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

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/11/09 - 08:27 AM: Subject: Art in Utter Decline	#1
I am stating the obvious, yet I feel the urge to initiate a discussion. I see an immense problem growing ever greater: art is in utter decline, following the predictable path of transgressive devaluation. The dichotomy of "truth" and "illusion" has been solely replaced by layers of perceived reality. These have already been dissected and restructured in innumerable ways, and one can no longer speak of experimentalism without irony. At face value, all images relate to a collage of pastiche, kitsch, irony, parody; tasteless, repetitive, nauseating, dulling, graphic ... Even artsy underground creations have become tedious wastes of one's time. Only the shadow remains as a tool for the expression of art, as the darkness blurs the structures that insult our senses. The surge has finally settled, constituting a scrapbook of: misarchism, iconoclasm and metaphysical "death" (all of them in the Nietzschean sense); Western decline (according to Spengler); hyperreality (including simulacra and simulation à la Baudrillard) satirizing of romantic and ideal love; crisis of symbols and icons (not index); loss of first-person narrative and "sense of self"; rejection of utopia (isms), metanarratives (Kojève, Fukuyama) and positivism; dissolution of theological concepts, such as omniscience (God as Leibnizian scholar) and omnipotence (God as Emperor). Furthermore, we live in the conceptual aftermath of World War activity (including the Cold War, it spans 1914-1991; one may argue that the "War on Terror" prolongs this era, but the general consensus put it to death in 2008). Perhaps "backwash" is all the more genuine (and preferable to "aftermath") when it comes to estimating the current condition; something that is an embarrassment from which we avert our eyes. There is an opposition to the grotesque, but to be frank, I can't see how indexation (mirroring the Barthesian "S/Z") and shadow shapes -- rejections of the image -- can ever be as vibrant. And what is this, if not a decline of the very structures we attempt to express? Please, disagree with me. I beg you, attack and undermine my statements, degrade my conclusions (it's the pomo way). Edited by Dr. Tyko Glas on 04/11/09 - 08:44 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

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 04/11/09 - 01:38 PM:	#2
A free market only sustain the things people are willing to pay for, for even an artist got bills to pay. Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/11/09 - 01:50 PM
Keep it simple.

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/11/09 - 02:49 PM:	#3
123savethewhales wrote: A free market only sustain the things people are willing to pay for, for even an artist got bills to pay. The commercial aspect of artistry has been as you describe it -- "one's got bills to pay" -- since Dickens' breakthrough in the 1850s. I would state that the shift from artistic patronage towards "writing for the masses to pay'em bills" has instigated the downfall, yet that is not a statement located in the OP. If you were to claim that a socialist system -- with highly-regulated market forces -- would help artists on the course of creation, then you are dead wrong. You won't find any artists in Scandinavia that are worth 5 seconds of your attention, in spite of being countries where artists are subsidized by the state, never in need of producing to "pay'em bills." Capitalism is not the issue. The decline lies somewhere else and that is what I would like to discuss.
"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

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 187

Posted 04/11/09 - 03:39 PM:	#4
Interesting topic - while I consider my reply can I ask a few quick questions: When you use the word art is it in the pure sense or in broader terms (i.e. including music, theatre, cinema, literature, architecture etc.)? Secondly if art is in decline, why is this an "immense problem"? For whom? Is it just the waste of time and dulling of the senses you allude to or is there more to it?
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 04/11/09 - 04:15 PM:	#5
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: The commercial aspect of artistry has been as you describe it -- "one's got bills to pay" -- since Dickens' breakthrough in the 1850s. I would state that the shift from artistic patronage towards "writing for the masses to pay'em bills" has instigated the downfall, yet that is not a statement located in the OP. If you were to claim that a socialist system -- with highly-regulated market forces -- would help artists on the course of creation, then you are dead wrong. You won't find any artists in Scandinavia that are worth 5 seconds of your attention, in spite of being countries where artists are subsidized by the state, never in need of producing to "pay'em bills." Capitalism is not the issue. The decline lies somewhere else and that is what I would like to discuss. No I am not advocating for socialism for artists. I am simply suggesting that artist have to adopt to the consumers. Are we looking at utter decline, or changes that is fitting to the current demand on the market? Of course, before we continue, I just need to make sure by asking, what do you think about the work of Jackson Pollock? What about the work of Barnett Newman? Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/11/09 - 05:12 PM
Keep it simple.

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/11/09 - 05:38 PM:	#6
Bobard When you use the word art is it in the pure sense or in broader terms (i.e. including music, theatre, cinema, literature, architecture etc.)? The broader term. Postmodernity and "pure sense" cannot coexist. Secondly if art is in decline, why is this an "immense problem"? For whom? The problem is that of humanity's, and it is immense because it reveals an inability to express thought patterns beyond the vulgar, transgressive or overtly graphic. This uniformity is a crisis of signs, thoughts, feelings, aspirations, multiplicity, and many other aspects. It depicts a stop-gapped horror vacui. Is it just the waste of time and dulling of the senses you allude to or is there more to it? "Waste of time" wouldn't make sense as that is the main thing we humans do, besides working and procreating. If art only relates to us as a societal purpose, then it has lost its value. Most of the things that appear before us are crafted objects with a given function. Art differs from such predispositions, and for now it is only to be seen as a representation getting ever closer to an artisan's outline. 123savethewhales No I am not advocating for socialism for artists. I am simply suggesting that artist have to adopt to the consumers. Would you care to elaborate on the "have-to-adopt" part? I mentioned Dickens as an example of an artist (the first) who accustomed his writing to a well-defined group: the British working class. If this doesn't cover your perspective, then please, tell me what will. Are we looking at utter decline, or changes that is fitting to the current demand on the market? Market fluctuations, hypes and bubbles come and go -- I speak of utter decline, of a downfall so apparent that we can barely distinguish art from craft.
"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

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 04/11/09 - 06:49 PM:	#7
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: 123savethewhales Would you care to elaborate on the "have-to-adopt" part? I mentioned Dickens as an example of an artist (the first) who accustomed his writing to a well-defined group: the British working class. If this doesn't cover your perspective, then please, tell me what will. Market fluctuations, hypes and bubbles come and go -- I speak of utter decline, of a downfall so apparent that we can barely distinguish art from craft. While I am still not particularly sure which time period or art movement you are talking about. All I can say is, if you are an artist, make a difference. 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. It just means when the environment is difficult, more people will choose to change themselves. Not much I can say if you don't think market forces and cultural shift influence artistic trends. That being said, I still need to verify your views on abstract expressionism, since I don't see that as a movement toward craft.
Keep it simple.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/11/09 - 06:55 PM:	#8
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. But take an example like music. In Daniel Levitin's book "This Is Your Brain on Music," he describes an episode where his friend Jim Ferguson was in South Africa with the people there and they asked him to sing and he told them he couldn't, which perplexed them. To them, if he had a mouth, he could sing. But their culture hadn't created the distinction which ropes off experts from the commoners, where people who aren't experts are shamed by culture for acting human. Because art IS human, all forms of it. It is part of what makes us unique. And here in the west over the centuries we had the expert system build up a whole world of what art was supposed to mean, and now, when the over stretched markets and house of cards that was worked so hard is finally collapsing because the technology the industry pushed on the public finally caught up and became something the public could use to counter act against it, with cheap digital duplication, and excellent and cheap recording software. Simpletons are composing their own soundtracks! Making their own movies! Making art and craft blend so much that its hard to make a proper distinction! Distributing them from outside the control of academia and the corporate checks that used to work against them! Humanity has finally begun to change the culture and begun to shift the definition of art out of your grubby hands, you poor, poor elitist!
"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

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/11/09 - 07:19 PM:	#9
Stating that Art is in utter decline seems to imply a standard by which one might make such a judgement. What is that standard?
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

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 04/11/09 - 08:23 PM:	#10
Absolutely right OP, I can distinguish truth from illusion and I know exactly what you're talking about. It's nothing to do with peoples preferances, it's about honest expression, no wool over these eyes here mate. X-rays for bulldust I have here. Well said. I can't agree more! Applause... Standing ovation... faint in delerium.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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