Deathsdoor-inc In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:07:30 +0000 UTC]

1. I believe there is room for both, as the art world would be limiting and dull if not all messages and content were allowed to be a part of it. Art is the freedom of speech and ideas even when no idea might have actually be conveyed.

2. I don't feel there is an over all, "movement," in art today. Perhaps some day art historians will look back and say, in the early 2000's you can see people were part of the _____ movement. But I don't feel there is an over all movement. I don't feel that's a bad thing either because artists are exploring what it is to be an artist, what works for them and what doesn't. An artists may define themselves as a particular style, but it's a label given by or to each individual artist and not to art as a whole.

3. I used to try to figure out an artists intent, but I have learned through my years at art school and teaching art that some times art is simply created for arts sake. There is nothing wrong with simple visual beauty in the world.

4. In my own art, as an illustrator, I often find I want to convey a message, but my art is growing and moving in new directions and I realize sometimes it's nice to simply create an image. Let the pieces come together into something visually stimulating and not worry about trying to put a message into it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HagerotH In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:06:22 +0000 UTC]

1.Art should be open with out borders other wise i would call it design or "designish". I think it's pretty important to have all the freedom you can get in art, that is what's creativity is all about.
2.There is always a movement in the world of art but there are always good an bad sides.
3.Yes i do try to figure out the intention and what is written "between the lines".
4.Technique is important but the message is the main part for me to even start an artwork even if the message is just to befound out through the title.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

syrupneko In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:06:15 +0000 UTC]

1. Room for both.

2. I watch trends in styles and tend to follow those trends that I like. I get most of my art news from magazines like HI-FRUCTOSE. If I had to choose between "good" or "bad," I'd say it's good to see that we're progressing in our subject matter while still practicing conservatism in the arts by maintaining classical technique and standards.

3. Heh. Art is rather subjective. So I suppose I just pick and choose what I like. Either the piece speaks to me or it doesn't. It has to draw me in first, before I start looking for the meaning (if there is any deeper meaning than "a monkey on an operating table is a monkey on an operating table.") Sometimes meaning may come much later though, as I go about my life something may happen that will conjure that image back in to my head - but that would be the creation of personal meaning.

4. I try to convey emotion and filter things through my own sense of morality. I want to be truthful, but I also aim to be kind. So, perhaps a matter of recognizing the story first, making sure it's a story or message I wish to share, then framing it with the appropriate aesthetic and technique.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rachel-H-Art In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:05:32 +0000 UTC]

1. There's room for both.

2. There's a movement in all art forms that glorifies death, torture, blood and gore, and cannibalism. I think it's sick. Vampires and zombies included.

3. If I know there's supposed to be a message, then I try to figure out what it is.

4. I usually don't have a message in my art. In college, my instructors said that you *always* have to have a message or tell a story in your art, otherwise it's just "decorative art" and not really fine art. That was really discouraging for someone like me who focuses on technique. Do I have to tell a story or have a message if I just want to represent and express the beauty of nature?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kirasrighthand In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:04:30 +0000 UTC]

But suggestivism looks like the art of surrealism or realism, I get it if its a term that can be applied to a piece of art but I don't quite understand it as being art it self.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RhetoricHaystack In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:00:17 +0000 UTC]

i find myself opposed to this style of art because it seems to be more about subject matter than the fundamentals of art itself. its almost as if people are more interested in the first reaction impulse of a piece rather than it's enduring beauty. are you going to hang an oil painting of a chimp being eviscerated on your parlor wall? hell no. because in a week you would be tired of looking at it because they shock will have worn off and the subject matter too familiar. my philosophy on art is practically the antithesis of this...beauty that enthralls the deeper ambiguous portions of the human mind, where obvious symbolism and shock value are detriments rather than points of sale.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RhetoricHaystack In reply to RhetoricHaystack [2012-07-27 22:06:22 +0000 UTC]

not that i would say an artist should not make art like this...art is about expression, and if you are compelled to express yourself in such a way, do so with vigor. don't let anyone tell you what to do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LisaOneeChan In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:59:49 +0000 UTC]

Love this article and the art. I do see the difference between this and surrealism though. I think it has something to do with how surrealism is never visually realistic, and this can be realistic, though its meaning is different.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Taka-The-Electric In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:55:44 +0000 UTC]

I think what this "suggestivism" means is a piece of art by the artist about a certain characteristic/daily thing/ something about life in general about thier/our lives, manufactured into something that only they can truly understand but is still very intriguing to the person looking at the art piece. Whether it's political, apolitical or personal art, I think it's an idea shaped into an indeed "suggestive" image, like the darkest or most bizarre side of the idea itself. Aside from my rambling, I find this category very exciting and scary, which I really like.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sahdirah In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:54:17 +0000 UTC]

I don't get what the difference is between this and surrealism/stream of conciousness....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xXxEli In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:54:05 +0000 UTC]

awesome article ♥ But this type of awesome art bit disturbs

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LadyKylin In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:53:48 +0000 UTC]

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

Art is art, what it is depends on the maker and the beholder. Something polictical for one is not for another. Art can be everything.

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 pay enough attention to current art.

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? Depends on the artist, if a work is interesting if it invites thought, I will contemplate what it could mean. I'd never decided(at least not without serious research and/or talking to the artist) what the artist intentions were.



In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics? ARt is an experssion, I find it expersses what I feel far better if I simply draw then think this is about this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PlayfulElegy In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:53:07 +0000 UTC]

1. Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Art is generally defined as 'a creation designed to evoke emotion or response in one or more parties'. The fact that it takes a political stance or not does not change whether or not it evokes response or emotion.

2. Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
Commercialism. Art is being used to illicit people to want to get what it is related to. This is contrasted by post modernism, which simply wants to tear down establishment.

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 determine whether I like a piece or not. Unless an artist says he is trying to send a message with something, it is my assumption that it is simply his intent to try to evoke whatever emotion the painting evokes.

4.In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Only technique or aesthetics. My message is superficial at best, as it would likely be nothing more than 'I did this because I wanted to.'


It's actually because of this that I dislike this concept of Suggestivism, as it's basically saying 'Oh, art that was done for the hell of it deserves a special name and deeper inquiry!'

The points of isms to me are to help define what style someone is taking from when they are creating something. With things like post-modernism, it's nothing more than an example of 'look at me, the artist and see how DEEP I AM!' and detracts from the fact that art should be about a relation between the viewer and his piece or the artist and the piece, and not the artist and the viewer. It's movements like these that really make me feel bad to be called an artist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mariamism In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:52:43 +0000 UTC]

1. There's room for both.
2. Movements are bullshit. Usually these titles and categorization is applied on art centuries later, as a result of people trying to define and understand them. Those who claim they have created a new art movement are usually trying to find a new way to more easily sell their work to the masses. It's just branding and consumerism and raising the price of otherwise redundant works. Real art is independent of labels.
3. Sometimes, if I care for the artist's persona and ideas and admire them. But usually I try to view the work independently of the myths and history surrounding it.
4. I do what I feel is important for creating the correct manifestation of each idea/inspiration. My art is a way for me to understand myself and the world around me. Sometimes it serves as a way to process my journey, sometimes I create something with a message to the viewer. If I manage to inspire or tell someone something along the way, it's a +.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

johnpaulthornton In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:52:30 +0000 UTC]

Great article, but this movement has already officially been named "pop-Surrealism."

We are seeing the reverberations of its original manifestation which began in the late 1980s .It came of age in the 1990s. Technology isnow giving pop-Surrealism an extended life.


It is exciting to imagine the "movement" which will answer it.

Again, great article as usual.Your thoughtfulness is vital here on dA!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ThePlanetofLemoria In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:52:00 +0000 UTC]

Any art can be determined as both...I.E. a political mind will look for some anti message in an art piece, while a apolitical will do the same. Both will attempt to find something to uplift, or demonize... It's the nature of the two...

The only movement I can sense are the two I have in the morning,...There is always a movement, it's the fad and or fans that make it a social issue or response.

If it has no commentary, NO! I see a message, but I can witness a variety of messages...So...I just observe.

Yes, there is always a story behind the art. My intent, even though I am limited on how to put the message out in the picture is explained through words. Whether the message is taken from the viewer, is up to them...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MartinSilvertant In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:51:48 +0000 UTC]

So everyone is pretty much agreeing that suggestivism is nonsensical and unnecessary? I now notice my browser-based spell checker doesn't even recognize it as an existing word. Let's just forget this term and stick with the terms we've grown familiar with at art school.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

azuregundam In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:51:12 +0000 UTC]

1 both 2 when isnt art in some sort of movement 3 both 4 both!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MartinSilvertant In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:49:29 +0000 UTC]

What an unnecessary term. It's like symbolism without the intended interpretation, and in some cases apparently not even that. Some of these are just surrealist symbolism pieces. I absolutely agree with what ~guiltjohnson has to say as well.

As for the questions:
1) What a retarded question. Is there anyone here claiming the art market is in any way saturated?
2) No revolutionary movements I'm aware of. As far as I understand it, we're pretty much recycling old ideas, principles and styles. I'm not saying there aren't any original artists, or artists doing something no one else does, but as far as styles and movements go I think pretty much everything has a name and there isn't really anything new coming up. I would love to be proven wrong on this though.
3) What's the point in just looking? If the artist doesn't describe his intentions it's pretty satisfying just to speculate what the piece is about. I think I value what I can get out of it more than what the artist actually intended. It's not always that the artist's intentions fit my "needs".
4) Art without a meaning tends to be empty. I always try to convey a message, whether an esoteric concept, an actual (political) message or just a feeling.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shaun-kilfoy In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:49:17 +0000 UTC]

1. Room for both
2.Not really
3.Depends upon the piece but I always walk away with my own interpretation
4.Not message more so a feeling unless it's art and poetry

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KurtHutcherson In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:49:16 +0000 UTC]

I don't think it matters what anybody thinks about where the limits in art STOP.
Even if a majority of the art community, (say, 86%), decides all works should be apolitical, there's still that minority that is going to continue creating political art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ROTNJHNY In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:47:56 +0000 UTC]

does it matter...half the art at DA is in the wrong catagory. Or is it me?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to ROTNJHNY [2012-07-28 02:21:34 +0000 UTC]

I really enjoy that. Some deviants choices of categories are stunning.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ROTNJHNY In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 07:16:00 +0000 UTC]

My issue is when a photo is manipulated, many people submit to photography. DA Photography is No or Minor changes. Photograpy category is 50% manipulations and or digital art.

In may opinion

thanks for the reply.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SalvidorMonkey In reply to ROTNJHNY [2012-07-28 07:52:35 +0000 UTC]

My issue is when someone submits a photograph of their baby to the Abstract Painting category.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ROTNJHNY In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-28 10:29:46 +0000 UTC]

Exactly, they are Categoricaly ignorant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sofirr In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:47:32 +0000 UTC]

Il est déjà 23:42 ici en France, alors je vais aller dormir d'abord.
See you tomorrow.

?!..
Sofi.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lafirme In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:46:22 +0000 UTC]

1 Art should be only unrestricted
2 Art is life, life is movement
3 I listen what the piece says
4 I only try to do my best

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NiG3L In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:46:17 +0000 UTC]

A lot of people are trying to analyze the object -art-. I heard a lot of examples what art really is and I think art can be everything. You can use everything and create art. Art is for me a door in to other worlds where are not to be the questions: What Iam allowed to do and not. Art can be also political or not.
A lot of people tried to tell me what mediums Iam allowed to use...and Iam always thought: Iam not interested in what you think. Some people told me that it isnt art when I use my fingers for bluring the colors on the paper...why it isnt art?! The result is the message...not how I did it.
So I can draw something without a message and someone is telling you what kind a message it has. Art is for getting great feelings...and for losing bad thinkings when you have some. Well, I could write much more..but I am tired and need some rest.

So lets give suggestivism a chance. YAY!
CHEERS!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:45:34 +0000 UTC]

Firstly, art should be what you like looking at.
Secondly, art should be what you don't want to look at but you need to see.
Thirdly, art should be what's left over.
--Mr. Art Know-It-All

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Shadoweddancer In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:45:32 +0000 UTC]

1. Art can make a statement, but it doesn't have to. There most certainly is room for both. I enjoy a piece of political satire, but that doesn't mean I want it on my bedroom wall.

2. Trends? Everything that was blends with anything new. It doesn't seem that the old "new" styles ever really die. With the digital age, art is no longer just for the wealthy or museums. Art is so accessible that it's as much "to each his own". Everyone has their own tastes.

3. That depends. Some art is so provocative that it almost dares one to question the artist's intent, and some just evokes emotion. As I said before, I don't think artists always have a motive or statement beyond making something beautiful.

4. Sometimes I do have a specific point I want to make in my art, and sometimes I just want to create something eye-catching or beautiful. Other times I'm experimenting with a new medium or technique. I'm a scientist by trade, so I'm always experimenting. Occasionally I have one of those serendipity moments that I just need to share.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FlotaingArtist2435 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:45:24 +0000 UTC]

I'm gonna skp questin 1 because I don't get it.

#2- Change in art styles is always good, or else we'd be stuck looking at the same stuff over and over. Technology is helping styles more forward and new ones get created. (that sentance didn't make sense.)

#3- I generally just look at the piece and decided whether or not it looks nice. It's always nice if it makes me want to figure it out, that just makes it all the more interesting. I guess I don't try to, but I usually end up trying to figure out the artist's message.

#4- I really just paint whatever I feel like. I have no idea what it's going to look like until I decide I'm done. So it usually doesn't have a message. I just think it looks coolish.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

QuazarShark In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:43:08 +0000 UTC]

Oh my god, are you kidding me? This is the exact, original definition of Surrealism, before pop culture and Dali fans morphed the term to just mean "weird-looking".

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

LadyKylin In reply to QuazarShark [2012-07-27 21:55:35 +0000 UTC]

knew it sounded familiar.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jadedtempest In reply to QuazarShark [2012-07-27 21:46:43 +0000 UTC]

I was just about to reply that there was already a type of art like this - called surrealism. You beat me to it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ReizYouUp In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:41:46 +0000 UTC]

1. Both.
2. None that I have noticed-Or rather, I do not concern myself with such things.
3. Both.
4. Both.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RobMeriwether In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:41:31 +0000 UTC]

I think the person who came up with the ideas of "suggestivism" didn't realize that Post-modernism has already been accomplishing all of these goals and more since the mid 1980s.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nikolai-Kalahan In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:39:16 +0000 UTC]

I don't even have any clue what he's talking about. I'll just leave this be to whoever understands it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

YoSop In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:39:13 +0000 UTC]

I'm pretty lost.
I need a minute...

But I am surprised.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ReizYouUp In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:38:43 +0000 UTC]

Sounds awesome!! It's like when you just draw w/o thinking then interpret your own nonsense!! And others do it too? I think I understand completely!! LOL. I could never do such a thing! I ALWAYS overthink my writings!!!

Reminds me of Legend of Zelda-The creators of THAT must use TONS of suggestism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sahdirah In reply to ReizYouUp [2012-07-27 22:06:22 +0000 UTC]

Actually everything in this article already has a category - I'm honestly not sure why they even say there's such a thing as suggestivism. A lot of these are just surrealism.

The practice of just drawing things as you think of them, without thinking, even if turns out dreamlike, nonsensical or abstract is called stream-of-conciousness.

Legend of Zelda doesn't do this. The characters are odd, but coming up with unique or unusual designs is not the same thing as stream-of-conciousness. It's just creativity mixed with design sensibility.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReizYouUp In reply to Sahdirah [2012-07-27 23:23:08 +0000 UTC]

K

K

How would you know?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DominiqueDuong In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:38:05 +0000 UTC]

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

I think there's plenty of room for both. Art is such a broad term, and what is defined as art by one person isn't the same to another. I don't think art always needs to have a political or any other kind of message in it, and that such a message doesn't necessarily make something 'art.' Sometimes a piece of art can get lost or have the very life wrung out of it by a message that's too complicated or heavy-handed; the piece becomes no longer about the art for art's sake and it loses its beauty. Look at nature - it can be appreciated simply for the sake of its beauty and without analysing some deep thought-out message in every twig or leaf. If it moves you and you can enjoy it, I think it's still art, regardless of whether there's some 'deep' message or not.

Still, I think there's a lot to be said about suggestivism, art that leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it how they see fit, and simply creates for the sake of creating. Imagine how much variety and richness of imagination can be drawn from countless viewers as they interpret it! At the same time, though this happens a lot with non-suggestivist art, too - viewers will always draw their own opinions on something. Suggestivism just gives you greater scope for that *okay, will stop rambling*

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?

Most of the time I just enjoy the art for the beauty of it, although if it's something that really catches my attention, I might try analysing it deeper.

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

It depends on the artwork. If I'm drawing/painting a character for the first time and I'm only just figuring out the bones of their personality, I'm usually more concerned with technique and aesthetics. With established characters, though, I love either illustrating scenes with them, or creating surreal artwork with them using symbolism, either to tell some part of their story or hint of their personality.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MouseDenton In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:37:58 +0000 UTC]

I'm OCD, so my life revolves around organization and categorization. But one thing I love about art is that no matter how much you try, there's always something that can't be segregated into a specific classification. I just leave my DA download folder a massive mess of GBs completely chaotic, because I feel that's what art as a whole really is: a collection of everything into a single, living, evolving, breathing entity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ludjia In reply to MouseDenton [2012-07-28 11:01:18 +0000 UTC]

I found it easier to categorize my DA favourites by medium relevant to my interest than to categorise them by the reasons that I appriciated them in the first place. I need the categories to be able to more quickly find a reference piece later on. It works well, as i'm not in a need to ponder the art any more than just liking it and noting what medium it was made in. I also have some extra categories for special occations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KristenMash In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:35:23 +0000 UTC]

I like it! But it all looks like surrealism to me. I really love "portrait of crime". It's awesome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

guiltjohnson In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:34:21 +0000 UTC]

I have to admit I'm rather lost by this whole thing.

Suggestivism - I really don't understand what the point of this is, it just seems ridiculous and unnecessary. It's an invented term to describe things which are already named, and have been for decades. All of the example pieces given in your article fit established schools or definitions of work. Whether the artists themselves or proponents of the given schools agree is another matter, but either way it is not sufficient grounds for claiming a new movement. Redefining artwork is a perfectly valid endeavour, but this just seems lazy and superficial.

Art as political or apolotical - it's been both for centuries, I don't really understand the purpose of the question.

Without intent or subtext, it's not "art" - art is a means of communication, if it doesn't attempt to communicate with the viewer - either by statement or elicited emotional response - it is by definition not art.

There is a contemporary movement in art, and it is the blurring of lines between disciplines, as you've suggested, but not in the way that you've suggested. Essentially it relates to what is usually, clumsily, termed as illustration. Illustration has become the banner term for anything that isn't obviously traditional or fine art. But it's an ill-fitting definition and used to describe anything that blends graphic or illustrative devices/conventions with traditional or fine art technique. There are a lot of artists like myself that produce work that doesn't comfortably fit these specific niches and are isolated from them because of it. Whatever the moevement is, it's been brewing for the last few years but hasn't yet become defined enough in its own right to emerge as a specific thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ROTNJHNY In reply to guiltjohnson [2012-07-27 21:49:31 +0000 UTC]

Well Written

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

juniXII In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:34:20 +0000 UTC]

1 - There's no need for art to be political OR apolitical. As long as people feel things, like what they see/hear/taste, no matter what is the art or why it was made. We need both art for messages to be spread and art just for fun. We can perfectly enjoy both.

2- Except for the "grim dark" that's happening in both comics and movies I do not see anything particular. But I think we lack fantasy, fun and a bit of laugh.

3 - I first enjoy the piece, I like it or not, and then I try to understand if a message is given to me and what it is.

4 - I mostly try to have fun and give fun. Have this funny style that people seem to like in order to make them have fun. But I feel like I'm going to do more engaged stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chasz-manequin In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 21:34:19 +0000 UTC]

Why rename Political and abstract to suggestivism? It's pointless method of recategorizing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0