zembelle In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 21:08:19 +0000 UTC]

If anything, "suggestivism" is just postmodernism translated into paints and pastels and graphite.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MasturbationProcess In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 19:50:56 +0000 UTC]

I think the ultimate art is something that has full package in itself: the hidden authors thoughts, multiple meanings for watchers, artistic mastery, mastery in using art tools for the piece, etc. So this suggestivism term and those little samples in article are a mere nice looking pictures with simple ideas, or no ideas whatsoever. I don't think it's revolutionary or groundbreaking, since such pictures have been drawn/painted for more than hundred years and the term "suggestivism" could go for them, but definitely not for all categories, that's just poopy talk ;]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to BargaoanMS [2012-07-29 19:23:39 +0000 UTC]

A wall is never empty. A nude wall is emptier than one covered with graffiti but not completely empty. On certain overcast days the sky appears to be an uniform gray that the eye can not focus upon. While the eye is trying to focus on something, anything, the dust motes on the surface of the cornea can momentarily come into focus. What does this have to do with your comment? Sometimes the deeper meaning in an empty wall is immediately obvious.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BargaoanMS In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-30 20:08:14 +0000 UTC]

An empty wall is an empty wall, he doesn't have a reason for itself but for for us everything MUST have a reason, a purpose 'couse our brain is built this way.
So what i want to say... everything is suggestive for us if we try too but not for all in the same way.
Ah, i really like most of pictures above, just i don't think suggestivism can be a new "art category" (we allready have symbolism and surrrealism and is pretty much same deal).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

reedymanedkelpie In reply to vindiico [2012-07-29 19:35:50 +0000 UTC]

I would tend to agree. I don't see evidence here of work that breaks new ground. Perhaps there is some rearranging/remixing of existing ground, but nothing that calls for its own 'ism'.
I do agree though with the idea that art comes from an intuitive rather than an intellectual/conceptual basis.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vindiico In reply to reedymanedkelpie [2012-07-30 21:31:23 +0000 UTC]

If all of art comes from an intuitive basis, then we don't need a special category to separate intuitive art from non-intuitive art because it's all intuitive. However, I believe it can from both the origins you listed.

If you look at the greater history of art, art has only been seen as a form of self-expression and as a mode for challenging life (i.e. meant for breaking new ground) for maybe 100 to 130 years. Before that, it was highly technical and intellectual. So when it comes down to it, you can detonate such art as "modern" or "post-modern" though those labels are weak in and of themselves. I guess in that latter sense, "suggestivism" could refine an era of art so poorly named. However, I don't think that particular label does the era anymore justice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

reedymanedkelpie In reply to vindiico [2012-07-31 13:35:35 +0000 UTC]

I see the intellect as a translator or analyzer of the world and intuitions.
I think for as long as people have existed art has been "a form of self-expression and as a mode for challenging life", as well as a means for trying to translate into physical form perceptions from the world far vaster than our conscious awareness and predating logical constructs. I think it's always been a need, and animals must have it too, and would create if they had the hands and means to do it. Actually, the gorillas Koko and Michael have been given the opportunity, and enjoy painting -- [link] Art is not a human thing, it's a basic motivating force of life; perhaps evolution itself is partly a creative act.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ravensartshack In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 17:55:49 +0000 UTC]

This article needs to be rewritten. Be clear about what you want to say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xxxxDamienxxx In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 17:35:07 +0000 UTC]

Amazing artwork. I simply MUST get into this style more....this sounds right up my ally

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kkitat In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 17:18:38 +0000 UTC]

Looks awesome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mousasomy In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 16:35:50 +0000 UTC]

gave yr brain another huge space

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DyRF In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 15:52:15 +0000 UTC]

love it !, and a very well written article there keep it up.
personally i am of the belief, that analyzing and curiosity, is close to eachother, and curiosity is in my oppinion a good trade to have.

and sorry the danish english haha , that is what gaming does to you. ruins your english x)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to puplite [2012-07-29 17:31:16 +0000 UTC]

I really like what your saying about allowing the viewer to investigate their own thoughts rather you telling what they're "supposed" to think.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Skeleton-Boy In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 14:42:26 +0000 UTC]

Interesting article. I think suggestivism is a pretty vague "movement" and I can't really wrap my head around what its unifying theme is supposed to be other than... what? It's good? The artist tried hard? It looks weird sometimes?

You're *never* supposed to define something by what it's not more than by what it is.

As for calling it the trend of our times or whatever, I'm going to disagree a WHOLE lot with that one. The featured pieces are great, of course, but they're clearly surrealist or symbolist works made by illustrators. That's not new, it's real old.

I've been seeing a trend though, popping up in cities during the recession that I think is going to get really big. I don't know what to call it but I'd suggest names like "participationism" or the like. Process-oriented, community-based stuff. Stuff that makes average people on the street feel like artists. Google Improv Everywhere and you'll see what I'm thinking of I hope. Performance art is spiking, street art is spiking, interactive art, viral videos, and ARGs are all spiking.

Meanwhile artist-as-visionary stuff is tanking really, really hard. That's because people are used to pictures now, they see pictures every day. Posters, movies, tv shows, video games, this websites. Visual artists these days are amazing and work non-stop on those. The media is simply over-saturated with visionary creativity. The attitude of the average art viewer these days is, "oh hey look a digital painting of a dragon that would have made people cower with fear 30 years ago. yawn. oh look a photo of a sculpture that looks like a dog made out of meat. I wonder what's on youtube. Oh a trailer for a mind-blowing special effects extravaganza. I hope it doesn't suck."

Meanwhile people are itching for something that makes them feel ALIVE. Creativity is an ACTIVity that is coded into our DNA, but so many people just sort of passively absorb the stuff that somebody drew at a computer. In the back of people's minds, they're itching for live music, for plays, they're itching to watch a guy make beautiful art in chalk on the sidewalk in real time in front of them. They want to see somebody do something crazy in REAL LIFE. No more of this ready-made direct-download art.

I think this movement I see is political in its apoliticalness, that is, it's populist and anarchistic. The more people get out in the real world to participate in art, the more they participate in their communities, the more socialized they become. The more somebody realizes that humans create stuff with their hands, the more they realize that they have the power to change society. DIY and counterculturalism spikes. Critical thinking spikes.

It goes beyond message, beyond medium. The medium is the message and the medium-message is ACTION.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to Skeleton-Boy [2012-07-29 18:00:25 +0000 UTC]

*Never* sounds pretty final.
There is no need to state what something is not when there is a well established agreed upon definition of what it is.
But sometimes there is no agreed upon definition of what something is. In that case it can be useful to narrow down the possibilities by listing the the things that are generally agreed upon that it is not.

I like what you said about ACTIVity and DNA, that's insightful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SalvidorMonkey In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-30 20:52:18 +0000 UTC]

You write good. I really liked: "Hey a human made that! I'm a human! I can make stuff!" because I tell myself and tell anyone else that about a million times a day!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Skeleton-Boy In reply to SalvidorMonkey [2012-07-30 16:59:24 +0000 UTC]

You're right, never say never I guess.
I shouldn't have made it sound like defining something in negative terms is *wrong* per se.
It's just kind of flimsy, that's all. It's important to figure out the common formal traits and/or purpose that pieces of artwork have, positively, before they can be grouped together. If all we know is that they're *not* part of other movements, then that's all we can say. A thousand pieces of artwork that are unlike any other could each be the start of a thousand unique movements, one can't logically assume that they're together unless common ground can be identified.

I gather that the common form/purpose of "suggestivist" art is to inspire or "suggest" original interpretations in the viewer. And I can see how that's distinct from the branch of artworks that aim to be concrete. In fact I have a lot to say about my own personal preference for "suggestive" work as opposed to explicit work, and how I think verisimilitude is passé, and an essay on that might be coming soon. But I also don't think that "suggestivism" is especially new (even though the name is new). Most modern art movements had some form of "suggestion instead of declaration" in mind. Impressionism, expressionism, cubism, surrealism and symbolism are just a few.

So I wonder why *now* would be the time for suggestivism to be recognized as a thing. I think a really compelling case could be made that combines what this author is saying about suggestion and what I said earlier about participation. When we look at a work that relies on US to fill in the blanks with our imaginations (that may mean it's a collage, or it's abstracted, or it's surreal, or it's got an imbalanced composition, or it's a cartoon, or it's mysterious, or you can see the brushtrokes or the fingerprints) then we suddenly become a PART of the circuit. The art sucks the audience in to its meaning-making process, into the creative process. Then we can say "Hey a human made that! I'm a human! I can make stuff!" and then it all flows into what I said above about activity. So I certainly don't have a problem with the term "suggestivism." In fact, I did a little jig when I thought about the term's implications. I just don't think simply *identifying* suggestivism is enough. Let's get some theory going about why.

I also don't think a work becomes any less suggestive if it's political or message-driven (the sculptures and stories produced by Bread and Puppet Theatre, for example, are surreally suggestive and also political). I would even go so far as to say that meaning is more important the more "suggestive" a piece is.

The question of what's happening in today's art world is really fascinating to me. What are the art history books going to say about us, really?

Thanks for your comment!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Slayer-Igraine In reply to Skeleton-Boy [2012-07-29 16:40:53 +0000 UTC]

I'd suggest collaboration, and I agree. And I think it's a really good way forward, too. More people need to *do*.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HungrySnail In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 14:31:16 +0000 UTC]

1. A lot of the time, art is just a reflection. Sometimes it's a reflection of one's emotions; sometimes of one's soul; and sometimes, of politics. Therefore, there can be both.
2. Art moves along with society. With today's constantly changing social systems, current movements within the art world are inevitable-- and everywhere.
3. Mostly the former. Although I must admit, there are some pieces that are simply a matter of technique.
4. It depends.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeaconStrucktor In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 14:25:34 +0000 UTC]

"ism's are like Jell-o, there's always room for more."

People have been classifying things since before the Ancient Greeks (Plato and others) started writing about classification in their philosophical treatises; I'm sure they'll be able to think up another 'ism' or two down the line in the future.

1. It depends on what your definition of Politics would be. Without getting supremely detailed and fussy about our definitions: If you view politics as a system of control over large groups of people, art will always be used to either reinforce that system or react against it. A lack of reaction against something is merely passive reinforcement. If you think of politics as the act of balancing different opinions and priorities then art will always be political as it is an artist's viewpoint or opinion, strongly held or not. Even the simplest still life study says something. Over-all, I think it is difficult to separate large order 'Politics' from art; when, as humans, we are social, political creatures. Small order 'politics' such as party propaganda, and controversial subject matter that is used to divide political parties, doesn't necessarily need to be evident in art but it can be and has been successfully used. (by successful we mean both that it has swayed peoples opinions, or politics, and also that it evokes some type of feeling, as Art should do. (see Socialist Realism wikipedia [link] for example)

2. I sense a movement towards 'Furryism' in the art world today. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of vehemently held opinion. Only time will tell.

3. I always try to determine the artist's intent, because there always is one, whether it's a conceptual statement, an evoked emotion, or a fun practice sketch. Any time a person chooses to create something there is intent. The degree to which this intent is fleshed out and explored depends on the artist inclination and skill. Deciding whether or not I like a certain piece has more to do with personal opinion and tastes and whether the artist was able to convey their intent clearly. With regard to literature, "How To Read A Book" by Mortimer Adler - [link] touches on the answers to this question. In fact, this question is the driving purpose behind that excellent book. This question also touches on the topic of critique: do we like/dislike something? Do we understand why this is so? Have we attempted to understand what is being said in a piece of art? I think there is a trend in the world today towards a pop media mentality of naive judgment - the news, pop media, etc have all descended into byline snippets where you are told what to think in 100 words or less, or how to think like 'us', rather than how to think - period.

4. Always, for reasons I've touched on in #3. Whether the 'Message' is an opinion I hold close to my heart, or whether the 'message' is "hey this is just a fun practice piece" there is always something being said. If something is created purely for aesthetics there is still a message: The artist is providing something to be viewed as "beautiful", as a simplistic example - what does this tell us?

1. the artist is holding this up as an example of beauty - if we find it beautiful, we agree with the artist.
2. Beauty is an appreciation of an optimistic viewpoint - so there must be beauty in life for it to be represented in Art.
3. Life is good and worth-while.
I'm sure we could think of more points if we really tried.

Now try it with a piece of art which some would say is concerned only with 'Technique'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DeaconStrucktor In reply to DeaconStrucktor [2012-08-01 14:09:47 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you on all three points!
You are right; technique probably can't be separated from aesthetics completely, and re-reading question 4 I realized that they were being lumped as one. I wasn't really suggesting that they should be viewed as existing independently, only that there are messages that can be read from a 'technical' work too.
For instance, 1. A work that might be termed 'highly technical' or 'polished' exhibits a large degree of skill and patience on the part of the artist.
2. Patience and Attention to detail are desirable qualities to cultivate in one's work and one's life.
3. If we agree with the artist, by approving of their product, it places the burden on us to cultivate Patience and Attention to detail in our own lives (Just as when reading a practical text, we'll use arithmetic as an example for simplicity, if we read the chapter on addition and learn the rules that govern it and now agree that 2+2=4, we must continue to use that knowledge going forward in our lives and not insist afterwards that 2+2=9) Though we are welcome to disagree with the artist and author, of course, provided our reasoning for doing so is clear.

What would you suggest as a "dangerous art"? Graffiti? => creating freely = dangerous? Education? (not sure if it's an 'art' as such) => intelligent citizenry = dangerous? Some kind of art movement I'm unaware of?
I'm kind of ambivalent towards graffiti, on the one hand, I can appreciate the styles and free expression of the artist, on the other I can understand the view of the building owner who may not wish to have their building act as a canvas, and who have to spend time and money to have it covered up (suppressed). In this case it's not really the government that is committing the suppression, though it could be.

Thanks for taking time to comment!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SalvidorMonkey In reply to DeaconStrucktor [2012-07-29 18:25:04 +0000 UTC]

There are several excellent well articulated points made here. I'm just going comment on two.
A dumbed-down citizenry is easier to control. People creating freely can not be controlled. This why governments always try to suppress what they call "dangerous" art.
Isn't the practice of "pure technique" a kind of aesthetic that transcends technique? Separation of aesthetics from technique might be useful for purposes of discussion, but can these things exist independently?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Transbot9 In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 13:54:48 +0000 UTC]

Seems a bit silly to coin another "ism" when everything up there is already covered by another "ism." Even the philosophy behind Suggestivism has cycled through the art world several times in the last century+

I guess it could work as a sub-category of Post-Modernism, but post-modernism is already where the art world pretty much said "Screw it, we can't keep track of these things anymore." It's already broken down.

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
It can be whatever the artist and the viewer believes it can be.

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
The current movement is a shift to digital mediums and museums. It is very difficult to find a traditional museum that would be willing to showcase digital artwork. The only exception to this is digital photography, but photography already had to overcome the "oh, all the work is done by the machines" mentality long before computers.

I've ran into people who believe that digitally created art is not real art, and that sites like Deviantart are not real museums. These people have forgotten/ignored many of the philosophies that have appeared in Dada and Post Modernism - something is created with the intent to be art, therefore it is art. The Neo-luddite response is really based on the fact that by making art digital and placing it on the web, it is no longer scarce. Since art is no longer scarce, it's now threatening their income (which is the real reason why they're upset).

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'm lazy, so I usually keep my analytical hat off and hanging on a near by peg. It's fun to put it on every now and again, but a sizable portion of art analysis is the art of bullshyte.

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
I draw what I draw, usually things that strike my fancy or what people pay me to draw. For me, art is about communication - even if that communication is something as simple is "hey, check out this cool starship." It's rare that I bother with something that has deep undertones.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gessha In reply to ??? [2012-07-29 13:10:13 +0000 UTC]

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

Well, the middle way is the best way. I think there's room for both.

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

No, there's a little bit from everything. In today's global world people are influenced by many thingg, which can be a good thing and a bad thing.

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?

Depends on the art.

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

For now, I just shoot(Photography, I'm not an artist-killer) to find the aesthetical and beaitiful. Maybe, when I get really into it, I'll begin to transmit messages...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0