SalvidorMonkey In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 08:13:36 +0000 UTC]

Some pieces of art are just for appreciating their aesthetic enrichment and some are just for appreciating them as a monetary investment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 09:03:22 +0000 UTC]

Check out J.S.G. Boggs. This guy didn't sell his art to make money to buy things, he drew his own currency that he used to buy things. It was worth whatever people thought it was worth and some people thought it was worth a lot.
J.S.G Boggs on Wikipedia
[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jenteelability In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 08:15:02 +0000 UTC]

So true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to UNlucky0013 [2012-07-28 08:18:25 +0000 UTC]

Meaning is an intrinsic part of the creative process though this meaning can not always be discovered by the observer, even when the observer is the artist who created the work.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 08:54:20 +0000 UTC]

Yep. I'm just agreeing with you in my own weird way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UNlucky0013 In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 08:46:54 +0000 UTC]

And with that you do prove a good point. I'm just saying meaning is one of the big factors that makes an art piece thrive

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Philaeria In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:38:47 +0000 UTC]

Guess this should have been the definition of art - absolutly agree!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hisietari In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:31:42 +0000 UTC]

Art is always human, and in that, it is basically political. However, it depends a lot on the artists, how, where, and when they live, and how they fell about their situation.

Art, to me, always has a message, and that's good. No matter how big or small, it's there and you can see it with your heart. I do think about messages, also in my own art, but my personal approach is to have fun, make entertainment and evoke interest in my audience, as that paves a much easier way for the message underneath to strike home. It's certainly necessary to think about style and aesthetics, even in my little comic drabbles I do so. However, that mustn't be the only intention. It should still draw me in, for then it will do the same with the audience. Once the heart is engaged, it will also process the message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mortiscia In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:29:46 +0000 UTC]

1: There is room for both but politics should not be overdone within arts!

2: I would say there isn't a current 'movement' within art today as it seems to be without actual movement (i.e. moving forward, developing), which in itself of course could also be considered a 'movement'... People create without boundaries, which is great, but it also creates a void of a clear path to follow. Good or bad, we'll see. The worst kind is when you have a piece of art, it could be a picture of a withered leaf or a sort of sculpture put together of whatever you found on the street that day, and all of a sudden it is 'art'! No, no, NO it is not art simply because it exists! Yes, is is part of the artistic world but it is certainly not art. There needs to at least be some sort of thought process behind your work, even if you are not clear on why this or that project comes to you.

3: Since, as the article also stated, there isn't always a message it is often useless to try to figure it out. A puzzle is only entertaining if there actually IS a puzzle to solve. This also means that if there really IS a message the artist often has to describe this to us, just flat out with no mystery left because otherwise we will probably miss it. In the process we might also ascribe certain messages to pieces of art that it did not intend to convey, there might not be one to begin with even. I simply enjoy art. Messages, intentions, statements (political or otherwise) does not appeal to me, on the contrary. The world is filled with 'statements' of different kinds and I am sick of it. Art is supposed to be pleasure, therefore I do not want to taint it with such simpleness.

4: I too am a child of the post-modern era. Hence, I am just as much of a selfish child as anyone else. I feel that most art nowadays is self-promoting in one way or another, mine no different. But I never use messages; a picture (or whatever medium you use) should be appealing to the eyes and mind and if that is attained your mission is accomplished.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to Mortiscia [2012-07-28 08:23:36 +0000 UTC]

I agree! Endless self-promotion is a sad fact of the modern art world that we all must endure.
--
For some really cool art, check my gallery [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 12:29:39 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, fine. What I want to know is, did you click on my link?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IndeedeeGraphics In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 11:39:21 +0000 UTC]

And isn't dA the very sum of that? Glory-hunters who whine if they lose
a contest, everyone writing here, are not interested in anything else,
but seeing themselves on display and no one wants to actually discuss
art - and what is there to discuss, when 95 pro cent agrees, that art
have no obligations?
Everything in life has obligations, it's only spoiled kids, who haven't
tried to pay their own bills and work for a living, who thinks that.
And there's way too many of them on dA.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Venry In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:28:56 +0000 UTC]

Great article! Lots to think about.

This feels a lot like surrealism to me

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

crazy-david In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:17:43 +0000 UTC]

I used to have a sign stuck onto my wall which read, " Realm of Inference". What else is art? So, no, no such movement is going to last because it is re-stating the obvious. A complete waste of time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to crazy-david [2012-07-28 09:44:10 +0000 UTC]

Well, it's not a waste of time from the point of view of the people who feed their families by being employed for express purpose of inventing the illusion of something new that they can sell to the unsuspecting public.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crazy-david In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-30 04:09:44 +0000 UTC]

True enough : )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BLampinen In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:12:49 +0000 UTC]

If someone calls it art, it's art ism it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Calvero In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:12:48 +0000 UTC]

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

There is no should. There is only how you want things to be, and I don't believe any one person or group ought to decide these kinds of things.

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

I don't keep track of the art world. I think art movements are mainly useless.

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 do not care about what the artist intended. It is impossible to know which is the true meaning, since all the artists life experiences contribute to the meaning. It isn't very likely that two people will have the same experiences, so the chance of them seeing things the same is tiny.

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

I don't try, but I doubt that even I tried to prevent myself from transmitting my feelings out that I would be able to. I don't draw anything important enough for anyone to look too deeply for meaning, but it is always there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to Calvero [2012-07-28 08:27:20 +0000 UTC]

Like you said. The artist creates the work of art. Then the observer must recreate that work in their own perception.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

crazy-david In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:12:08 +0000 UTC]

1.Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
This should not even be a question- the art of political person will be political. For myself, not so.
Art is about the freedom to express, whatever that may be. Hopefully, it's well done.


2.Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things? If we have to explore and inquire a lot to discern movements, then we already know none of them are potent like the ones in the early 20th century. Movements are usually so pretentious they make me think of "punk".


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? If a work is really well done without glaring weaknesses or pathertic indulgences, I may meander over it to see if a 'meaning' arises of its own. But never labor over a piece of art looking for a remote significance.


4.In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
In some of my 'work' I try to reveal the subject and not just parrot it. I try to not be concerned with technique, just like people talking don't worry about diction so much. Aesthetics are re-determined with each picture. There is no one law of aesthetics to satisfy.
Some kind of truth is required by any decent art work.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PenNameBree-Z In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 07:08:35 +0000 UTC]

To answer 3 & 4:
I always feel that I create my own pieces for a reason, and it delights me when people ask what inspired a particular piece. Because my art always contains reason, or a story, or an idea. Expression is about sharing that idea. Aesthetics, for me, really don't matter. And you see it in my art. My creative mediums are all over the place, and my art pieces are almost never similar. All I care about is expressing my thoughts, whatever it take.

I tend to treat others artists work the same way. Art comes from the mind, and the mind really GOES place it when you let it. I like to know where a mind was when it got certain inspirations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sofirr In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:58:43 +0000 UTC]

Bonjour;
L'Art est sans conteste irrémédiablement lié à la Politique.
Moi je ne cherche qu'à pouvoir participer au continuum artistique _sans prétention_ ou paisiblement du moins!
Internet ne m'est abordable que depuis quelques années; + régulièrement depuis un an ...et je veux juste "émerger" puisque socialement ma dimension régionale me suffisait jusque là (je suis Champenoise).
Un message? L'Europe se construit, le Monde avance ...et moi je bricole et surtout je patiente!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

renerine In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:50:10 +0000 UTC]

a person has one's utmost rights to express something good or bad,having a message or not,in his/her art until and unless they show their such arts to people which can hurt or offend anyone. otherwise all other arts are acceptable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to renerine [2012-07-28 08:32:12 +0000 UTC]

Offend anyone? I guarantee that there is nothing that you can do that is not going to offend someone. Someone is going to be offended by what I just wrote.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 13:12:08 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you. It makes so much more sense to invest one's energy into finding solutions than insulting people which only causes more problems. That's my opinion and some one is going to be offended by it. I wish that no one be offended by it. Some people feel that expressing your feelings is offensive and some people feel that not expressing yourself is offensive. Everyone must decide for themselves when and how they express themselves and accept full accountability for their actions. This is also true when creating art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

renerine In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 12:49:30 +0000 UTC]

what you just wrote is not something offending but what you believe and that you wanted answers.you know its bad when one comments or includes something about your physical or social attributes or anything about your race or community in their art or makes fun of.drawing about social injustices or happenings for which you feel disturbed is not bad.but grim things however realistic is not our life,we better find solutions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KaRolTryx In reply to renerine [2012-07-28 07:00:13 +0000 UTC]

agree on this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JaydePhoto In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:47:11 +0000 UTC]

Isn't all art 'suggestive'? I struggle with this as a specific type of art, the images shown look like they could fit into any number of categories that are currently in use. I think every artist has a goal to be suggesting something when they create.

1) Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
I believe there is room for both types. I don't know many artists who don't try to create a piece with a message about something they are passionate about.

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 there is a surge of creativity right now due to the availability of so many tools that artists can use to create...so if you want to label this era "Creativist" then sure...otherwise, no, there's no current "movement"...artists are just being artists as they always have been, only now with the internet, there are so many more venues for us to get our work noticed.

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?
It depends on the piece...if it's an image of a butterfly, should I look for a hidden meaning or just appreciate that it's a beautiful butterfly...on the other hand, if it's a butterfly carrying a clock...then perhaps there's a message to be found and I should look deeper...this also doesn't mean I'll see the same message the artist intended...I've had this happen a lot in my current art pieces where people will see something totally different than I intended.

3) In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no...it depends on the piece or the series...some pieces should evoke an emotion or make a memory surface and others should just make you happy and smile or laugh when you look at them

"Art is simply the interpretation of imagination." C.L. Kehl

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to JaydePhoto [2012-07-28 08:47:46 +0000 UTC]

There was a time when people were literally born into their social roles and could not alter their destiny. Artists were the children of a long line of artists and all belonged to some type of "priesthood","guild" or other exclusive organization that declared that non-members could not be artists and their children could not be artists. Of course, people outside of that club still did art, they just did not think of it as art or call themselves artists. Fortunately, things are little more relaxed today.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ViridRain In reply to JaydePhoto [2012-07-28 07:30:53 +0000 UTC]

"Isn't all art 'suggestive'? I struggle with this as a specific type of art, the images shown look like they could fit into any number of categories that are currently in use. I think every artist has a goal to be suggesting something when they create."

I was thinking the same

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaydePhoto In reply to ViridRain [2012-07-28 07:32:24 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

carlcom66 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:43:34 +0000 UTC]

Interesting stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

primenatorgirl217 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:41:39 +0000 UTC]

1) There is and there always should be room for both. It's up to the individual artist whether or not their art is political or carries a certain message.

2) I feel like a lot of new styles and methods of art are starting to have their day. Seems like every time I log on, there's a new way of portraying the world. I think in general that's a good thing. I think more and more people are really starting to seriously consider art, and not just brush it off as frivolous or meaningless. I think people are starting to respect more artists and more kinds of art. From my perspective, it's nice to finally start to be accepted as a serious artist. Not just as 'that wierd chick who draws robots'.

3) Both. Sometimes I like art because of the technique, or the artist, or because it's interesting or pretty to look at. But I often try to find meaning. Obviously a spontaneous little cartoon someone doodles as a funny joke is not meant to make you think about the artist's intentions, but I find meaningful art fascinating. It's amazing to me to see what other people are trying to get across.

4) Both. I focus very hard on my technique and how the piece looks, because I feel uncomfortable doing otherwise. How my art looks is very important to me. But for the most part, there is a deeper thought, meaning or idea behind it. I draw silly things like a lot of people do, but much of what I draw and write is meant to make others think, or at least stop and chew on it for a little while. Since my art is serious and meaningful to me, I always hope that others will find it meaningful as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DumitruFurculita In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:41:27 +0000 UTC]

some countries are quite sensitive to political art,and therefore one should be very careful with the message.
personally,id not involve arts into politics,since its only dirt there,politics consume ethics,but thats only me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LilithsSmile In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:40:11 +0000 UTC]

I dont understand "suggestivism" whats so suggestive about these pieces? most of these i think can be places under morbid art i think. I do not feel like ive been suggested anything.

art should be what ever the artist wants to be i dont see why art has to be something in the 1st place. political art is political art and I dont really see where art has anything to do with politics other then political art

Not really i dont see a common pattern to anything and i think that today people are just doing what they like and whats on top. theres just a variety of art now a days that scribble is high art now. I think that those on a movement path with art make it noticeable or else what would be the point if ppl didnt see it?

If theres a general message i see it but more or less when im viewing something i give credit to talent but it matters to me more if i like it or not.

If i have a message im sure id put it out there but my art is simply art. I love art and i do what i like and feel not what i have to say, that is done with action.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

akri7 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:25:02 +0000 UTC]

Well, of course there is room for both.
What's stopping art from being one or the other after all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HectorAdame In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:24:48 +0000 UTC]

All I see is a movement similar to "Dadaism" because of the phrase that states: It is an art for our times that does not ask to be analyzed and understood, but presents itself as a cipher or puzzle with no correct answer that commands attention none the less.

Sounds familiar to Dadaism to me... so... i guess there is no new art form, just an art that hasn't been seen in a while.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

beaudeeley In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:24:33 +0000 UTC]

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

Both

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

Visionary art is a currently thriving movement but is mostly ignored by the mainstream.

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?

It depends on the work itself. Some pieces invite deeper thought, some are devoid of any real depth or meaning.

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 mostly leave my works open to interpretation but there is a deeper meaning in there that only some people will 'get'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DigitalDreams-Art In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:14:43 +0000 UTC]

1.Like it or not most of the time art use for political purposes because it has a strong effect but i think ART MUST NOT BE POLITICAL.

2.Yes there is & its too bad.

3.Yes i do because nowadays you rarely can find pure art without any hidden intent.

4. I like to use both but for good goals not evils

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xx13rulesxx In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 06:13:02 +0000 UTC]

I'm not a big fan of political art, but I do believe that there is room in the art world for both political and apolitical art. There almost has to be, because you can't tell an artist who is heavy into politics that he can't portray his political beliefs into his art if he so wishes. Equally so, if an artist isn't into politics then they can choose not to incorporate politics into their art. It's entirely up to the individual artist, since it is after all their art.

I feel like there is always some sort of movement in the art world, but sometimes the movement is on a lower scale and doesn't effect the art world as much as other bigger art movements have. As for this "suggestivism," and the creation of this "ism" being a movement in the art world. I suppose you could call it that... but then again the images used in the article make is seem more like nothing more than a new word for surrealism. As for whether a movement in the art world right now being a good thing or a bad thing... does it really matter? Even if it were a bad thing it would still happen. I agree with what ~Redds said, it's not the movement or whether that movement is good or bad that's important, it's the art and what the artist is trying to express through his/her art that's important.

Sometimes I do take the time to figure out what message the artist is trying to convey in their art, but usually I just take the art it and come up with my own meaning for the art, create my own story based on the art. I don't, however, simply look at a piece of art and immediately decide that I either like it or dislike it.

I do a lot of photography and a lot of writing. In my writing, especially my poems, I do try to convey a message of some sort. In my photography in the other hand... I focus more on the technique and leave the viewer to form their own meaning or story about the picture.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SeptemberLocksmith In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 05:51:21 +0000 UTC]

In my opinion, art should never be a tool for propagating your own beliefs and opinions on real-world political/social issues.

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

giadrosich In reply to SeptemberLocksmith [2012-07-28 09:05:02 +0000 UTC]

Why not?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SeptemberLocksmith In reply to giadrosich [2012-07-28 16:18:22 +0000 UTC]

It's just not what I think art should be, I guess...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RubyGlow In reply to SeptemberLocksmith [2012-07-28 06:39:29 +0000 UTC]

In my opinion, art is expressing. Especially your own beliefs and opinions on, well..anything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SeptemberLocksmith In reply to RubyGlow [2012-07-28 16:17:26 +0000 UTC]

I don't agree...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0