Awesum74 [2012-07-31 08:25:47 +0000 UTC]

I don't know.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NioMel13 [2012-07-31 07:59:50 +0000 UTC]

I used to live with a fine arts student who was very passionate about how art has to be political, to have a stance. I never quite got that because I've always put aesthetics over political stance. If the political message is conveyed aesthetically then that is a "perfect piece" for me- like Pete de Seve's work. At the end of the day it's comes down to personal taste. Political or apolitical I see it just another topic for discussion/argument. It's a free society so why "art" gets caught up in all these -isms labels?
I see there are different trends of art - like vector art in graphics and illustration a few years ago, hype realism now in animation/concept art., But they are trends- they come and go. They change every few years just like people- and mostly artists do. It is also like a consumption product- you find this new style of art, wow, you get as much as you can and then after a while you had too much and need something else. So the question here really is - who/what is it that defines an -ism? And what makes it different from just another trend that will come and go?
There are many times when I see a painting and think that is a nice painting and I study it for a few minutes. First I give it my own interpretation of what I see and then I read the explanation. Sometimes it makes sense and makes the piece of art even stronger, but sometimes you realise that the person just came up with this trying to sound cultivated or deep-thinker but really they are just pretentious. And there are quite a lot of people like that.
Personally my aim is focused on aesthetics and techniques, but while working on it I always have a feeling or message that I am trying to give it. But it is a personal message left there for me, not anyone else to read. Other people may interpret my stuff as they like.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Caroline1scheibel [2012-07-31 07:32:57 +0000 UTC]

1)Art is often a personal portrayal, but not necessarily political. I think it should be a kind of blood bank for the society that we always have art reflexivity on the sidelines. When you look at the big agendas, as politicians and newspaper front pages dealing with, so is the art often completely absent except perhaps Ai Weiwei.

2) we live in a time where there is questionable meaning, content and form. simultaneously also no need for history. Our time is very variable Mains and creates something rootlessness. I believe that art can help to reflect a zeitgeist and at best may have to change anything. art can provide a common understanding.

3) I examine and reflect on contemporary art many different forms and expressions. Through discussion of the show I get the opportunity to go in depth with how contemporary art today challenger life, life, we see the world through perception and cognition.

4) Perhaps, I think sometimes I have a clearer conscious about it. but mostly it is only afterwards when I am in dialogue with those who look at my work

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jimunu [2012-07-31 06:36:54 +0000 UTC]

1. It could be both as art should be as diverse as life and personally I deem both terms (art and politics) to be two diffuse words that lacks actual meaning on it's own.

2. The only current I can feel, is that peoples artistic endeavors have exploded in amounts.

3. It depends on the picture. If I recognize a certain path I automatically follow it, but it will probably be easier to see if the picture are aesthetically pleasing.

4. I lack the experience to force anything worthwhile. So I try to just go with the flow, change where it can be changed for better if deemed so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kuzooma [2012-07-31 06:00:14 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism is hard to pin down only because I only learned today but art without reason or diction seem strange to me. I been told that action without goal carries no results. Applied to art, art that has no meaning is meaningless to both to the artist and the audiences. Although, this critique I see before me show artist commented to their work so Suggestivism has its own definition of the word meaning.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ShadowOfSkills [2012-07-31 05:14:04 +0000 UTC]

Some of them remind me of surrealism, others not so.

To answer your questions...

1. There is certainly room for both.
2. I do not sense any movement today, rather I feel that art has branched out enough that there are artists in all sorts of different styles. This does not mean that there is not room for art to grow, however, but it does mean that art will likely grow much slower from now on.
3. Depending on what type of art I am looking at, I do sometimes look for a message, or at least a sense of feeling behind it.
4. Most of what I draw is supposed to convey a particular character or story, sometimes I draw items as well... there is less of a message in that than there is technique.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Meruseitai [2012-07-31 03:12:44 +0000 UTC]

Wow, I love articles like this one! And it features some pretty amazing artwork, too! O_O

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mythocentric [2012-07-31 02:04:42 +0000 UTC]

1. There's always room for both, but in todays world of consumer politics where policy is dictated by the will of the City rather than the people, there is an increasing need for the artist to take up the role of 'the peoples conscience' once more.
2. There has never been a movement in art, only those set by the self-appointed 'movers-and-shakers' who have a financial interest in dictating what the public should buy. All artists are free to express themselves in their own unique style without fear of being catagorised.
3. If a work doesn't force me to think about it and re-evaluate my experience in the light of it's image, it hasn't made the grade.
4. I always try to convey a message even if it's only 'isn't art fun!'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xarockolipsekittenx [2012-07-31 01:37:31 +0000 UTC]

birth of a new ism definetly and art concept. Because its suggestive it doesnt just fitt into one thing I think i culd be possibly good making people think. Yes this is re-cycled and has been around beore but im a strange person and like it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

im-an-otaku [2012-07-31 01:27:29 +0000 UTC]

this is great

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SarcasticUnicorn [2012-07-31 00:26:37 +0000 UTC]

Nothing new about this category. This style of message without message has been around before. It just happens to be making a come back.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MintMoka [2012-07-31 00:06:18 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
-I think that art should definitely be a mixture of both. I love political art.
Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
-I feel that anime is really conquering the art world, aswell as macabre.
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 definitely try to figure out the artist's intent after I decide whether or not I like it.
In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
-2 out of three of my tattoos have a message, one of them is just art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

radio-jacket [2012-07-30 23:54:07 +0000 UTC]

Wait, this is a form of art where your you doodle your brains out, for as long or as brief as it takes, and your subconscious makes you integrate a message? Or not? Or what?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ViolinRemix [2012-07-30 23:42:03 +0000 UTC]

I'm definetly going to try this.......

I think there's room for both political and apolitical, art can be for its own reasons. At the moment, I think the art world is a little stagnant; there haven't been any real movements towards anything because, at the moment; everything is accepted. I think giving art your own meaning is part of the beauty of it. The artist has there meaning but depending on your experiences as a person, it may differ from their view. I try and transmit a message, but I don't post about it because I want people to find their own meaning and often because my work doesn't have a strong message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hechul [2012-07-30 23:18:12 +0000 UTC]

Cute

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SlevenFold [2012-07-30 23:03:28 +0000 UTC]

aaaargh all these long comments are hurting my head :C

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Gold-Demon [2012-07-30 22:36:48 +0000 UTC]

It's like a mash up of expressionism, concept art, and surrealism ... or miscellaneous.
: D

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WaltMistake [2012-07-30 22:29:01 +0000 UTC]

1. To me, art is always both: always have a political message, hidden and unseen even by the artist, or explicit and willed. However, it is also aesthetic, and in a way, it is because it is aesthetic that it becomes political, saying "beauty exists" in a far too ugly world. And it is also apolitical for the same reason, having the opposite objectives as the ones society has nowadays: making the world more beautiful and happier. All society wants is to make itself wealthier.

2. There have always been and will always be "movements", because people can't help putting everything in little boxes. But that's impossible. People say Dali was part of Surrealism. But Dali is Dali. People say Victor Hugo was in the Romantic movement, but all he did was just Victor Hugo. That's the only box it can be put in. Now of course some artists are closer than others, and if it helps people to see them as part of the same thing, well I can't argue with that. But I think it is a rather closed point of view.

3. Always. Hidden messages are the best. I try to find out what the artist may have not thought of willingly, to find his state of mind at the moment and share the passion he put into it. To me, there is no better way to admire an artwork.

4. Aesthetics is important. I don't really care much about technique as long as I have enough to express what I feel. Same thing for conventions. I think I must be a bit Suggestivist. Except that there is always a message in what I do. However, it's never a locked message, and it can be perceived a lot of ways, and there is not one right interpretation and all the rest is rubbish, on the contrary. And I also try to analyze my own work to see what I really meant because I never know myself, and I am also always open to the others' points of view. But feeling is the most important in my art. I think it can be seen as some sort of message though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheDarkness86 [2012-07-30 21:56:14 +0000 UTC]

Talking about -ISMs: back in my school days me and my colleagues were making this new art movement called ESPRESSIONISM. The way the coffee inflicts its existence on our lives In my case - the espresso. More on the story you can find here: [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] [link]

Answers:

1.There was always room for political type of artistic expression. When the art can sell cars, why not lies too?

2. No movements in sight. The art passed the period when it questioned everything and after it answered all the questions that asked itself, it doesn't know what to do next. This would be a good thing since it already set the limits of creativity into the infinity. Although you can see every person's crap in the gallery, too. But I guess that's the democracy's fault.

3. I would like to look for some (hidden) messages in the art pieces, but nowadays you can rarely find something deeper than clear intention that's light for consuming.

4. Both. Sometimes I do stuff just so I can practice new ways of working and I'm promoting the very same so I can get some feedback, but most of the time I dedicate myself to create serious piece of artwork where the strong message is carried out by the traditional golden rules of art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KittenKagome [2012-07-30 21:47:01 +0000 UTC]

So, the point is to confuse people! I think I get it! Or maybe I'm confused...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TinyCrowd [2012-07-30 21:24:19 +0000 UTC]

This is incredible! I love all the artwork as well as the concept itself, definitely inspirational

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DrunkenxButterfly [2012-07-30 21:02:38 +0000 UTC]

I thought creating from your gut/heart was just natural and most people are taught this is incorrect? Maybe it was just me >.> lol
The only art that is incorrect or wrong is the art that doesnt exist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MiSt-Stavi [2012-07-30 20:33:17 +0000 UTC]

1. Art is also a political movement!!we are CREATIVE THINKERS! art is thinking also is not a pleasure for flat mind and non stoic people..

2.Τhe "Naivete Art of Art"

3. Always looking for the deeper message we do art, like philosophy can not look simple and say yes or no.....but as i see from the DD i am truly dissatisfy from the sense of the DD..many works that have been from artists big fine arts are simple sitting without any comment or popularity..what can we say?..

4. There is always a message in art if you are a real artist from your heart and your soul and not for the publishity or the audience.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

damien-christian [2012-07-30 20:26:18 +0000 UTC]

Expand your mind, enhance your perception, deconstruct ideations and preconceptions, what is real and what is reality to me as a individual and what is real or reality to the communial experience often enhanced by digital communication. Alexander Shulgin perhaps is one individual who produced tools that allow the viewer and the artist to explore these concepts and barriers by expanding conscious thoughts... or perhaps just developed a bunch of psychoactive phenethylamines?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

damien-christian [2012-07-30 20:20:04 +0000 UTC]

Art is what the viewer makes of it, is this not a "suggestive" attempt by the artist to perhaps influence or alter the viewers preconceptions which they bring to the work. Each viewer has their own ethnic, cultural, gender and age biases that can impact the way in which they the viewer is able to interperate and interact with the artwork the artist has created with or without this ideation in mind.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BleachedDesigns [2012-07-30 19:16:39 +0000 UTC]

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?
My answer: It depends on how strong the message is in the art. If the meaning is well hidden or not easily picked up Im usually just looking at the art in apeal not 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?
My answer: Normally I use art as a way to express my inner feelings so my art will often give off the state of my feelings at the time it was created. But as far as messages go, I don't really intentionally create a message. Sometime ill be surprised of the reactions Ill get when people view my art because it is nothing like I intended.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

angiee45 [2012-07-30 18:59:18 +0000 UTC]

I like art to have a meaning even if I don't know what that meaning is. I also appreciate art for art's sake. I like pretty things that make me smile. I like things that make me wonder.

I am mostly a writer. I write because I have something to say. My work has a meaning. The visual art I make may or may not have a meaning. I am generally a shy person who expresses herself better in writing than speaking. My work reflects that. I have to write creatively about how I feel or I would never express it. Art for me is a release.

I also like to encourage other people to think. I believe we sit back passively to much. We take in poorly made books, movies, TV, and other art because we don't look at it critically. I love movies. I mostly watch Hollywood movies and I have been very disappointed recently by what Hollywood has produced. Hollywood forgot that film is not just about money. It is also an art form. The majority of the film going audience also seems to forget this. We keep supporting crappy movies because we stopped thinking critically about them. I didn't expect GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra to be Oscar worthy, but I expected it to not suck. I was disappointed.

That said I don't expect every piece of art to take on an important issue. There is something to be said for escapist works. People don't want to have to think critically all the time and we shouldn't. If we had to analyze everything our heads would explode.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CReevesABudd [2012-07-30 18:40:29 +0000 UTC]

i never understood the labels on art... i just let it take over me and let out whatever is inside... I have no clue [most of the time] what will end up on the page/canvas/ or in the clay....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkGamer72 [2012-07-30 18:39:34 +0000 UTC]

1) Yes and yes. Art is a very board and open subject, you can't contain creativity, it'll just seep out of the box.

2) I believe art just moves with the flow of peoples minds and souls. My art, I mean truely original art; usually traditional, I suppose would be classed as suggestivism because it's whatever decides to come out of the pen, not what I force out of it. I like going into a lot of detail without taking away the essence of whatever I'm creating.

3) A bit of both really; it depends on how 'deep' I think the piece is. As strange as it will sound it usually is based on what medium the art is and what the title of the piece is. If it's simply a colourful painting of a dog, I decide whether or not I like it. If it's something such as the above painting 'remorse' I think a lot more about why the artist made it and what sort of message it's creating/representing.

4) Again it's a bit of both, and it depends entirely on how I'm feeling at the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Digital--Angel [2012-07-30 17:11:49 +0000 UTC]

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

I don't think it should necessarily be either/or. While some art is obviously political (i.e. political cartoons) or apolitical (i.e. your little sister's flower drawing), other art may be interpreted as both political and apolitical, regardless of the artist's intention. If it should be motivated by either is up to the artist - art is about portraying your thoughts and ideas, and if that happens to be political or apolitical then so be it.

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

As far as media go, I feel that the digital arts are a huge movement, regardless of the content. I've heard many people (myself included at some points) say that there is no new art, "everything new is old", etc. There is a controversy amongst artists about whether or not digital art is really art ("could he paint that on a canvas?" comes up a lot. IMO, if there's a controversy, it's a movement.

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 think about what the artist is trying to get across, but I think more about my own interpretation of it. I think that all art is subjective, and that the artist should leave the interpretation open to the viewers. I usually include my thoughts or inspiration because people often ask me what it's about, but I always encourage people to take away their own thoughts and feelings about what a piece means for them, even if that means they dislike it. Once it's on paper/canvas/screen, it's no longer about me but about those who view it.

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

I usually try to tell a story with my work, to make the viewer read my work instead of simply look at it. I don't feel I'm always successful in translating my story, and sometimes there's really no story at all. I am very concerned with aesthetics and can sometimes get drowned in them, but I definitely don't make it the primary reason I'm doing something. If that's all I was concerned with, I would only paint flowers and sunsets and puppies and kittens.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KidsWithHuns [2012-07-30 16:59:19 +0000 UTC]

1. There's enough room for both. Art has always had two sides. Some is created for the purely visual effect, while other work is intended to send a message. It's a form of communication, and the artist can say whatever he or she wants to.

2. I think that with mass communications and the accessibility of everything we have lost the possibility to create an easily defined art movement. All past movements have usually come from a certain locale, where a trend in art started and spread outward through word of mouth. Nowadays, artists don't just draw inspiration from the things in their neighborhood. Any artist can go online and see things from all over the world. Because of this, small art movements fluctuate, rising rapidly and dying out almost as fast as they came, leaving behind only a few devoted followers. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it does promote a broader exploration of all art forms, but it also leaves us with a mishmash of different movements that have come and gone before they can be defined, leaving us with the daunting task of categorizing millions of pieces, and even creating new categories for works to fit in.

3. For me, it depends on the piece. If I just like the way it looks I might drag it to my favorites and never see it again. On the other hand, if a piece really speaks to me (this sounds so cliche!) and I sit and stare at it for twenty minutes or revisit it every day, then I do start to wonder what the artist had in mind. I think that could be a big part of this "suggestivist" art; that it does make you wonder "What the hell was the creator thinking???"

4. Again, it depends on the piece. Much of my photography and graffiti work is purely aesthetic, but when I'm inspired by my emotions I almost always have a deeper meaning behind my work. These emotional images usually turn out to be my favorites because they make me think about things, and I tend to put more effort into them. In short, the purely aesthetic pieces feel hollow, but the emotional ones have substance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RabidBlackDog [2012-07-30 12:36:16 +0000 UTC]

In my oppinion, an attempt to classify modern visual arts using this term is pointless and forced. The dynamic of arts today eludes such stiff classification (in the times of "isms" they were major trends. Nowadays its impossible to establish just one or two which people will follow in their creations - or just try to make a common name to describe it all. It's to varied.), as well as most things written in this article (and most of works shown with it) could be applied either to surrealism or symbolism. I don't buy it, sorry.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AceWong [2012-07-30 12:35:59 +0000 UTC]

Just a Thought...
Think 'Art' can't be define, as new 'ism' will always be added into the category of 'Arts', different people also have different point of views on what's 'Arts',
Think how 'Art' is being define isn't important, the important thing is how the 'Art' creator define their own 'Arts'

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Carlosrafael [2012-07-30 12:07:36 +0000 UTC]

vvvvvvvvvG!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0