JadoaEsraOhn In reply to ??? [2012-08-01 02:05:08 +0000 UTC]

Yyyyeah, butters... let's be honest, butters is the butt of Southpark's jokes. I'm willing to bet that his name is as much a joke as Token's is. His life is terrible- and he stays happy anyway. Kinda like flipping life off without being mean about it, I guess.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkBrainComics In reply to JadoaEsraOhn [2012-08-01 13:25:15 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, butters is an ongoing and fantastic representation of how nice people can be totally abused. The moral is to learn to stick up for yourself, and he lacks that ability.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KimHeiseArt In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 18:04:23 +0000 UTC]

1-both
2-I think the trend is a more inclusive definition of art. appropriation has returned, and a sprinkling of every other art movement has a place to call home too.
3-sometimes art just looks like it has a message, that's when I try to find it. That's usually art that has a lot of unusual but purposefully placed elements that seem to take prevalence over the aesthetics of the piece. (like that piece called "Portrait of Crime") I usually don't like art like that so much, and gravitate more toward the pretty pieces (like "fragile hearts")
4-I try, but if I try too hard I wind up with a piece that has a message but looks very bad. I often loose a lot of the aesthetics when I focus on the message. I wind up having to do many, many pieces/experiments to come up with something that is both aesthetically pleasing and rich in meaning. Sometimes the desire to get the message right is enough inspiration to push me to get over failed pieces and barrel into the next one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kuraz08 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 16:56:20 +0000 UTC]

1. Always both. Art is always there to express whatever insight we want to send across.
2. Lots of movement, yes. Evolving and innovating, not only in style but in ideas.
3. It depends, really. There are kinds of art that if you'd look at it for the first time, you would know that there's something behind it. But there are also kind of arts that once you look at it, your mind is immediately blow away that you can't even think if there is or there isn't any meaning behind it.
4. For now I'm only concerned about style and stuff. Personally, I'm not good enough to put meanings behind my drawings, or put emotion into a piece. I'm kind still climbing my way up there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LadyWhiteWolf777 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 16:52:47 +0000 UTC]

Artist should not have to put any label on their work in terms of category or anything like that. We create the work because we have something to share. Let the viewer decide how the work impacts them, if it speaks to you as it did the artist, great, or even if the viewer gets an entirely different vibe from the work than the artist intended, that's great to. Art should be free of labels, it should simply be enjoyed by the public and by the artist who created it. Stop labeling and sit back and just enjoy what our muses help us to create.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Haunter66 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 15:34:16 +0000 UTC]

2. In my own opinion I believe that we all are tired of everything. There are already so many movements that most of all just want to create our own world. Maybe that is the "movement" itself, the movement of "this is me and this is my world/art and I hope you like it if not go click next artist link".

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

JadoaEsraOhn In reply to Haunter66 [2012-07-29 20:22:29 +0000 UTC]

I couldn't put it better.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KramMarkio In reply to Haunter66 [2012-07-27 16:45:07 +0000 UTC]

I agree, it's kind of more... unique-ism~
Everyone wants to show off their own personal flare and style. Wether they become an art idol or not, is decided by the support given to them by their audience. I get the feeling it almost works like Capitalism, when I'm drawing, hahah!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kryione In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 15:24:15 +0000 UTC]

1...Hmmm.......I really don't know.....it depends....I guess......
2.The arts world is always moving.....
3.ABSOLUTELY!I LOVE that part....though I often got it wrong...But you know,I'm too lazy to post a comment....and I'm not sure if my comment fully describes my interpretation.
4.Sometimes when I'm moved by something in my life, I try to convey it into art but it's a......usually....not good.Then again,I just can't draw anything without inspiration..I worry about techniques and beauty throughout the drawing process.The problem is,I usually end up making something different than what I actually WANTED to draw.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bonbonaj3 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 14:24:55 +0000 UTC]

1. There will always be enough room for both. Often, a single political drawing can move a lot of people, but apolitical drawings are what most people care about. I say, draw what you want.

2. If any 'movement' in art today, it would probably be about conserving the planet. I see a lot of art about it on dA.

3. I usually ignore any 'message' in the art. I just decide whether I like it or not.

4. I rarely have a message in my art. If I plan the piece, I might, but I rarely plan it anyways so yeah.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BonnieWoodson In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 12:20:20 +0000 UTC]

Interesting article and I think I enjoyed reading the comments more than the article. I wish I had even an ounce of the creativity shown in the art of this article. Thank you for another great read!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FredStesney In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 12:13:53 +0000 UTC]

You lost me at "constrictive didactic narratives and dogmatic theories."

I agree with many of the other comments that this is surrealism. I also see this as an extension of the low-brow movement. It's as good an ism as any. But isms are for art history and art history ended in the last century.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

haute-clere In reply to FredStesney [2012-07-27 22:40:51 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, and the author made a point to denounce those "experts talking over our heads" yeesh...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kapten-N In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 12:13:50 +0000 UTC]

1. There's room enough for both.
2. I don't follow the art world so closely that I would notice any "movements". Though I don't like the idea of an art "movement" since to me it sounds like a big bunch of artist that are stuck in one art form or starts making art of a certain form only because that art form is currently popular.
3. I do try to see if the artist had any meaning behind the art, but if the art makes no sense or doesn't seem to convey a meaning of any kind I just like an art piece based on whether it looks good or not.
4. I usually do not try to transmit messages in my works. I do them mostly for fun. But I don't call myself an artist either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xReissa In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 10:23:30 +0000 UTC]

By the definition stated in here, Suggestivism sounds to me like a mixture between Surrealism and Dadaism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LevStripes In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 10:09:22 +0000 UTC]

Genres and art movements doesn't exist anymore, there are only small "influences of the time" but the base in which the art is built is the modern knowledge of the history of art that everyone has. Everyone has a minimum culture about art movements, thanks to school and internet, that spreads all the cultures and subcultures. Internet and modern knowledge teach people the solutions adopted by artist trough all the time to express a specifical feeling, opinion, idea. Nowadays people choose what to be in a range of possibilities instead of creating they're own path, and even if artists try to be original and innovator, they can't escape from their artistic culture. Once there was less knowledge, artists followed the movement of their own time, now society is fragmentated in choises and all the movements coexist together, killing innovation and unity. To me, artistic innovation started to decline after the '90s. I'm not saying internet or culture are bad things, i'm just saying that things changed, to me. Suggestivism is the peculiar approach that everyone has when expressing itself: mixing together different techniques and movements features, to obtain something "new" (but i would rather say personal). Everyone, due to its personal preferences, blend together choises that belong to different art movement, in a new scenario in which everything it's free, there's no rule, and everyone is doing a different kind of art, following the new "politic of the authors" in which every movement has to be intended as personal, and product of a mixture of knoledges, so i don't believe in artistic innovation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to LevStripes [2012-07-28 01:08:28 +0000 UTC]

dude, your page says your 21; how much can you talk about artistic inovation droping after the 90's when you were born in the 90's

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LevStripes In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-28 11:34:01 +0000 UTC]

Yeah in my profile it's also written that i don't consider myself an artist; i'm not commenting here pretending to be an expert or a critic, i'm just an average boy that want to see if anyone else thinks the same way i do. As for my knowledges of past cultures and movements, i didn't live the art of the '90s (yeah too young), or the '80s or so on, but i studied a little bit of history of art, i've seen a lot of operas, even if just on a book or on a screen, as almost everyone here did and does, and i know at least a little how things changed. Just a little, yeah. Also, we're living on a revival period, vintage things are in vogue and a lot of artist try to emulate past styles with an hyper realistic approach. Knowing that the famous old posters of the Coca-Cola mainly belong to the '50s isn't a big deal. However, as i said, what i wrote is just how i feel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to LevStripes [2012-07-28 19:45:01 +0000 UTC]

Please realize that historians/critics like connecting recent/current art to previously made material to draw comparisons and conclusions. The break-off point you've established is about the time from where you'd be experiencing art first hand and seeing art presented by 'experts,' who know how to make a show to prove their ideas/reasoning of what art is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LevStripes In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-29 11:28:49 +0000 UTC]

I can't understand what you mean...maybe that in your opinion we're not in a period of revival, it just seems so because experts make comparisons between past and contemporaneity? Or maybe you mean that i can't talk about certain things because only critics can, and i look like the guy who plays the critic? Or that i can't talk about certain periods because i hadn't lived them directly and my vision is distorted by the opinions of the critics, or what?
I can't understand why you're so concerned about what i wrote. We may just think in a different way, but who says you're opinion is the right one? Who says that you have an authority in talking about certain things that i don't have?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to LevStripes [2012-07-29 15:40:08 +0000 UTC]

This is an open forum and you are free to say anything you want. I think I am trying to say experts and critics like to make comparisons between contemporary and older works in an effort to connect and organize artwork into a timeline or family tree (this work plus that artist inspired that piece). I am also asserting that being 'experts,' they are good at presenting their opinions as fact and getting other people to believe them (which I assume is their job).

All of history is written by people trying to prove a point or validate an opinion, so I'm more cautioning to take what you read about past movements with a grain of salt and, if this is something in which you are interested, the to seek out different writers covering the same period to see how much of a discrepancy there is (an easy one is Worhal, with is a genious, is he a hack, yadda yadda yadda). Critics/Historians can be an interesting opinion, but cannot be referenced as truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LevStripes In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-29 17:39:45 +0000 UTC]

Oh, well... as for the revival period, yes, some critics say so for certain operas, and even some artists say they tried to emulate a past style, so it's an opinion that comes from what i've heard and what i see. Of course art is not a science and it's not like you can say absolute truths, but that are some opinions i believe in, i think that between the great number of contemporary movements that coexist nowadays, there's also a revival one.
But i hadn't said that that it's the cause of the "lack of innovation" i was talking about, i think it's the reaction to that. Nowadays more than ever seems to me that everyone is following it's path, escaping from the unity that characterized the styles of the previous hystorical periods. Since there's no unity, the real innovators are in a small number, the other ones blend together styles or resume an old one. The second part of this speech is based on personal thoughts, just them, and not what "experts" say. The fragmentation of the society comes from a new awareness of art, that's why i was talking of the '90s (internet). However i think only time will make our ideas clear, it's easier to understand the past, from a certain distance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to LevStripes [2012-08-01 20:47:49 +0000 UTC]

What would you call an innovation in art (new method, technique or material)?

I saw the unity of historical periods occuring from geographic proximity rather than correlations in style; similar art was produced by people working in contact with one another, and a movement would then be declared by the recognized community.

I would hazard that modern movements have artists with similar talents coming together in an attempt to form an artistic statement in an attempt to become recognized (so, the reverse of the historical model).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LevStripes In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-02 11:51:34 +0000 UTC]

""What would you call an innovation in art (new method, technique or material)?"" Yeah both things, new ways or new materials, the important thing is that they don't try to resemble common or over-used ways. Starting from defined styles, blending them, it's still an innovation sometimes, but a cheaper one. Still, it's true that the distinction in genres is unfair somehow, because every artist is original, even if it adopts a style, so, in the same way, the distinction between innovation or not it's hard to define. However we can't deny that there's at least a superficial relation between some operas from different authors, that is usually called genre as you know (but "genres" belongs to the past to me). I think real innovation comes as reaction to a defined style that doesn't represent the society/author anymore, it's not an evolution of it, it's a reaction (but evolutions are innovations too, even if smaller). Since i think society it's very fragmented, there's no possibility for a unitary reaction.
""I saw the unity of historical periods occuring from geographic proximity rather than correlations in style; similar art was produced by people working in contact with one another, and a movement would then be declared by the recognized community."" Yeah you're right, now there's internet that changed things.
""I would hazard that modern movements have artists with similar talents coming together in an attempt to form an artistic statement in an attempt to become recognized (so, the reverse of the historical model)."" I would say that it's even more subjective than how you say. Every artist try to find their own personal path, it's the "politic of authors" against the "politic of genres", it's a distinction that is used in cinema to distinguish the past ways from the new one...
i find interesting your opinions, btw

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to LevStripes [2012-08-08 03:14:29 +0000 UTC]

I find what you say about innovation being a reaction to be very insightful. So, art may be missing a strong personality or teaching influence to motivate or influence people to persue a new, different or modified technique/astetic. Does there have to be a unified art movement, or can it be a collective art movement, with only a handful of individuals?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LevStripes In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-08-08 12:05:07 +0000 UTC]

First of all thanks for the llama
You're so good at writing in english that i'm having trouble following you sometimes
I think that strong personalities comes along with the need to a reaction, and a need to a reaction comes only when you are surrounded by "unitary" art, a certain idea, style, that covers the greatest part of the contemporary production (the politic of genres). Now that there's no more politic of genres, no unitary production, a lot of different styles and influences coexist and you can't react to a world made of operas really different between each other. It's true that there are still movements, but they're somehow small because they're in a larger number than in the past, and also old movements are somehow revisited. Innovation still exists but it's free from a guide, made by artists that continue, change and redifine the idea started by an individual innovator, bringing that idea to become a language, a style, experimented to find the ideal "boundaries" of that "style". So, the greatest is the participation to the movement, the more defined and culture-influential this will be. Hope i answered you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Saerileth In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 09:10:55 +0000 UTC]

I've been waiting for someone to affirm my belief that art doesn't necessarily have to convey some hidden message. I could never understand why my art teachers wouldn't let me paint what I wanted to, simply because I wanted to. Why I couldn't choose a colour just because I felt it looked right rather than because it represented something symbolically.

And it bothers me that the vast majority of non-artists I know think that modern art is per definition weird and deeply philosophical, that they in fact expect not to understand it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PowlaM In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 09:10:01 +0000 UTC]

I think art is the one thing that can be whatever it wants. Political art is very important to have, as a protest or a comment on society. However apolitical art is also legitimate, so there is plenty of room for both.

The current movement seems to be leaning more towards art that has no meaning to it. I can't say whether it's 'suggestivism' or not. However there should be a balance of both. I personally prefer political art because it aims to improve the world. But who's to say that pretty things aren't making the world better ...

When I look at art, the immediate response is like/dislike. Only after I try to figure out the message. That's why I try to make my art beautiful to look at, to draw people in, but then have an underlying message to get the audience thinking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TarantulaLdAmn In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 08:49:52 +0000 UTC]

I think there's room for both.
I don't really follow movements, art or anything else.
I usually just choose whether I like or dislike a piece of art, but sometimes I try to look into it on a deeper level to find a message. However, "authorial intention" is something I try not to seek for too much, because I feel in the end it will be only my own vision of what the creator probably intended to say. We all read different messages from the same image or text, that's how I see it. Sometimes those messages are similar, but usually not exactly the same.
With my own art... I don't usually intentionally try to give out a message with my photographs, but with my writing it's a bit different.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MagicalKitty-LanLan In reply to TarantulaLdAmn [2012-07-27 20:54:04 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TarantulaLdAmn In reply to MagicalKitty-LanLan [2012-07-27 20:55:29 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

juachiobi In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 08:27:17 +0000 UTC]

4. when i work on some of my abstracts.... i just plug my earphones to my phone and listen to music till one of them 'clicks'.... everything flows out from there... i don't really plan it... i keep sketching till I've 'run out' of the flow for that day.. sometimes repeating that particular song over and over till i squeeze it all out..... few times, a thought forms at the beginning or in the middle that gives my 'dream state' something to work with.... a lot of it remains untitled though....
3. when i see art, i just want to know how it makes me feel.... i'm not worried about execution or technique until i look at it and i'm uncomfortable or upset and my brain's trying to figure out what exactly prompted the feeling.....
1. i think every artist should be free to pursue varying themes in what they do....no constraints i usually find that pieces with some story tend to stick in my head and become the image i see when i come across the same theme later.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DaOnlyOverlord In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 07:49:37 +0000 UTC]

.....maybe it's just one more "ism" to add to the pile of ism's that already exist.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Loulin In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 07:43:49 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for another interesting article.

1. There is always room for both. Art is art, and wheather the artist wants to include a message or not in it is a personal choice in my books.
2. There will always be trends and fads in art as in many other areas (always have and always will) and I seldom care even if I notice it. But... Since I work in an art gallery I've seen quite a lot of abstract and hard-to-interpret art lately. On DA however I have noticed that fan-art (if it counts as a "current movement") seems to be a pretty big eddy in the stream of art flowing around the place. Good or bad? It's hard to tell really.
3. I simply categorize art into "Like" or "Indifferent" with a possible side dish of "Don't like". If something catches my attention, analyzing and searching for messages comes in a poor second place.
4. First and foremost I go for technique and aestetics. Since I effectively only make art for myself I have no need to include messages. Maybe I do sometimes on a very subconcious level and if an onlooker wants to interpret a particular motif into something that's their choice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

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

1 There is room enough for both. Art is a possible way to express anything through different media:
Nowadays politics has become more and more like a big perfomance for weird artists called politicians. ^_~

2 Well nothing in particular, though the art world never stands still. Wherever you look there is "movement", artists create, express, develop and evolve.
Art is moving in all directions, always! A good thing, actually. No movement means death.

3 It really depends on the content of the message and what medium is used to express something.
If I like something or not is a matter of seconds to decide!

4 That depends on the mood I am in, because most of the time it is the mood I want to transmit. Technique and aestetics is something that comes in the process
of creating something. Or it doesn't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UN4Ever In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 06:53:53 +0000 UTC]

1/ There’s room enough for both. This is a free world.
I'm not saying freedom with no restraint.

2/
FREE SPEECH
3/

4/ [link] :thumb309480855:

[link] :thumb315804277:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Archer7Tadayoshi In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 06:33:42 +0000 UTC]

I'm against all kinds of government regulated educational systems. Schools should encourage us to explore the unknown, not censor us from it. Understanding leads to ideas, ideas leads to innovation, innovation leads to success.
We must exceed the standards and think outside of the textbook. For example, I don't care what things are DESIGNED to do, I only care on what they CAN do. A CRT monitor can be used for a gaming console with the proper adapter. A DVI LCD monitor can run on a PS3 with a DVI to HDMI adapter.

Those are two perfect examples of thinking outside of the school textbook. This "Ism" is nothing but a load of crap that has been droned into your head by social media mind conditioning program that has been running ever since the 1950's. It's time to wake up and realize that this site has already reached to the top. You don't need to move it to a better location on the internet, it's fine right where it is. Don't let the government regulate this site by letting the "Ism" take over. Having a dot ART domain name is going to be expensive for all of us. Over one third of us members are free members and I'm pretty sure that DA.art membership will not be free. Please, do not change. Most of us here on this site like it the way it is, right here, right now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

neurotype-on-discord In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 06:18:05 +0000 UTC]

I'm wondering what differentiates this an surrealism.

1. Yes. Quite frankly, an artist that doesn't know shit about politics should keep their nose out of it, but let's face it--a lot of artists are affected by things like state healthcare and welfare. It's not an easy life and the relevant aspects should inform the work of any person who's trying to critique their own lifestyle.

2. I think the movement is a divide between the complete lack of control on the Internet and an increasing emphasis on academic knowledge outside of it, for people who want to become gallery directors/curators/etc.

3. Depends.

4. Yes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sleepyowlet In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 06:13:45 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism? And the difference between it and surrealism is what? Everything said in this article about this new category is just as true for surrealism, and most (if not all) the examples shown can easily be classified as surrealistic. If they need to be classified at all - I don't really see the need for putting art into separate drawers.

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

Dear gods, what kind of question is that? Both, duh. It's up to the artist. If they want to include political messages in their art, then that's their business. If not, well, that's their business too. Not every piece of art needs a deeper meaning - sometimes looking pleasant and giving the viewer solace is enough.

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

To be honest, I don't care much. I've become disenchanted with the art-world years ago (that being the reason why I decided not to pursue a professional career as an artist), so I don't really keep up with all the current fads. I follow a few local artists back home (because they are my friends), and I do my own stuff. I don't usually draw inspiration from other people's work, and I actually prefer reading to looking at pictures - I don't live through my eyes much. I know that sounds weird when a visual artist says that, but there it is.

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 think that it's not that important what an artist wants to say - a piece of art always takes on a life of its own in the mind of the viewer, and says things that the artist never intended. That's the fun of it, it's like the subconscious of the artist and the subconscious of the viewer having a direct dialogue. That's what makes art fun. The message the artist intends to send is just the surface.

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

Heh - I only put my fanart online... but my original art is much the same. I illustrate stuff. That's the bulk of what I do, illustrating... So no specific message, no, but it's not purely aesthetics and technique either (though I tend to use fanart as practice). I visualize stuff from stories or poems, mostly because it's a challenge for me. As I said, I'm not a visual person, so drawing/painting what I vaguely see in my mind helps me picture it. Plus, I get to put my own spin on things. That's always fun. Ideally I do both, write the story and draw the illustrations.

TLDR; So the short answer to the question would be "Neither."

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

ForgetDeny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-31 13:31:14 +0000 UTC]

Oh good I'm glad that somebody else noticed that this is just surrealism with re-branding. If this was Imgur, you would get up-voted.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to ForgetDeny [2012-07-31 13:44:22 +0000 UTC]

Imgur? Anyway, I'm sort of surprised that somebody dug through the pile and found my comment - but I wasn't the first to figure out the Surrealism thing, I discovered a few people had said the same thing before me. And many said the same thing after. And I never received an answer to my question, which was where the difference is. Hm... makes one think, doesn't it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ForgetDeny In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-31 21:22:48 +0000 UTC]

Fairly certain there isn't a difference. Seems to me that this article is a symptom of someone attempting to theorise without first learning the relevant theory.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

haute-clere In reply to sleepyowlet [2012-07-27 22:37:43 +0000 UTC]

Very well said.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sleepyowlet In reply to haute-clere [2012-07-28 06:41:12 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mali-chan In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 05:56:53 +0000 UTC]

1) Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
BOTH. I always say (and I'm not too popular because of this opinion) that art is created FOR people (for the audience, for those who commissioned it, for the artist herself etc.). The whole politicalness and message thing is largely dependent on the expectations and needs (try to give a message they don't need or want and you will fail miserably) of the people the work is FOR.

2) Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
I sense that finally at least some artists begin to realize my first point. (And we come to full circle as this was well known before modern times.)

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 simply decide. IF it's for me (or my type) and has a message or intent I'll get it eventually.

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 don't bother with message. Mostly because as hobbyist I create for myself, or as a translator I try to convey the original artist's message if she has one so that's not mine either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Loona-Cry In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 05:48:17 +0000 UTC]

Well, leaving things open to interpretation and only hinting is nothing new. It has a postmodern feel about it by placing the responsiblity for interpretation upon the responder and that's been around in seminal texts since Kubrick came up with 2001 and probably earlier. Also, when you mention how it's "defined more by what it is not, rather than what it is," I suggest checking out Jaques Derrida's ponderings on the paradox inherent in binary opposite relationships (good/evil, white/black, written/spoken). He talks about how 'gaps of silence' ("defined more by what it's not") in binary opposite relationships assist in making concrete the definition of both of the identities in the relationship. The absence of something becomes part of expectation and helps to define the identity more solidly. His full explanation makes more sense than my short example.

1) I think there's room for both. Some of my favourite illustrations can be found in the sections of the paper containing political cartoons just for offering a whacky look at events. Inspiration is inspiration and it reflects the unconscious just as much as conscious intentions anyway. Does it matter if the artwork is still considered well executed, etc?

2) Well, post-postmodernism (oh god, a dreaded -ism! ) is still going strong. Everyone is rejecting the accepted genres of art in favour of their own thing whether it be fan art, random experimentation or otherwise so long as others can accept it as being sincere as opposed to an expression of biting cynicism like most postmodern works.

3) It depends, but when it comes to most art forms I just enjoy it for the "Oooh, pwetty " value. I leave the scathing analyses intent my literature studies. *shudder*

4) It depends on whether I'm aiming for technical practice or trying to be witty.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-07-28 00:34:42 +0000 UTC]

What about Vimalakirti and nonduality [link] where either extreme is an expression of the same force and it is only our misinterpretation of this force which posses them as opposites.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-28 00:52:11 +0000 UTC]

If you were to reject most/all of society's social constructs (which are used as reference points for interpretation) then yes that would probably apply to quite a few things. It's differences in perception which create differences in interpretation, meaning very similar entities can be viewed as extremes due to the subjectivity. The written/spoken example is a perfect example; both are ultimately a form of communication but people like Derrida can manipulate them into becoming opposites with the different constructs.

*reads what she just wrote* Yeah, I really need a break from this stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cpt-plaid In reply to Loona-Cry [2012-07-28 03:46:44 +0000 UTC]

In order to reject, wouldn't I have to acknowledge, react, then dismiss? This is stating my interpretation of nonduality is at odds with Derrida and thus they are acting as opposites. Instead of using the negative 'no' to describe what something is or isn't, this is accepting all as is. Derrida appears to attempt to define what isn't in either extreme while using terms of absolute yes/no, which has logical applications but is a folly to nondualism.

One cannot describe nothing with words, only silence for that is what nothing is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loona-Cry In reply to cpt-plaid [2012-07-28 07:42:47 +0000 UTC]

That's exactly Derrida's point. By rejecting the dominant ideology one only fuels the continuation of it as you have to acknowledge its existence in order for rejection to occur. Derrida's argument is that binary opposites or extremes become paradoxical as each identity feeds off the other in order to form a concrete definition of what should and shouldn't be part of the expectations within the identity.
Here's an example; atheists paradoxically reinforce the notion of religion by saying "I don't believe in God". By acknowledging the construct of "God" they reinforce that religion exists. Like what you're saying, if they were simply be silent and ignore the question of "Do you believe in God?" then they would achieve true rejection as they're not reinforcing the existence of the construct entirely and thus defy the paradox. Though I suppose a neutral "I don't care" would also work.

Post-structuralists such as Derrida generally don't apply absolutes to binary opposites, but set the identities within a hierachy where one is the superior identity (religion as the dominant ideology) and the other is the inferior or supplementing identity (atheism as the marginalised ideology). The dominant ideology uses the marginalised ideology to define itself, i.e. "I don't believe in God" reinforces that religious people DO believe in God and it makes the expectations within each identity concrete. One believes, the other doesn't. It's not about the absolutes, but the paradox created when people use opposition to define something.

And this is the point where I look back and realise that this is the reason I don't have a social life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1