alfeniqueskull [2012-08-02 06:33:37 +0000 UTC]

visual alphabetism! of course! art and pictures always have something to say! its not a crazy thing, since humans want to KNOW things, everything has a why, so always you see a dog picture or a Degas, you will always had a connotation and denotation, its a dog ina picture and it make me think that he or she has an owner, so i support this article, because if there is a nonsense image its because we dont see beyond it, i say that a nonsense image has a why even when its nonsense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TtfnJohn [2012-08-02 05:33:38 +0000 UTC]

Most if not all art, particularly visual arts such as drawing, painting, photography and some film and video is already "suggestive art". From the cave paintings through the triptych hosting the "Garden of Earthly Delights" right up to the present day the artist puts in front of the viewer a world that may suggest things to people, often different things which draw them into it.

Homo Sapiens have used art as a means of communication since paleolithic times. That this place or cave is near game and the type of game.

Perhaps, more broadly it's suggestive and experiential art. Suggestive in that it draws us to it to put ourselves in the scene and experiential in that we have enough knowledge of the symbolism from our lives and past times to place ourselves inside it.

That may even apply to artists like MC Escher who specializes in shapes and perspective tricks to see what we otherwise cannot see and the interaction of unknown creatures in that perspective trap.

High Middle Ages art concerned itself with religion and portraits though there was no "school" in the 19th Century use of the word. Renaissance and Enlightenment periods continued with both but added scientists and science to the list though those periods included portraiture of leaders of the Reformation as well.

All civilizations have used art and the arts to communicate what unites them, famous victories, sometimes defeats and other "news".

The notion of schools of art seem to have risen with the widespread use of photography for portraiture and to record events in the last half of the 19th Century and the use of that term has continued into the 21st Century.

Art forms like digitization and miniatures in movies began to blur schools together in the last third of the 20th Century. As much as there could be said to be an ILM school of FX the notion of school had been given a quite a blow in the solar plexus. ILM may have set the path in computer generated FX though they weren't the first.

What's important here is the blurring that had began with Star Wars.

The 19th Century rise of arts schools were a reaction against the stark realism of photography. Interpretive, suggestive and experiential beyond the photograph. The first great school would have been the impressionists who took the technology of photographic reproduction of thousands of tiny dots and turned it on its ear. Adding colour and depth where the photography of the time couldn't.

Even relatively fast black and white film didn't start appearing until the time of the Boxer Rebellion, the Boer War, The Franco-Prussian War and late in the US Civil War. Even then what photographers sought to portray was realism, at least realism as they and their employers saw it.

When it became possible to print photographs in newspapers and magazines the photographer's employer was often those publications who wore their politics on their sleeves in ways we can't imagine even in this age of Fox News.

With the Boer War and then World War One we saw the camera, using, for the time, fast black and white film begin to be used for artistic purposes or interpretive, experiential purposes beyond the demands of publishers a long way back of the trenches in that endless meatgrinder of 1914-1918. And the rise of the freelancer in news coverage as we've come to know them.

Abstract schools rejected any link with realism which they felt the camera provided giving rise to various "schools" named after the pioneers of that style of abstraction.

Today we have a mish mash. Our desktop machines can create, combine, extend and recreate with more processing and memory power than the better than average mainframe that existed when Sir Tim Brenners-Lee invented the web in 1992.

Artists being artists have done all of that.

All art is, in some respects, political. It contains and expresses some of the political and moral beliefs of the artist even if not openly expressed.

We probably have reached the end of schools which were, after all, a reaction to and to some extent against photography in the 19th Century. The tools we have at our disposal now are far beyond what artists have had in the past. Just as well and poorly used, too.

Nor is making a living off art restricted to the "professional", talented, skilled amateurs willing to push boundaries, mix platforms and create new and different art which mix still work, video, music, 3D and so much more all into one work or series of works like the comics here.

Suggestive and experiential yes. Embracing and surrounding, too. The very early days of something like a holodeck. Re-creation.

I wish I had a name for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

danielerny [2012-08-02 03:05:38 +0000 UTC]

Banksy is 100% political and says what needs to be said. Others, like myself, just want to capture beauty through art.

There's room for both.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Vdeogamer [2012-08-02 02:18:49 +0000 UTC]

I don't know. Something like this seems to be a bit scattered and open of a category to really be a category of art. It could be, but I don't really sense any movements about it. : \

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tralf [2012-08-02 00:54:17 +0000 UTC]

you mean surrealism, right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himitsutsubasa [2012-08-02 00:41:33 +0000 UTC]

Hmm... Well, I think adding political agendas to art is fine. Really, it's all fine.

When I look at art, I see more and more people adding their own flavor to ideas. That and respect for issues in our world. They try to draw attention to the demons that plague our society.

When I look at art, I typically look at in parts. I see the overall taste. Then, I take a look at the balance, currents, tension, and technique. Then, I delete all of it and feel for the bonds that are or aren't there.

If I do, I don't realize it. Maybe I do. I'm not a brilliant artist. I just draw whatever I love. Feel free to analyze the bottom.
deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nazaxprime [2012-08-02 00:05:03 +0000 UTC]

Well said, I was thinking similarly only a few days ago... wasnt focusing so much on the age of the technique, but rather mentally remarking to my self how it is, who dominates it, ETC... seems the signature of form is a cintiq.
-_-
IDK if I like that part or not... lucky, it isn't a prereq. xD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

agbduncan [2012-08-01 23:17:51 +0000 UTC]

3. I believe that the indented or interpreted message in art is less important that how experiencing the art makes you feel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRomanEmpire [2012-08-01 22:34:34 +0000 UTC]

it focuses on 'dream logic'. That's called Surrealism. sounds like 'suggestivism' is just another way of saying 'I'm unable to communicate the intent of my artwork'. sorry, but this article is silly. You haven't describe an art movement.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokslinas [2012-08-01 22:14:47 +0000 UTC]

Art is a part of life, and finally the art is life. Consider whether it is politically or not political, it makes sense only in specific cases. Talk about the politics of art in general-is limited understanding of the art itself. Let's say that I can talk about it, and because the I grew up when my country was obsessed with the Soviet occupation, Soviet stagnation darkness. Here and in the meantime the government understood the art of politics ONLY; as a measure to control the minds. Artists personal position - his perception of life and art, his self-expression and civic position can not be equated with politicking.
If a work of art does not get to stop, we do not notice it. On the other language, why we love it - every case is different. We as a mirror reflects what we see, it all depends on the type of life experience, which “doors of unconscious” opens what we have seen. If the work is really exciting, often very interested in what it inspired… although it is not necessarily the rule. Sometimes I just want to take what you see, to take its inside. Similarly, the same - creating something, and sometimes send a specific message - sometimes just "catch" the mood experience for ... or - they catch you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TIME-24 [2012-08-01 21:53:06 +0000 UTC]

In deviant , most are caring about the details and techniques. They know nothing about concept and ideas. The real art exists within pieces that has a message, not only a rush of combination and paying with your favor media of art. Also, if you check the photo-manipulation folder, most of the artworks, are the same, no unique style, no ideas, no nothing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mel-0 [2012-08-01 21:38:55 +0000 UTC]

1. Art is endless. there's room for anything and everything
2. meh, not really. everybody sort of has a style, or multiple styles, that they like to use and there's no real bandwagon to jump onto. it's actually more like a party that forms into cliques. you either join a preexisting on or make your own.
3. I think part of deciding whether you like a piece or not is deciding whether you like the message behind it (if there is one), so, to answer this question, both.
4. Right now, I'm just trying to get the techniques down. I'll incorporate messages later.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ca-l-gr [2012-08-01 20:54:22 +0000 UTC]

I try, but alas putting shitty messages is worse than none at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

riccofox96 [2012-08-01 20:25:17 +0000 UTC]

I do this for the lulz.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nya18 [2012-08-01 19:54:55 +0000 UTC]

1. I think there's room for art to be anything the artist wants it to be.
2. I don't really sense a current movement in art. Most people make up their own technique or combine a few other techniques.
3. Sometimes I try to figure out what the artist is trying to say in their art. Some artists just draw random things to just simply draw them. So, half the time there will be a message to look for and half the time there won't be. Either way, I still try to just enjoy the art.
4. It depends on how I'm feeling for my own art. Lately I've just been sketching and practicing different poses. I try to put a message in my art though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Aim-Here [2012-08-01 19:51:05 +0000 UTC]

labeled

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

QuickSilverArtist [2012-08-01 18:47:43 +0000 UTC]

1.Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Both but it has always been present that art is a form of political expression. Most artist even if it is very subtle do express their political views in their art.
2. Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
There is no current movement. art is dynamic always changing per the needs of the artist and viewer. Art reflects the society it is created in good and bad.
3. Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
One should not have to 'figure' out why the art was made just simply enjoy it or hate it. art translates differently from viewer to viewer and misinterpretation is very common. A good example was when a local artist painted a crucified ape with the cross stabbed through the earth...viewers translated it as mockery of religion but she had to explain it was we are doing what we did to Christ to the earth. destroying something that is meant to be good for mankind. I don't believe in 'figuring out' art.
4. In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Not purposefully. my art can have emotional tones to it and that varied defendant on my mood. hopefully all artists come to a point where they naturally achieve technique and ascetics and do not have to focus on them. young artists have to but as they acquire experience it should just become second nature...when trying something new one might have to fall back on them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ivy7om [2012-08-01 18:21:44 +0000 UTC]

1. Art should not have to be propaganda in order to be valid.
2. The biggest movements in art right now seem to be "big eyes" and "pop-japonism".
3. I do try and figure out the message. It's fun, almost like a game.
4. I do try and send a message, one that inspires action on the viewer's behalf.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

erincampbellart [2012-08-01 17:22:20 +0000 UTC]

i love the art that is featured above

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Beren89 [2012-08-01 16:42:34 +0000 UTC]

1. Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Let's say it mustn't be political at all costs, but if it is, then is just another mean to transmit the politic message, so it can be

2.Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
I actually don't see a real "movement", in all art I see today, we reached a stadium in which any aspect of the human being and of the world can be taken in consideration, and than any of these parts may inspire different forms of art. So we are free

3. Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
Usually I don't really try to understand what was artist's intent, but I meditate every time on what the art I'm looking suggests ME. Art is the mean to deliver a message, and that message must be found and analysed, it's not only a matter of "I like it/I like it not"

4. In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Obviously I try to make my technique and aesthetics better and better, but only because knowing better how to make my photos, I can capture the moments that inspire something in me, that than I try to communicate to others

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sopian [2012-08-01 16:28:27 +0000 UTC]

1. for me, there are enough room for "any kind" of art. political or whatsoever, it depends on the artist's perception, who made the art, and the viewer who receive the "message" (if there is "any message")
2. movement? there are a lot of them!
in good, bad, anything! because, sometimes i saw "art" being used for bad things (simply, people doing whatever they want, albeit it crashes the norm of the social, and they said "In the name of Art!" WTF Man!!!!!
3. i tried to find "the meaning" of an artwork i saw. sometimes i used my own interpolation to translate it.
4. yes, mostly. even if it's technically simple, i tried to "whisper a message" through my arts.

ps : so sorry for my english

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Psychothrone [2012-08-01 15:16:03 +0000 UTC]

 
 I salute of the end of everything "category" or "genre"

Suggestivism?

 Let's try "art"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheLadyDeopla [2012-08-01 14:11:21 +0000 UTC]

Q1: Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
A: Obviously, there is always room for both. It allows artists to express their views and beliefs, and since they already do that quite a bit, why not just make it an official category?

Q2o you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
A: Of course there is. Art is always changing as a whole. Change is nature, especially when it comes to art. And from what I've seen, it's only getting better from here.

Q3.Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
A: Both. But as someone who enjoys thinking, I usually dissect what the reason behind each piece of art is. Why did the artist feel the need to create this? What purpose does it serve? This can be done with almost any artwork you come across.

Q4:In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
A: As much as technique, aesthetics, and personal style concern me, I believe the message of it all is just as important. Whether the piece is presenting morals, ideals, or true-to-life issues, what good is your art unless it tells us something worthwhile?

I think Suggestivism would be a lovely new category to have.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

neokamatari [2012-08-01 13:58:44 +0000 UTC]

1) Question: Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Answer: I think art can be political or apolitical and that do not affect, or shouldn't; the way you analyze or enjoy it. Politics is a way to segregate people, let's use the art to unite them all, even if is a type of art that you do not like a lot. Art must be an unifying aspect of life.

2) Qo you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
A: I do not think there is any current movement, but there is a factor that affect art and that is your job, if you work under certain company rules then there is not too much room for wild creativity. So maybe there is the commercial art and the free art. Not a movement, just a sub-type.

3) Q: Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
A: Sometimes I try to figure out what was the artist main goal or idea... sometimes not. As an artist I know that sometimes you do not think a lot about what are you doing.

4) Q:In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
A: Technique and aesthetics sometimes is important if you are doing something for someone... for example... if you are doing an artwork for a vegetarian friend, doing a death bloody chicken is not such a great idea. So, sometimes we must think about what we want to achieve. If we are doing something for ourselves (not thinking about money) then everything is accepted, there is the "age appropriated filter" so if is too violent you can always use it ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

stillherelove [2012-08-01 13:04:38 +0000 UTC]

Q&A:

Q1: Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?

R1: No and no! My personal preference is apolitical because I feel that overly political art defeats the whole purpose of art itself, as in, beautiful things we Men created without being all too sure what for. However, I totally understand the purpose and idea of political art, which has helped with many advances in Human Rights in the world (I'm thinking of Victor Hugo in France for example). I tend to enjoy political photography but cannot stand 'overly' political literature.


Q2: Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

R2: No and I find it very sad! As though people have forgotten art or are only too focused on music, or on art that doesn't seem to have been worked on very hard. I think I like whilst trying to understand the message.


Q3: In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

R3: High level art cannot be simply technique and aesthetics! Without any message, art is meaningless! Yes!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Maenna2 [2012-08-01 13:03:46 +0000 UTC]

so beautiful
and expressen of the soul and the Writer

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OTiagoM [2012-08-01 12:48:52 +0000 UTC]

Lindas Imagens

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Owlor [2012-08-01 12:14:20 +0000 UTC]

1. Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?

Who's seriously gonna say that there isn't room for both? I mean, it's not like the presence of political art affects non-political art in any way shape or form. That being said, I enjoy the hell out of political art, espescially political music. I think, like many that the political is personal and the personal is political, politics isn't something you can get away from, wheather you like it or not.

2.Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?

I think art has basically turned into something completely different in the last ten years or so, but few people bother to actuallly acknowledge this.

3.Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

I generally look for a mood or interesting stories as opposed to a "Message." Storytelling trumphs message-mongering any day.

4.In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

I generally try to tell a story, but occasionally I've done something with a message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PandorasTreasure [2012-08-01 11:51:41 +0000 UTC]

answers:
1. I do not think there are any "shoulds" or "shouldn't" in artwork. Art in my opinion is meant to stir emotion political or apolitical really doesn't enter into it for me so I guess there would be room then.
2. I honestly don't know much about movements. I find there is a "move toward the sensational, the macabre, things like that but does that count as a movement or is that in some way a commentary on the fact that we as people have become desensitized and want to feel so we reach into the pockets of our nightmares and see what we can come up with.
3. It really depends on the artwork. If I see a photograph of a duck on a lake I don't really think too much about it. In that case I just enjoy the scene. If I see a picture of an old man with his marbles falling out of his cranium yes I think about it and wonder if a statement is being made or if the old man is losing his marbles... I like artwork that makes me think. But I equally like scenes of peaceful calm.
4. Sometimes I do try to convey a message or meaning in my art, othertimes it is litterally a matter of hmmm this is a neat idea... or in my photography hey this is interesting I want to capture it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoysAngel [2012-08-01 11:21:30 +0000 UTC]

Art is an expression of the soul, so in that case should we really define it to set categories? Art is what it is, there is room for all of it, but I can only speak for myself in saying that my art reflects what I'm feeling at that point in time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

naeembabakheil [2012-08-01 10:47:15 +0000 UTC]

there should be no constrains !!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kallia-goldenwings [2012-08-01 07:55:04 +0000 UTC]

art is what you make it to be. Though I have to say some times the only way to get a point across is to use art in a politcial manner. But really art is expression and when expresses one's self one should be able to say what they want. Art is the only true form of free expression we are allowed in this world that is not imposed with limits as are speech is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlackBird-999 [2012-08-01 06:57:30 +0000 UTC]

This is sad to me...whether art is political or not, doesn't mean it should lack a sense of basic morality, this is almost communist thought - masquerading as being "apolitical." The works of art included in the piece are very thought-provoking but in my mind art always reaches for profound truth - it is an attempt to discover the truth that we glimpse, as Poe wrote: "...but through darkened glasses.." sometimes we don't have the power to make sense of it, but it allows us to see what our senses, and subjective experiences lack. The hedonism and nihilism of our age...it isn't something to be proud of.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Karasunokazu [2012-08-01 06:43:35 +0000 UTC]

If Suggestivism is about creating images from the subconscious with no conscious meaning, how is it different from Surrealism?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Miss-A-sketches [2012-08-01 05:07:18 +0000 UTC]

1. Room enough.

2. To me, it's just a rediscovery and resurgence of Surrealism and doesn't need to be relabeled with a new name for an "old dog".

3. I try to appreciate each piece on its own merit.
Either it "speaks to me", stirs me, inspires me, or it doesn't. It's always going to be an individual experience and matter of your own perspective as the viewer.

4. My own art is pretty Traditional, but, have used at least one piece in support of a cause I believed needed support. So, it did have a "message" per say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jackyorkethomwhite [2012-08-01 05:01:18 +0000 UTC]

This has always been something that I admired, to be compelled to suggest meaning of a work of art ourselves, but I was never quite sure if that was the intent. I always encounter such abstract song lyrics for example, and wonder if they hold special meaning to each person who hears them, or if I'm just missing the point.
I for one think that a suggestivist movement could really help inspire some critical thinking and creativity in this entitled, thoughtless generation.

Pardon my pomposity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sasust [2012-08-01 04:06:38 +0000 UTC]

ie: we finally found a way to tell those pesky art professors to shove it when they tell us our artwork has to have some kind of reason behind its existence?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkoKavinsky [2012-08-01 04:06:07 +0000 UTC]

I fail to see how this "New genre" could be emerging how such are peices of side genre... I see elements in these which I have seen in pieces from the past... So for me on the other hand I do not see how this works out.. but then again I am a man who entire value system is from a victorian mindset, and I still hold on to the old style honour so I am a relic by default... So perhaps to my old antiquated brain this doesn't work. But just my two pence...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0