog about eros and art). We've been exposed to so much art in our times that rejects the aesthetic elements that any work should have. This is much to do with post- Warhol- and- pals- artwork that started happening after the 60's. It's theories rejected `old' concepts that art had to be beautiful so that they could get on with delivering the statement without the decorative packaging. While I kind of agree with this idea in some creative circumstances, this is definately inappropriate territory for still behaving like we're protesting about culture in the '70's. There's a time and place for everything, that time was the '70's. Before I was even born. There's heaps to protest about, I agree but art can't lose it's identity, part of which includes the nature of objects which projects beauty in some way, not only cultural and conceptual clarity. The work has to glow or make you feel in awe or make you feel something like elation. I'd go as far as saying it has to make you feel good, which is what I try and achieve in my own work. Newspapers and television are the arenas for debating sociology. Art is different. Which reminds me of one of my other posts about the importance of skill in artwork- you need more than talent to make something beautiful. Art today is definitely not without defecit in the department of skilled technicians. While there's lots of entertainment- based creative activity going on, how much of it is actually QUALITY? Which is why the female figure has always been an icon in artwork over history, it's an undeniably beautiful form- which is different from seeing it as sexually attractive, the boundaries of which often blur. Sex in art is a different topic, valid but not enirely the same.
HOCKNEY (a recent offering)
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by MatthewB
on Eros in Art- Have We Lost the Knack?
WE WANT ART WITH AESTHETICS!!
M