momographica [2012-07-30 12:03:15 +0000 UTC]

This is a very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

artivoid [2012-07-30 11:48:01 +0000 UTC]

1. I don't belive art should be political, there is a lot of crap out there, and we don't need any more. ART should be sincere and personal.

2. There are a lot of directions today, and what I see, is 90% of them are gibberish, and the other 10% are suffocated by it. For the common user, it is hard to find these 10%.

3. Yes and YES! I try to see what the message is.

4. I believe art without a message is nothing. Technique and aesthetics are important to, but without a "soul"...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

maskhara [2012-07-30 10:35:57 +0000 UTC]

1)Art is: you may, you can show any thing you want to say, or anything you want to show.any how and with any thing.
2)I hardly feel a street art and it's a strong movement.
3)I think you never need to try to figur out anything if an artist is strong. You always see or feel some influence.
4) technique and aesthetic is how you really can show your impression, your conciousness, your opinion, your view, your statement.
deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

theclarabellafaire [2012-07-30 10:26:22 +0000 UTC]

Apparently I've been working in that category for awhile and didn't know it.

I always wondered why I felt like I didn't belong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xTomoe [2012-07-30 10:16:17 +0000 UTC]

1. I think there's room enough for both. Art is freedom.
2. aah... yes I guess. and if there is a movement I bess it's really a good sign!
3. first I try to see the message but mostly I decide pretty quick whether I like a piece or not...
4. I guess I do send some kind messages with my art but I don't do it willful...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

T-002nolife [2012-07-30 09:13:51 +0000 UTC]

1.....for me it can take both objectives political and apolitical ...the arts are freedom for us.
2.Sure that's a good sighn for us...artists of today and tomorrow can change the old limited style and bring more freedom to arts.
3.I really want to contact that artist ,thats a way to understand more the meaning of his work.
4.now...I'm just a beginner but I have a can taste the artworks and understand it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nunheh [2012-07-30 09:06:02 +0000 UTC]

All art and every thing we perceive is suggestive of somethig.

I'd like to see: traditional art - painting-hybrid

Questions: Both, whatever the artist wants
Sometimes snobbery is in motion
Critics figure, people like or dislike
If a message is received, so be it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

J-Rex1463 [2012-07-30 08:19:37 +0000 UTC]

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

I think that in the art world, there is room for just about everything. Even if it happens to be controversial, art is the means to express our inner desires, thoughts, fears etc. why should politics be kicked out of art merely because it is politics? With politics comes fear, thoughts, desires, and inner feelings. Apolitical, same thing. So yes, there is more than enough room for these two categories to be welcomed.


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

I have a feeling that there is a movement going on. I don't know what kind of name you would call it, but it is there. As for if its in good taste or not, I'd say judge for yourself: To each is his own, and in the art world you may like something that someone else may not care for. One mans junk is another mans treasure in this case.



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 usually try to see if there is an intent. Usually, even in the most subtle ways there is one. Also its nice doing that because it allows you to get a sense of the artists personality, and therefore create a bond with them that further enraptures you to want to look at things from a different perspective/view point. I don't prefer to like or dislike art. I admire all of it, even if it is considered in bad taste or quality, there is always room for love.

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

In some of my recent work I have been currently experimenting with, yes. I think that by trying to convey my inner thoughts to people I will broaden my horizons.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Fullmetal-Animator [2012-07-30 08:19:37 +0000 UTC]

Begining of the end of categories? That's what they said about the dadaist movement after World War I. Art is always evolving so I think this is a welcome and fresh perspective on creativity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sEMPTYment [2012-07-30 06:34:04 +0000 UTC]

SUGGESTIVISM, I always try to figure out the message that's transmitted in art.
Sometimes words cannot tell what we suppose to mean but art can.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JederC [2012-07-30 05:38:12 +0000 UTC]

Art is evertything and nothing; a portraitoire of everything that is human... So yes to 1. And for there to be a bad sense in contemporary art movements is in itself a bad sense; no art is flawed, so no to 2 for labeling any new movements as bad. I only confine myself to deeper meaning if it grabs my attention. Otherwise, I outwardly admire all art for its content. So somewhat no to 3. Finally, everything I create has tones of historic examples and sets anyone to think of implications hat would create such imagery, so yes to 4.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ShockDr [2012-07-30 05:10:08 +0000 UTC]

1. We, or at least I, need art to be so much more political. Today's epoch is unbelievably chaotic and dangerous, so where are the Allen Ginsbergs and Orsen Welleses of the day!?

"And we love Art for Art's sake,
It's smart, for Art's sake,
To Part, for Art's sake,
With your heart, for Art's sake,
And your mind, for Art's sake,
Be Blind, for Art's sake,
And Deaf, for art's sake
And dumb, for Art's sake,
They kill, for Art's sake,
All the Art for Art's Sake." - Marc Blitzstein, The Cradle Will Rock (1937)


2. Digital media has gone viral, and I forse this continuing for some more time. Then, it will come to an abrupt halt when climate change takes a serious toll on the West. Only traditional forms will be possible then.


3. It's rather easy to discern if a specific message is present or not. I love political art, art that causes one to take an introspective look, and art that just is. I like it if I agree with the message, have a moment with it, or find its content pleasing in whatever way.


4. I want to create political art, I have plenty of images/ideas/knowledge in my head, but for some reason I have yet to fulfill expectations I have of myself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ijilly [2012-07-30 05:08:20 +0000 UTC]

art is the interpreter of both political and apolitical. It's too sacred to be in positioned just one side of the equilibrium. An art is an art created by strong individuals who broke themselves from any sort of freedom bars...
there's no movement. It's a matter of interpretation. There's no good and evil. for good and evil is rooted from what an individual know. no judgement. no right and wrong. this is what it should be. let it be, but each one has different experiences and different levels of understanding. Don't be a reformist. each one should stop reforming or bending people with their little knowledge. for knowledge is too complex to understand. it's like a growing tree that doesn't wither.
The pieces above are amazing. thank you for sharing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CharcolLover [2012-07-30 05:03:03 +0000 UTC]

I think this is the definent begining of a new catogorey. A catogorey that will always say something diffrent to every person that looks at the peice. This may be the most important form of art to ever be created. It'll show that you shouldn't just automatically set the peice of art as good or bad but u really have to analyze it and let every peice flow into your cerebal cortex and feel whats happening in the peice versus does it please me. I think to truly appreciate art one must feel it not just see it.

But then again I mean sure we all have our studies that are purley for practice with no intent of moveing people but infact studies can move people as well as an art peice such as these. I mean who can look at lenardo's work even just the sketches and not feel something. The art of the past motivates the artist of the future and will always say something to someone so I guess suggestivism is more what we hear versus what we want to say no?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ijilly [2012-07-30 04:56:48 +0000 UTC]

fuckin' priceless! i respect the ideas and writings

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

keidream [2012-07-30 04:56:11 +0000 UTC]

4. In my own art, I mainly focus on the creation itself... I want my art to be beautiful, and I communicate this intention more than anything else. Perhaps that is a message in itself, though.
I really appreciate artists that can communicate the gravity and importance of a situation through aesthetic art (for example, I greatly admire yuumei's art.) [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Deathra-Sorrows [2012-07-30 04:52:13 +0000 UTC]

1. Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
It doesn't matter, art is whatever the artist makes of it, not what any label could ever define it as

2. Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
Well, "modern art" I've noticed, is often nothing more than what we're taught to do in grade-school art classes, and personally, I don't like that, but my one opinion doesn't make it bad.

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?
First, I base whether or not I like it based on aesthetics, then I try to find a message to factor into whether or not I like the piece

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'm not always trying to make a message, but I'm not concerned purely with aesthetics. My art is usually story book creatures/people/worlds from my mind, and I'm trying to capture their distinctive personalities

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Divineheart7 [2012-07-30 04:00:10 +0000 UTC]

Part of art is to enlighten the mind to different possibilities. I never knew the depth symbolism gave art until I went to Italy to the Uffizi gallery and listened to a teacher explaining the symbolism behind Botticelli's Primavera painting. I found myself engrossed with the meaning which made the painting one of my favorites. Sometimes, a painting might look strange until you know the meaning behind. Then you gain greater understanding of what you are looking at, rather than something that is simply aesthetically pleasing. Granted, I do believe art should flow freely; otherwise, it wouldn't be art, instead it would be ridged and spiritless. However, there can be meaning inside your work that you might not realize you are expressing. That is the beauty of art. It communicates in a deep way that cannot be categorized.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

animekittyslave [2012-07-30 03:13:51 +0000 UTC]

This doesn't seem like a new concept, just something that has been brought to attention. I see art as a medium of communication and much like when people speak, the value of the message is determined by the one receiving the message, but this would mean that value comes from others and not oneself. I do not believe that to be true.
During the creative process an artist might focus on a single aspect or the technicalities of the piece rather than the meaning. Art requires technique, skill and purpose. Sometimes the purpose is political and sometimes it is just to explore new shapes and ideas.
The novel "My Name is Asher Lev" by Chaim Potok is an excellent example in exploring our motives to create art. Here is a quote from Asher Lev to his father. "I dont want to sit in a room painting for myself. I want to communicate what I do. And I want critics to know I can do it." (p. 304). No matter how much we may believe that art is a solitary practice, it involves the entire world that surrounds us.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TechUnadept [2012-07-30 03:08:46 +0000 UTC]

1) Politically-motivated art is propaganda, whether it's Uncle Sam or Rosie the Riveter on a recruiting poster, or a tounge-in-cheek political cartoon; it's simply propaganda for or against the current government.
2) I never understood why one style of art gaining popularity was reffered to as a "movement"
3) Message schmessage. If I like a picture, I like a picture.
4) Techniques and aesthetics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Midnight-Specks [2012-07-30 02:29:49 +0000 UTC]

1. Well, like all subject matter and categories of philosophy, "political/apolitical" is but a single term and concept to be understood, debated and referenced among all forms of interpreting and promoting reason and logic, whether this be through art, music, dance, literature, so on and so forth. Like all concepts, art then has the freedom to be political, apolitical, or otherwise so. Without such freedom to be varietied among subjects and concepts, art then is not but something pretty to look at, which truly is never the case. Even a commercial has a reason, purpose, and often a subjective message behind the objective visual. There is not only room enough for both then, but without both subjects, along with a broader spectrum of others, art would have no true purpose or reason. It would have no point without the freedom of both and moreso, which is why a world does not exist where both cannot exist.

2. When it comes to a quoted and promoted "movement", I personally feel that defining such styles can actually have a more negative affect upon the art community than productive. With a defined "movement", artists habitually may tend to feel the need to stick to said movement for whatever their style, concepts and meanings within their art may promote, such as a musician claiming to play only one primary genre. The artist may indeed be restraining their own potential by keeping their work within the bounds of said defined movement, which in a long spectrum of reason, is actually antiproductive to progression and individualism. This has the affect of withholding true freedom of thought, concept, skill and ability.
In such a reference then, of coarse, movements exist, but as undefined they are more powerful than they ever could promotionally be.
As for modern times, It appears then that no defined movement presently exists, but this then promotes a greater freedom to what an artist may produce based upon their own concepts and ideas, rather than one particular movement that has already been presented and promoted to them as a solid unit. I personally then find this good, because it promotes an individual philosophy among each individual artist, and that is the ability that all artists are most productive at promoting and inventing within their own work, philosophy and reason. In the long spectrum of things, one must then remember that all acts, whether it be through art, music, literature, so and so forth, and represented and inspired by an IDEA. A movement is but an idea. With a solid movement the idea is stuck. Therefore an undefined movement is the most powerful of all production.

3. If I was then forced to chose between "figuring out" a piece of work, or simply categorizing it among my preferences, "figuring out" would no doubt win out between the two, but it is of coarse far more complex than that. When looking at a piece of artwork, how the artist did it, why the artist may have done it, the potential, motive, reason, purpose and concepts that may lay behind it, and whether or not they are primarily promoting one particular idea, the ability to self-interpret, or just making something pretty, all points of detail enter my mind with but the visualization, and this is with more than just art, but the very idea of anything that may be presented to me within my lifetime. The most important of all actions would then be to interpret, understand and analyze both the subjective and objective points of all content that one may be exposed to. Art is but one of many things to devour and grow to understand.

4. In my own art, a personal but vague message sits behind every illustration, design, song and piece of literature I produce, along with the motivation for the visualizer to produce their own individual interpretation and reason behind the piece. Techniques and aesthetics are just as conceptual and suggestive as the process of analyzing and producing a visualization of the idea then, meaning that it is simply the language in which the artist choses to translate their message, whether it be indepthly subjective or visually objective. A particular style I decide to use for a particular piece is then always deliberate, and not merely because it is "my" style. "Style" is then something I like to personally broaden as well. I focus on particular styles for particular illustration series' and comic strips. I have the ability to produce more than acceptable lifedrawing, as an example, but I then feel that lifedrawing, merely because one may be able to do it, interprets little-to-no meaning, and is therefore relatively useless in spending my time on. Just because I can do it, does not mean that should be my focus, because every piece I produce is meant for more than just "looking pretty."

As quoted from my Artist's Statement...
"According to my philosophy, nothing should be forced upon a viewer in concept, and although sending a message is the most sincere of artistic composition and design, all work should be free enough for the viewer to create their own interpretation of the piece; send the viewer in a direction, don't tell them what to think. Encouraging freedom of thought, individualized philosophy, and acceptance of conceptuality is my most sincere message and purpose through my overall existence. Everyone has the unrestrained freedom to make sense of something in their own unique way, so why not use and stimulate that free-formed ability? To comprehend without restraint, and to apply that unrestrained perspective to one's own individual philosophy and character, is what I encourage with everything I perform and produce more than anything else. To send a message that has the ability to stimulate this freedom, by whatever means necessary, is my greatest goal and purpose in life."

Now, I know that I have mentioned Subjectivism and Objectivism, and we are furthermore speaking of the potential of a "Suggestivism," but it is important to understand that Subjective and Objective are the two masters of all isms. They focus on the concept, emotion, instinct, intuition, and impression (Subjectivism) versus the factual, evident, physical, uninterpretational, and un-emotionally influenced (objectivism). Understand then that the very conception of "Suggestivism" is a Subjective ideal, as are all art and philosophical movements. Understand this first, if you so chose to respond. Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SlightlyChaotic [2012-07-30 01:21:37 +0000 UTC]

1. Art, in all its forms, is a representation of an idea, message, or emotion. There's no reason for it to be political in any way shape or form, nor is there any reason for it to NOT be political. Art is an expression.

2. I feel like current design (though this may be less so in more traditional arts) is pushing towards minimalism. Think about how bigger houses have fewer walls, fewer rooms, and less flowery wallpapers. Think about how websites are designed to be user-friendly, uniform, and with links located in logical places. Think about current gadgets, how fewer buttons is better, and how everything is becoming just a screen. Design in particular is becoming more economic and using its real estate more efficiently.

3. I like to think about the artists motivations when creating a piece, although I feel as though it's not really important in the end. Art, in all its forms, is a representation of an idea, message, or emotion, but what's more important, the original intentions, or the received reaction?

4. Technique and aesthetics are certainly important, but only as a means to convey the artist's expression. If Cattelan's next sculpture consisted of hucking balls of play-dough at a wall, one would be hard-pressed to say it required a great deal of technique (as opposed to La Nona Ora), but I think that Cattelan has earned the right to disregard conventional technique (which he does anyways, I guess).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CitrineG [2012-07-30 01:15:06 +0000 UTC]

I often feel that if the art does not send a message, it does not speak to me, and so I lean towards disliking it. I love art that tells a story, that you have to imagine for yourself what kind of story it tells, and I try to convey that in my own work, though I often don't succeed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

roballen2 [2012-07-30 01:12:41 +0000 UTC]

I think all art should make the viewer, Think or Feel something...the more they think or feel, or BOTH, the better the art is. If I want "Wall Decorations" I'll pick one up at "Rooms To Go" that will match the current decorating trends. (along with a couple, Knick-Knacks)
roballen2

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EpicHiroTheFixer [2012-07-30 01:02:57 +0000 UTC]

1. To me, it doesn't matter if it's political or not. Nowadays, most people try to find politics in everything, and I'm not a big fan of politics myself. But, no one should find a reason to put boundaries around art, so art can be either or.

2. I'm sure there is a growing kind of movement of art, though I'm not sure what I could call it, or would call it.

3. It's kinda a tie between both. If I know the person very well, or if the artwork just smacks me with overall emotion, I do actually sit back and think about it.

4.Well, I'm not sure that most of my art has 'messages' behind it, other than drawings I do when stressed or anything like that. I would however say that my artwork does have certain vibes to it: 'Happy' for normal chibis having fun, 'strenuous' for the studies I do; just simple little vibes that come out through the characters I draw.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Zacariel [2012-07-30 00:25:25 +0000 UTC]

Well to My personal Opinion, all art is enslaved to some kind of idea, the concept of freedom to me is depending tendencies and points of view attached to some kind of genre of Ideas... Some of this suggestivism is very truthful and opens our mind to see Realities hidden sometimes by the unconcious mind... some of it is very bad taste to my opinion, but some of it is Beautiful... I have a contest going on in my Devious Journal, I invite you if you are a sugestivist artist to read it, you may be interested. Greetings

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RobBrownaswood [2012-07-30 00:23:35 +0000 UTC]

I think of good art as being a blending of the rational and emotional sides of people. That is where the power of art and artistic communication lies. You reflect society, you reflect yourself and when a piece is done you see more than you realized during the process. Creating art shouldn't just be about making a nice looking or sounding thing, something superficially pleasing, it is centered around creating understanding and creating and adding to yourself. An artist reaches into themselves to pull out their honest self from deep within. Focusing on technique and skill is just a tool to surpass shallow art and give birth to something you feel worthwhile and important to get out. I doubt the satisfaction we seek ever comes but striving for it is certainly something. Suggestivism, relativism, the need is always powerful communication of ideas and the self.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AbstractisEverything [2012-07-29 21:40:06 +0000 UTC]

Honestly, very creepy style... but cool

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hellwolve [2012-07-29 21:31:09 +0000 UTC]

Isn't "Suggestivism" an other word for "Surreal" or is it just me that thinks such a thing?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1