Art in Utter Decline: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Art in Utter Decline » Art in Utter Decline

Art in Utter Decline

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Art in Utter Decline

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 187

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:39 AM:	#11
If you were to say new art (in the broad sense) is changing I would agree, it is always in flux, but I do not think it is degrading or is in decline. New art, as a reflection of society, is changing in the same way as society: new technology is speeding up the pace of change within society which includes our own subjective taste, this combined with the democratisation of media has lead to a fragmentation of taste into many new movements (granted: of which only a portion will be viable). Many of these movements (through the democratisation of art) are outside the bounds of the art establishment and it is the decline in the art establishment that is being felt (and lamented by the elite) not a decline in art itself. Through empirical observation I find around me all sorts of exciting new art: buildings, literature, theatre and so on. In my small town there are three art galleries mainly full of local artists work much of which is worthy. Of course in this glut of creativity there are good and bad pieces but to say that all art is in utter decline because you are unable (or worse unwilling) to seek out and appreciate the worthwhile seems to be a dubious and pessimistic reaction. Movements in art (and their appreciation) are always cyclical: innovation, maturity, exploitation and finally decline; and if you are arguing that Postmodernism is in decline I can accept that. However to say all new art is in decline is to ignore the potential of all the movements currently in their innovative/infant stages. This is the problem with the democratisation of art and media for the establishment: if you consider art can only be produced by some sort of genius (presumably after lopping off a body part or two) then your elitist concept of art is in decline and the sooner it dies the better. I am getting a little revolutionary perhaps it’s time to publish a manifesto – I told you things were cyclical.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:43 AM:	#12
123savethewhales While I am still not particularly sure which time period or art movement you are talking about. I am not referring to an art movement per se, but to the current state of affairs. My observation only shown that people today are more indulged into other, more cynical things. Like television for example. There are still artists trying to do something different, but their work usually doesn't sell very well, and often tends to be buried by other, more popular things. Having to adopt is a macro phenomenon, it doesn't mean every artist is going to abandon what they do. Well, eventually it does. The hegemonic order of show business holds no place for failures and deviations. I still need to verify your views on abstract expressionism, since I don't see that as a movement toward craft. A semantic misunderstanding. I use the generic term "expression" as I point to the action tied to artistic manifestation. Expressionism is a movement tied to modernism. StaticAge I seriously love this. You talk about how horrible it is for sake of "humanity" that art is in decline, yet, your concept of art is a form of elitism which removes art out of the reach of the common person, the masses of actual humanity, to elevate to a place for the privileged "talent" to define for them what art is and why they are not good enough to make it. Your ressentiment echoes the decline. Using "elitist" as an anti-intellectual pejorative is a response adhering to reactionaries and philistines. It may be suitable for Sarah Palin rallies, but nowhere else, really. Banno Stating that Art is in utter decline seems to imply a standard by which one might make such a judgement. What is that standard? As there is no objective definition -- beyond the human effort to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature -- I prefer using art while relating to this activity in the broadest possible sense. Viewed as a single piece, it needs to exult the aforementioned properties, whereas I use objet d'art (as it signifies an 'object of artistic merit'). Looking at the objet d'art, I suggest two points of contact for these manifestations: initially that of autochthonic icons (pure dream images); through time, that of 'defamiliarization' -- ostranenie -- of everyday phenomena. The decline moves along that path, as a hollowing of all inherent aspects of the objets d'art -- entailing occurrences of indifference and disappearance. throng Well said. I can't agree more! Applause... Standing ovation... faint in delerium. Of course! Your praise highlighted an element which I have forgotten entirely -- the plague of narcissism ... of art as a pleaser for the bloated, devouring ego.
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:57 AM:	#13
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: 123savethewhalesStaticAge Your ressentiment echoes the decline. Using "elitist" as an anti-intellectual pejorative is a response adhering to reactionaries and philistines. It may be suitable for Sarah Palin rallies, but nowhere else, really. Oh, I am not anti-intellectualist, I am just taking off your mask that cries for "humanity's" sake and tries to hide your own conceit. See, most of us here have read Nietzsche too.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 06:06 AM:	#14
Bobard If you were to say new art (in the broad sense) is changing I would agree, it is always in flux, but I do not think it is degrading or is in decline. New art, as a reflection of society, is changing in the same way as society: new technology is speeding up the pace of change within society which includes our own subjective taste, this combined with the democratisation of media has lead to a fragmentation of taste into many new movements (granted: of which only a portion will be viable). Many of these movements (through the democratisation of art) are outside the bounds of the art establishment and it is the decline in the art establishment that is being felt (and lamented by the elite) not a decline in art itself. There is no longer a dichotomy of folksy and classy to the monolithic establishment, only products with different sets of customers. The only "oppressive elite" remaining is the force known as popular consumption. ... to say that all art is in utter decline because you are unable (or worse unwilling) to seek out and appreciate the worthwhile seems to be a dubious and pessimistic reaction. The decline relates to a list of occurrences mentioned in the OP and in post #12, not towards my personal search for proficient entertainment. Movements in art (and their appreciation) are always cyclical: innovation, maturity, exploitation and finally decline; and if you are arguing that Postmodernism is in decline I can accept that. Then we are almost in agreement. I am, however, referring to the state of postmodernity, the prevailing zeitgeist, to which the artistic style (postmodernism) belongs. However to say all new art is in decline is to ignore the potential of all the movements currently in their innovative/infant stages. I don't ignore them, I view them as a continuous "hollowing" of the properties of the objets d'art. This is the problem with the democratisation of art and media for the establishment: if you consider art can only be produced by some sort of genius (presumably after lopping off a body part or two) then your elitist concept of art is in decline and the sooner it dies the better. That phase passed over a century ago. Besides, democratization is not the problem at all. Breaking down hierarchies and authoritative structures is necessary for the development of mankind, furthering human rights and liberties. What I see is rather the opposite, a sort of near-feudal primitivism where art takes the form of vulgar identification for anti-democratic and isolationist groups. They dress uniformly, listen to the same music, read the same books and think the same thoughts. Driven by instant gratification, they represent a degeneration into what can be described as a "medieval high-tech sub-culture." The decline, as such, doesn't appear in any singular aspect of the art related to the specific group, it appears as conformity under the guise of uniformity. I am getting a little revolutionary perhaps it’s time to publish a manifesto – I told you things were cyclical. Go for it! I'll greet it with ardent criticism. StaticAge See, most of us here have read Nietzsche too. I am sure you have ... Edited by Dr. Tyko Glas on 04/12/09 - 06:24 AM
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 12:25 PM:	#15
When I say you are a poor elitist, I mean that you are the kind of person who prides themselves as having some superior perspective upon your culture, and yet, in the same felled swoop, displays an obvious failure to comprehend it. Your brand of elitism is the kind had by a clergy class that becomes obsolete when the Bible is produced in the laity's native tongue, and instead of being able to relate to such a cultural shift, you isolate yourself from it, and attempt to insulate your narrow minded vision. It is funny that you are so worried about the state of art because of this perceived shift, and then in effect blame postmodern attitudes, for basically arguing the same idea. You go through the motions of playing a noble and then, like Chicken Little, you cry that the sky is falling. Were you a rich elitist, you would be able to sniff out exactly why even in the lowest of the low culture, there is still preference for certain expressions instead of others. The shift in society would fill you with creative vigor and you would feel no threat.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 02:29 PM:	#16
StaticAge, Try applying some gentlemanly mien. Your list of ad hominems are off the mark, and the "fear" and "worries" that I supposedly exclaim are nowhere to be found. I am having trouble seeing why "art in decline" causes such a reaction. As for my supposed "laity" and "elitism," I wrote: "There is no longer a dichotomy of folksy and classy ..." (#12) -- I could have used the terms "high" and "low" culture, but they would have provided unnecessary ambiguity. Distinguishing art -- the human effort to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature -- in terms of "high" and "low" (or "elitist" and "non-elitist") is quite pointless. Let me remind you that such divisions were erased during the 1980s. Maybe you are confusing some of my statements as retro-rhetorical nostalgia? (which is also a strictly postmodern phenomenon). The decline regards indifference towards and disappearance of subject matter, exhausted surface-value motifs, and an eclectic copy-pasting of replicas. Conjoined with the ongoing reproduction of consumer products, the original element -- to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature -- is being dissolved. What is this, if not decline?
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 03:17 PM:	#17
Evolution. Art is alive and shifting, unlikely to be so easily reduced to stale categories and preconceived swill without also just as easily slipping past those artificial boundaries that attempt to define it. Distinguishing art as the human effort to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature is just as pointless as any other definition.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 03:57 PM:	#18
StaticAge What is this, if not decline? Evolution. Measuring evolution for an interval of 50-100 years is hardly feasible, especially if it regards one aspect of human activity. Art is alive and shifting, unlikely to be so easily reduced to stale categories and preconceived swill without also just as easily slipping past those artificial boundaries that attempt to define it. Distinguishing art as the human effort to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature is just as pointless as any other definition. I agree, and the lack of objective distinction for such phenomena is in itself a symptom of postmodernity (as even common definitions dissolve ...). Apparently, neither one of us can escape the zeitgeist. That is also why I refrained from using a definition until Banno requested one in post #9. In my response, in #12, I portrayed art as generic and encompassing as possible.
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:08 PM:	#19
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Banno As there is no objective definition -- beyond the human effort to imitate/supplement/alter/counteract nature -- I prefer using art while relating to this activity in the broadest possible sense. Viewed as a single piece, it needs to exult the aforementioned properties, whereas I use objet d'art (as it signifies an 'object of artistic merit'). Looking at the objet d'art, I suggest two points of contact for these manifestations: initially that of autochthonic icons (pure dream images); through time, that of 'defamiliarization' -- ostranenie -- of everyday phenomena. The decline moves along that path, as a hollowing of all inherent aspects of the objets d'art -- entailing occurrences of indifference and disappearance. With respect, this would appear to be a load of pretentious twaddle. You have no basis for the evaluation that forms the premise of this thread.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:14 PM:	#20
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Measuring evolution for an interval of 50-100 years is hardly feasible, especially if it regards one aspect of human activity. I agree, and the lack of objective distinction for such phenomena is in itself a symptom of postmodernity (as even common definitions dissolve ...). Apparently, neither one of us can escape the zeitgeist. That is also why I refrained from using a definition until Banno requested one in post #9. In my response, in #12, I portrayed art as generic and encompassing as possible. Why just the past 50-100 years? Art is art is art is art. The praxis is pretty much steady and constant: people make stuff that entertains others for whatever current reasons are there. I see your OP to basically be talking about art in the sense that particular conventions that relegated art to a specific sort of parameter has dissolved, but so what? That's what I mean by evolution. It changes, it shifts, whatever. But we are still human. We still make stuff that entertain others for some reason or another. There is no need to be nihilistic or defeatist and make grandiose claims about the death or end of or decline of art. Its still happening now same as it always has been.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.