Revolution-Nein In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 01:06:21 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism. This makes so much sense. This reminds me of how I used to view surrealism (that is, surrealism as I wanted it to be, not as it actually was). And now this is apparently a thing. I am happy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Laernu In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 01:04:46 +0000 UTC]

looks like art itself (as a community) is developing a consciousness, bravo!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JohnWRoberts In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 01:01:25 +0000 UTC]

Just a branch of surrealism. -----------> suggestivism
I'm very sure that there will not be anyone reinventing the wheel of arts for a century to come.
what more could people possibly do with what has already been discovered.
like the seasons of fashion, Art alternates with time.
- J.W Roberts -

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MauraxThexFrank In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 01:00:40 +0000 UTC]

... it just looks surreal to me

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NekoChanMaasta In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:59:38 +0000 UTC]

1-It can be political, but it's likely to ruin the piece or shut it off to people of the opposing belief.
2-Nowadays, a lot of art seems to be going backwards. Prime example: nowadays an unmade bed or a room with a hole in it are considered art by the morons at the top. That's not art, that's a side effect of life. It's about as artistic as naval-fluff or clothing stains, in fact it's probably less so.
3-If a message is clear enough to bypass having to think about it, then I'll probably appreciate it, however whether I like or dislike how the art looks overrules anything message nonsense, so ultimately it's a waste of time with messages. It works with stories, but a single image is not a story and should not attempt to be.
4-I would only convey messages if making a series of images, and that message is unlikely to be any 'deep' or spiritualistic jargon, that sort of stuff ruins art. The only message art should convey is story or emotion, and preferably happiness or regular sadness (eg not doom and gloom weirdness). If one does convey a different kind of message, they should not go out of their way to do so, as they then over-think it and it looses subtlety and usually meaning.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lindaofcc In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:59:12 +0000 UTC]

1.There is room for both
2.It seems like a good movement
3.Try to figure out the message
4.Most of the time, I draw art for fun but sometimes, I could try to send a message across

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TAGray In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:57:12 +0000 UTC]

Absolute garbage. Call it what you want everything shown is an example is Low Brow Art right out of the pages of Juxtapoze Magazine. Not one original thing is going on in any of these pieces, no new style or ideas are happening here, not one groundbreaking thing which is what is actually needed for a movement to happen . This is just as bad as a kid picking his own nickname and wanting all the other kids to call him that. Quit declaring things and just make stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Some-Art In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:56:46 +0000 UTC]

Whats the difference between this and "Sureal

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

m-lyness In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:56:03 +0000 UTC]

1. Politics is a very real part of a lot of art. Art doesn't have to be either/or, it is whatever the artist intended and what the viewer sees that either moves him/her or doesn't.
2.Art would not be what it is if not for "movements". Throughout history there have been movements that have brought us some of the greatist artist of all time, from photography to painting, change is good.
3.Deciphering an artists message can be difficult, sometimes I look for it, sometimes I don't.
4. Right now, I am not good enough in any particular form of art to try to pass a message, right now it's about me figuring out technique (since I have never had any formal art classes unless you count on the job training during my tattoo apprenticeship)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

saxon540 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:54:26 +0000 UTC]

its pretty cool and all but i hope it just comes as another category instead of ending them

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

madwarf In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:54:20 +0000 UTC]

not new, just another extension of surrealism me thinks.Maybe a bit more multi plaltforme
[ they didn't always exist to use} but still much the same..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ThePastIsNevermore In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:52:20 +0000 UTC]

1. There is room for both, as both are needed for there to be a kind of... Balance.
2. I'm not sure.
3. It depends on the type of art. Usually, I will try to read some kind of emotional message.
4. I always try to put emotion into a piece, but not necessarily a message. Occasionally, I do, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ashellessmind In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:51:06 +0000 UTC]

There is no sufficient information in this article to draw a difference between what the writer is calling suggestivism and surrealism. Salvador Dali could easily be called a suggestivist artist under this rather vague definition.

And again the literary arts are ignored...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TumultOfZen In reply to ashellessmind [2012-07-28 00:57:57 +0000 UTC]

That is too true my friend. Here, have some breakfast. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fadhlysb In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:45:51 +0000 UTC]

my answer and what i thin k:
1.i think art is free either its political or apollitical
2.well i dont think its bad , every art have it own good point
3.i do try to figure out the artist's message except a realism cause when i see realisms art the meaning of the art is definite or you can say it has no meaning at all, it just realistic
4. actually yes i did but sometimes to make the art i need to think about the technique

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fadhlysb In reply to fadhlysb [2012-07-28 00:49:25 +0000 UTC]

well sorry for the bad english .... realisms* not "a realisms" and i forget to use "," in the middle of "realisms art" and the "the meaning"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mantarok1205 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:45:50 +0000 UTC]

so the new category is... Salvador Daliism?

I guess "suggestivism" sounds better

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TidensBarn In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:43:52 +0000 UTC]

That's hardly a new category, rather another label for things artists have been doing since Giorgio de Chirico and Salvador Dali.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FizzPuff In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:43:00 +0000 UTC]

I get a cold chill down my spine looking at a few of them trying to figure out what they mean D:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TumultOfZen In reply to FizzPuff [2012-07-28 01:03:02 +0000 UTC]

Don't worry, it's just surrealism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FizzPuff In reply to TumultOfZen [2012-07-28 02:32:06 +0000 UTC]

lol yeah X)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ShannaWhitlock In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:37:12 +0000 UTC]

I really like this idea.
Especially "or beginning of the end of categories?", and about messages of art - of course each piece or art work, whether it's a quick scribble on paper of a whole week's time of working on a piece, whether it's little or big, each piece of art has some sort of message, or elaboration of an idea that was created from scratch.. And choosing "categories" can be difficult, meaning you having to label your work, or put it into a specific genre or 'folder' as such, although it sounds stupid to say you don't have to label art, although a lot of people may be stubborn or arrogant to other artists in other areas of art, or selfish may be the word, not accepting different pieces of art? In my opinion - art is a truly amazing concept to relax and take time to work on something, whether that's a manga/anime drawing, fan art, concept art, paintings, there I go again.. labeling art.. I can understand if some of you find my comment and opinions different - But this post about suggestivism is pretty damn awesome if I say so myself, like you said, I feel art is better defined by what it's not, rather than what it is, instead of stating the obvious in art genres and categories, look for what it may or may not be about, to really try and get into the artist's head of doodles and scribbles from those words that they then transform it into their own masterpiece, whether people judge those or not.
(sorry for the long essay, I also know this comment mostly has gone completely off-track of the subject here, but hope you know what I mean! )
- Shanna

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

adelruna In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:36:53 +0000 UTC]

You can only define an artistic movement in retrospective or risk being pretentious. It's also difficult to say that art can be apolitical because it is impossible for art and the artist to be unaffected by context. If ever, the world now is filled brim with ideas and information (politics is definitely a part of this) thanks to the advent of communication technology. As a symptom of this information overload, we can say this generation might be a bit apathetic towards things such as politics but that is not new- movements such as Dada were intended not to make any sense at all but even that may have been a reaction to the futility of war.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PhotoGear In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:34:07 +0000 UTC]

1.There is enough room for both, but each should be used accordingly depending on the situation.
2.Unsure.
3.If I believe to be a message I try to find it.
4.It depends on what I am working on at the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tafuri42 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:31:38 +0000 UTC]

Art has, inherently, always been political but it should always come from the artist individually and NEVER be driven by some shadowy agenda who wished to steer the art community into backing up thier own preconceived propoganda.

Secondly, NO there is new catagory here and these are pretty distrubing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DawnSentinel In reply to Tafuri42 [2012-07-28 01:22:02 +0000 UTC]

I completely agree.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ZeBracArdeaTH In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:31:19 +0000 UTC]

i think; with the pace and influence of the internet and the rage of emotion that the connected world goes thru, Hyperbaric would also describe the modern movement

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

joeyv7 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:30:30 +0000 UTC]

Absorbing article with great features . . . it seems to me Suggestivism could be an updated term for Symbolist, or especially Surrealist art

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bolsterstone In reply to joeyv7 [2012-07-28 00:33:36 +0000 UTC]

Not symbolism -- because there is no clear attempt to connect with various cultural symbols. Surrealism -- there, I might agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

joeyv7 In reply to bolsterstone [2012-07-28 00:51:18 +0000 UTC]

True, dat. Was thinking more how both genres may encourage the viewer to assign their own personal, private interpretation to the work, but Surrealism definitely is the more fitting comparison.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Director1265 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:26:42 +0000 UTC]

I would simply call that surrealism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dadapan In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:26:40 +0000 UTC]

Art IS political, whether you want it or not. Even if you say you don't mean it to be political, by doing so, you're being political.
It doesn't matter, enyway, art is not better or worse because of that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dadapan In reply to Dadapan [2012-07-28 00:26:58 +0000 UTC]

*anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

night-of-light In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:26:32 +0000 UTC]

1. There's room enough for both, definitely. Art is the rare thing that doesn't need to fit into a catagory.

2. I don't really feel like there's a current movement, but maybe that's just because it's one thing to look back on eras and say, "Oh, the majority of the art during this time was themed this way," but it's another thing entirely to look at the place we are now and decide what we are.

3. I do try to figure out an artist's message, but at the same time, I feel that the way I myself see it is also important.

4. Conveying a message is basically the reason I create art. I try to convey what I feel, what I see, and how I feel/see as such.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bolsterstone In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:24:52 +0000 UTC]

1. Yes
2. There will always be movements. The question is whether anything is actually original or new. The definition given to "suggestivism" is not very different from a number of definitions for "surrealism". Where is the novelty? There will be no true real new and novel named movement until there is a true attempt to actually overcome the deconstruction that we have been engaging in over the past century. It's not good or bad -- it's just the way it is.
3. Every piece or art has three parts: the artist, the work and the observer. (Well, four parts if you are sublimist.) Each part is separate -- so the last question is irrelevant. (That is, trying to figure out the artist's message is itself a subjective act and would be part of the observer determining whether they like the piece or not.)
4. The medium itself is the message. You can try to communicate something else in the work of art but any message I try to put in is itself not extractable from the whole.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ZombieHun In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:24:14 +0000 UTC]

"suggestivism": an attempt to compile multiple art genres that have one thing in common? is that basically what this is?

I don't see it as its own genre, merely a sub-cat

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jagrier In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:17:19 +0000 UTC]

I don't see that this differs significantly from the surreal, speculative, or the realm of dark fantasy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

desuran In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:17:15 +0000 UTC]

"These artworks generally always have recognizable elements, but the real world ends there, as these elements are usually then twisted into the impossible conjunctures of mad dream logic." I'm pretty sure this is the definition of surrealism. I suppose the author emphasizes that "suggestivism" has an ambiguous message; but even or perhaps especially in this, it is still the same as surrealism as it is describe above. Surrealism doesn't have to have any message by definition, but it almost always does. I just don't see anything new here. I believe there are and will be new expressions of art, but this just isn't one of them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

annamae411 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:16:42 +0000 UTC]

I feel that art can be both, it just depends on what the artist wants to portray with their works.
.
I don't really notice any movement in art as of now. I do notice that artists are barng their souls far more... often?... easily?... like they're more concerned with their works being an outlet for their emotions then whether or not others like it.
.
I usually find my own meaning in the piece, after I deam it to my taste to not, and then I read the description and figure out what the artist's intent was.
.
With some of my art I try to put some sort of message into it, but I can't usually put them into words, so I let whoever sees it to figure out their own. I usually just pluck an idea out of the air, at random times, and mak a piece, or a series, out of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kintupsi In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:13:22 +0000 UTC]

To me, this seems like abstract or surrealism portrayed with concrete symbols.

And, uh, no offense, but I found most of the featured pieces to be rather disturbing, and I'm sure that younger users of this site would feel the same way. I think the original artists should add a mature content filter to some of these...Especially that "Simian Operation" one! I didn't come to read this article to have nightmares!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KiriSosha In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:12:58 +0000 UTC]

neat

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shadowwolfox In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:11:27 +0000 UTC]

I like to look at an artist's inspiration for a piece because that usually reveals the 'message'. I think all art has some sort of 'message' or interpretation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

depressed-bunny8 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:09:39 +0000 UTC]

3) yes, that is my first thought
4) yes, I find the message infinitely more significant to the greatness of the piece than the technical skill shown :3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Satsumo In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:04:58 +0000 UTC]

1. I think are can be political or apolitical if the artist wants, as long as its sincere. Whatever the motivation, as long as the artist is expressing something genuine.

2. The most prominent movement in 'art' right now I would call galleryism, or collectorism. I find 'art' to be very self concious and deliberate, not art in fact. Designed to go in galleries or to find buyers rather than be an expression of anything. There also seems to an effort to not do what has been done before, change for the sake of change, rather than doing things because they are a true expression. There is also art as status, some artists are celebrities and appear to make art as a means of gaining notoriety.

I get annoyed when somebody asks 'what does this mean' and the artist says 'what do you think it means'. Art doesn't have to mean anything, but at least the artist should know whether they intended it to mean something or not. The guessing game serves no purpose in artistic terms. You don't create art by asking other people to make art.

DA is more real art than most galleries have now. DA has people creating things because they want to create them. The vast majority aren't planning to sell their art through a dealer or exhibit it in a gallery. They don't get a write up in the Independent. They are interconnected, aware of each other, using technology to communicate, influence, share and derive from each other. That's how life is now, so that's how art should be now. Art is not a big white spaces filled with expensive ornaments to make rich people feel intellectual.

3. I don't think intent or message matters. It's interesting if the artist has one, but its interesting if they don't. As long as they are honest about it.

4. I don't consciously transmit a message in my art, but often notice that it often does a while after I finished it. I aim for aesthetics and technique, the meaning happens anyway, even if I don't aim to put it there. That's how I know it's true. The meaning is usually only visible to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

panda-saxophonist In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:02:42 +0000 UTC]

I like it. And that's all that I really have to say. Whatever it is, these examples resonate with me a bit. As aforementioned in the article, looking upon them stimulates my mind.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xlntwtch In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 00:00:00 +0000 UTC]

Sure looks like surreal art to me.
Art is 'in the eye of the beholder,' however.

I will say 'suggestivism' is pretty foolish name for any 'school' other than those in bars and bedrooms, so to speak.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AngelCrusher In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:57:10 +0000 UTC]

I would say a lot of the examples you posted are not even suggestive, they are just abstract.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kyomu13 In reply to AngelCrusher [2012-07-28 00:11:42 +0000 UTC]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that, in my opinion the examples given are not very much abstract at all. The shapes and forms are too definite to be abstract, if I had to link this to another art style I would lean more towards surrealism or maybe expressionism

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AngelCrusher In reply to Kyomu13 [2012-07-28 02:20:20 +0000 UTC]

well whatever you want to define the pretentious, a lot are still not suggestive.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChrisNext In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 23:53:51 +0000 UTC]

I unknow that say but I think the suggestivism is just one step for awake the conciesness of people and his mistakes and success and in the today nothing of it matter just all suffer for more reasons...money,glory,power???
bahhh.... all that "reasons" want justified the fakes of "our global society" and this images show the side darkness of the people based in the corruption,misery,fear, and the death that during centuries the humanity has created
for "survive"

sorry for I think that exaggerate with say all this... nahhhh is best forget it and just see this gallery...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0