Aaron-R-Morse In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 15:25:59 +0000 UTC]

an appropriate message is important, and i am sure most artists have that as the centerpiece to their work. Though the message should be versatile. Letting the viewer turn it in to something of their own, BUT keeping the original meaning you intended it to have. Unlike something with a forced opinion. I could paint a girl crying, with her parents fighting in the background. No explanation given. some would like it just for how well it was done, Some would come to love it because it gives them an emotional connection to their rough childhood. but if i forced the aspect of WHY they fought, and WHY she cried, to something stupid such as "oh they are all fighting over the last bowl of cereal, nothing too serious" (bad example) it sort of shatters the image then. apolitical, political, doesn't matter too much. Freedom is art. Do as you will with it, whats important is not to shove any opinions down anyone's throats, or tell them how they HAVE TO view it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mehrzweckraum In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 15:21:06 +0000 UTC]

boooooring.

and you are looking at a different problem: content and process.
most art is created out of the urge to do so, heck, that's the whole point of it. hence the problem that even great artist produce some rubbish during their lifetime. juices aint the same all the time.

general genres are determined by content (cubism, barock, etc) .. suggestivism is determined by process (gotta get this brain fluke outta my head) and could probably backtraced to cave-drawings..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LittleHardcoreHazard In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 15:19:54 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
I personally think that there SHOULD be room for both, though pending on how more political artists see this, there may be a conflict between the political and apolitical side of art. Personally, I would prefer if this didn't happen, but people can be opinionated so...
Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
I think something is brewing, but I think it'll be something deeper than political v. apolitical. Being the anti-establishment person that I am, I can see artists having to work together just to have the right to get their expression out there. So if that is the case, then it would help sooth the political v. apolitical conflict at hand, opening up doors that can help us get over it.
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 try my best to figure it out. I used to be very closed-minded to that concept, but going into the modern dance world has helped me in analyzing all forms of art, though I can't say I'm an expert at doing it yet! *laughs*
In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
At the moment, I feel that I need to improve my skills in drawing/painting etc. before I try to transmit some sort of message, though that is my overall intention for later. Right now, if I really need to get a message out there, I'll do it through my writing and/or my comic books/strips.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KazumiAkai In reply to red-moon-rabbit [2012-07-28 14:58:41 +0000 UTC]

i thought exactly the same.This is nothing new! The only difference is nowadays we have traditional and digital media as ways to make art, nothing more

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

red-moon-rabbit In reply to KazumiAkai [2012-07-28 15:54:20 +0000 UTC]

Yes, if they had introduced suggested that this was a new movement of art called Digitalism (or whatever) as we all know, then then is undeniably new. But Suggestivism is just a mash of lots of other movements... and common sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

magickalmoon In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 14:32:10 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Well in this size of art world I certainly feel like there is room for both. Political issues speak deeply to many people, but many others couldn't give a fig. Personally I take a little tiny bit from politics but it's not such that it ends up being a major factor in my work - I don't have a problem with this. Sometimes I feel like overtly political work is just way too in your face and an easy target, but it depends more on the artist and how I feel they're using politics to sway my opinion.

Particular movements? not so much - again the art world is so big and interconnected in such a way that there are groups of people working in diffierent schools at the same time. I think thats a pretty cool thing.

As for "meaning" in work, I think I try to find some sort of meaning in everything I look at, even if it's a lack there of. This one hugely depends on the work that your looking at, what signifiers did the artist use? Does it imply that they want you to look deeper? For instance I saw a show recently titled "the word" Text in art necessarily conveys meaning - this particular show focused on manipulating religious texts into aesthetic designs and presenting those changeable church road signs. It was pretty cool and very thought provoking but I didn't look at the show in the next room the same which was all very abstract art in the form of grids and tiny colored squares.

In my art there is some sort of meaning, but I don't try to be very specific with it. There is meaning in my source material (Islamic art) and there is purpose in my physical materials, but it's more about the process and the meditative effect it has on me (and maybe that will extend to my viewer). So I would say my main focus is technique and aesthetic - which is why I go for patterns and geometry instead of representational imagery.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

d00dl31sfun In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 14:18:14 +0000 UTC]

just came here for the art...but yeah i totally agree with what you said 100% ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Amor13 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 14:16:08 +0000 UTC]

1: Art shouldn't be either political or apolitical, it's should be your own views on the world.

2: During a movement, no one really notices it until it becomes a dominate factor

3: I always try to find a story behind ann artwork

4: With my own art, I always try to represent a part of myself or other people by use of symbolism which usually tells a sort of story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

michaeldaks In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 14:07:47 +0000 UTC]

"art can no longer be classified by something or anything alone because it will continue to evolve into something we really can't expect as one simple/singular thing, art is created by the mind of a person, he thoughts and our thoughts cannot be gauged at all."

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mark-D-Powers In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:57:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for posting this perspective.

*The artist allows the soul of his deepest artistic intuitions “suggest” what to create, without all the over-thinking. The artist can ponder the “meaning” of the vision produced later, along with everyone else.*

Love it. Well put.

When people ask me what kind of pictures I draw, I struggle with a response. Surrealism? Abstract Expressionism? Dadaism? Nihilism? No, not really.

As far as -isms go, I like the term ESSENTIALISM, but I don't really see it catching on.

I draw pictures but the pictures are not the purpose. The purpose is to draw, almost always, whatever comes naturally. Call it "drawing for the sake of drawing."

Drawing while uncluttered by a message, and unbound by style, produces just a drawing. It's basic, elemental, natal...just the essentials of your mind. It's also imperative, vitally important, and almost necessary [that I draw].

Therefore, Essentialism works for me as an ideal, an aim. After all, we're each influenced differently. The closer we get to something like automaticism, we often find ourselves almost naturally using a particular style because something in us says that's how we're going to create at that moment. And, sometimes, we have something to say, so we're actually trying to communicate, not just create.

According to Hegarty, the paradox of nihilism is "that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning."

AND

The essential properties of a painting are those without which it is no longer a painting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Journey-Fox In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:51:40 +0000 UTC]

1. theres room for both....i think. im guessing political/apolitical has to do with wheather the art is about politics or not?

2. yes....it's bad because that movement is the fact people are starting to call utter bullcrap art.
i think art is self expression from your mind, and from your soul, expression of your passions and things you like, basically whats in your mind. but splattering paint on a canvas? bah! the only artistic thing about that is the names people give those pieces! because, technically, the laws of fluid physics do the work, your not expressing yourself.

3. much like youtube's rating system, i choose wheather i like it or not.

4. i'm just concerned with the looks, because often times when i try to transmit a message, what comes out on the paper/photoshop canvas/ etc. frightens me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RainbowDashery In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:40:52 +0000 UTC]

Huh.
I don't know why, but i kinda love that Simian Operation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Oona1960 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:08:02 +0000 UTC]

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

Art is both and neither. There is no "must be this" and "must be that".


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

Freestyles in many mediums, old and new. It's fascinating to see what new ones come up from fabulous creativity. It isn't good or bad. As the old saying goes, "What is one person's art is another person's garbage."



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 center subject. Overt symbology gets to you right off, good or bad. Freer minds will look for the other evoking themes. Subtler memes allow the viewer to be part of the "what does it say to me" process.


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

The message is in the piece. It leads you or you lead it. A zen sort of answer but art is art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

andsoitburns In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:07:21 +0000 UTC]

Suggestivism? are you kidding me? This is one of the most ridiculous, asinine things I ever read.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RainbowDashery In reply to andsoitburns [2012-07-28 13:41:25 +0000 UTC]

You are Cray-Cray if you think this isn't amazing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

andsoitburns In reply to RainbowDashery [2012-07-31 04:03:52 +0000 UTC]

It is a joke. Plain and simple.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sumgie1 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:05:07 +0000 UTC]

1. There can be any kind of art. I don't see why not.

2. Well, it is said that there is the Post-modernist movement. As far as I understand, it is defined by the lack of rules and the fading of the boundaries of artforms, the multiple-layer pieces and encouragement of open interpretations. I guess Suggestivism can be a part of it.

I guess everything has its pros and cons. But, as I see it, it's great to give the artists and art lovers this freedom.

3. I do both. Generally, I just feel like sitting back and enjoying. But, at times, I feel like thinking about the meaning, intent and whatnot.

4. All. Though, my main goal is to create something that interests me, thrills me, is topical to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

1r0zz0 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:04:18 +0000 UTC]

1) art is both personal and social, closing it in stupid definition of "political and apolitical" is going against art itself.

2) yes. "delusional-ism" everyone believe they are the best and new. but they aren't

3)there MUST be intention or motivation. that is why most comics and pictures are just "nice drawings".

4)"technique"(and it not mean make a cute picture with lots of colors. actually now colors make art feel EMPTY, just a facade) aestetics and technique are INTRINSIC to ART.
without that is just a "cute drawing" but not much else...


nowadays we can say there is not "strong" art movement, but simply because we are not in the future. maybe 10 years from now a new manifesto will be written...
what I can say is that the Comic book is not the future of art. nor a computer.

nor manga. especially if you are not Japanese...

the thing is that what I see mostly in this article is surrealism...something that is already MAINSTREAMED...


maybe this current should be called "ignorant-ism" not knowing something makes you the opener of an already open door....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Viviax In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:03:52 +0000 UTC]

1. Art can be anything you want. There's no limits.

2. No idea. I don't give a crap about 'movements'. I just do or collect art here.

3. I look at a piece. If it's not monothisistic, and has no hidden nastiness, and I like it, I favourite it and put it in a folder.

4. My art is what the muses send me. But with a reason. I do portraits, action scenes, lots of things. They have the glyphs for the spells and magic used on them. Also the patterns on the people and clothes mean things and are as they would appear on the real thing. Sometimes I put glyphs not directly to do with the scene, as it would be in action, on them. It depends. There's no deep meanings to them beyond that. They are what they are. Nothing more. A persons a person, a glyphs a glyph, a runes a rune, a buildings a building. What you see is what you get.

Forcing meanings on art is stupid most of the time.
Especially stupid when the artists dead.
It's more likely that that flower is a flower, the tree is a tree, the colour looked good, and they're stood that way because they looked good that way.
Nothing more.

And those pictures in your article. There is some ugly rubbish there.
Some of it's ok, the rest looks like something you'd do when high.
Some of it is just nasty.
It's good to have some discipline and focus in art.
Some of those, they needed it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

anly In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:02:34 +0000 UTC]

Normally I would jump up and down and welcome a "new" movement. However part of me just feels like its just a lot of other styles all rammed together. The idea you use your imagination of what it could be isn't a new one as ALL artists know that even though they might try to convey a particular message it has always been down to the actual viewers to determine its message. Instead of it being about artists journey of idea's and how it came to be, it instead becomes a rather "cold" and thoughtless piece of work where the art has no meaning until the viewer gives it one. (BTW, MOST of the pictures shown to represent this new idea could be placed in a style or movement that already exists)

The ONLY difference to me is the way the art is produced. At Uni I was taught to explore the idea's I had to produce a message and a body of work though sketchbooks, reading, making models etc..., to which I worked on for over 3 years during my degree; Which is the way art schools have always worked.

Personally I think the best term to use would be Outsider Art which is for those who produce work (mostly self taught artists) but haven't been institutionalized in the art world itself....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KayIscah In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 13:02:05 +0000 UTC]

1. Absolutely room for both.

2. I don't really keep up with movements well. While violence has always been part of art, I think gore has become more accepted as "art", worse as humor...and I don't think the violent humor trend is doing any favors to society. Granted I'm using art in its broadest sense...but I think this trend has seeped through multiple levels.

3. It depends on the piece. Somethings are simply visual treats, others say something. I do think art, being visual, ought to be pleasant to look at. If it's jarring or unpleasant, it should have a very good reason for being so. Otherwise it's just bad art.

4. Again it depends... I like to think of myself as a storyteller, but sometimes I just get an interesting image in my head.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pinestater234 In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:57:31 +0000 UTC]

I get a chuckle out your statement that, “Suggestivism” is as apolitical as our largely apolitical times." I see that you are from the U.S., as am I. While this may not be the most political period in this country's history, it's certainly not apolitical. I'd have to say that often politics and art are joined at the hip. Think of all the artists who have been persecuted because their art ran afoul of the political atmosphere in their country. And then, of course, there have been the artists who knew that, in order to get patronage, they had to know which way the political winds were blowing.

Have you done a feature about art and politics, yet? It would make a fascinating essay.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RadenWA In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:56:16 +0000 UTC]

In a way every art can be suggestive, since at the end whether the artist put message or not in it, it'd be up to the viewers to decide their own personal interpretation of it that the artist itself might never even thought of. Or sometimes the artist intended to put a particular message on the art, but it ends up the art conveyed a different message that even the artist just realized upon reviewing the artwork......Art is really hardly a solid, exact thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RikkaPiko In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:32:57 +0000 UTC]

1. I think politics and art do clash a bit. We try to be as rational as humanly possible (which is not all that much, sometimes) and that's more or less the only way politics should be made (they hardly are, I admit that). While art is something from within, from the heart, form the soul if you will. Art can exaggarate, lead into wild, surreal parts of ourselves that do need exploring. But that part should not take part in politics. On the other hand some artists did and do have a great way of expressing their political issues. So, art can be political. Just not for me.
2. Well, how should I know? I am a hobbyist who doesn't even really care if I do art or kitsch. I just do what I like and I really miss the education to see that worldwide.
3. Often I cannot surpress the urge to interpret the artist. Sometimes I just delve into the piece of art. Really, the more I like the aesthetics the more I get lost...
4. Again- how would I know? The subconcious does make a fool out of me quite often!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LemonadeDinosaur In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:28:27 +0000 UTC]

so its art first work out the meaning second? if thats the case i think its a good thing some artists spend to long trying to hid a mesage this path seems more natrual and protraying what the artist realy feels instead of what thy are trying to make you see
as for the qwestions
1. yes i think theres room for both
2. not as much as there has been in the past art is ever growing and progressing as taste changes and new idears are made. however i feel art has been slower with progres now. :S a difrent stily can only be a god thing giveing art more room to grow and bild new idears from.
3. if the mesage is verry clear i will think aboult it and why they are highlighting it thought there work but i will not straing myself serching for a hiden mesage that might not be there. in witch case i look at it on whether i a a individual like it and what its makeing me feel
some times i make it to show a mesage. but more often than not i use art as a fun way to show my corative side and just make what i feel like i try and profect my teckneck and stly to make me a better artest and my work as good as posible but i do not verry oftin use art as a way to make a point.
this knew stly apels to me

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlitheMisnomer In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:14:09 +0000 UTC]

1. Art has the right to be neither, both, or everything in between.

2. Yes, I see and feel MANY movements in the world of arts today. Although some traditionalists may feel that these movements may tamper on old school techniques, schools, and aesthetics, I do think these current movements are good. It signifies the colorful evolution and diversity of creative minds.

3. I like to separate my eye for execution of Techniques and Application of Aesthetics with the Audience Impact of the artist's message. However, I still think what makes up a good masterpiece worth the recognition are the ones that possess both.

4. I'm more of a poet than a visual artist; most of the time I cannot help but think of the message I would like to convey first before aesthetics and technique. But as I've answered in the third question, I do appreciate a good and meaningful art when I see one.

That said,
I do not think Suggestivism should be considered another movement or official "-ism" in the world of Art. Art bearing any hint of subjectivity or suggestive-ness is only a natural and inevitable result when an artist does his piece with meaningful intent. The level of suggestivism depends on the audience's point of view and ability to interpret.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Treyos In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:08:53 +0000 UTC]

So this so-called "suggestivism" is an artist just drawing/painting kind of randomly and seeing what comes out? There's another term for that. Doodling. These pieces take it a step further in terms of completion, but coming up with some fancy name doesn't make it a "movement," it's just someone trying to make themselves feel better and/or appear more cultured and "artsy." I don't see any connection between these pieces and, while I like a couple of them, most don't do anything for me at all. Artists want to paint randomish pieces without any particular meaning or pre-planning, by all means, go to it! But don't put on airs or try to make it more than it is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mglanzer In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:07:35 +0000 UTC]

NO. I refuse to accept the term 'suggestivism', since - at least since the beatnik movement, every artist is doing exactly that. The Punchline is, that most (modern) art fits the requirements to be 'suggestivism'. It's just like 'inventing' a new musical genre that's named 'music with guitars'. What a unnecessary classification.

But sure, if someone can use this classification as a vehicle to offer courses for another four-digit-sum, at least it means cash for someone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

hazefeather In reply to mglanzer [2012-07-28 13:02:04 +0000 UTC]

you just made my day with that comment... Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sleepyowlet In reply to mglanzer [2012-07-28 12:31:38 +0000 UTC]

I loled. Well said!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kokoronokogo In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:03:11 +0000 UTC]

..Art encompasses almost or perhaps everything, whether that be political or apolitical. I consider myself as an artist. When I tried to create something, I do consider only my ideas and the message I wanted to express and try to imitate how they are arranged in my head. Satisfaction is only achieved if I felt that I have really captured my mind's picture. I also look the other way. I will also try to find the message in other artist's works as well.♥

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jonmkl In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 12:01:58 +0000 UTC]

aka "I-consistently-have-very-horrifying-nightmares-ism"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jonmkl In reply to Jonmkl [2012-07-28 12:03:54 +0000 UTC]

and sometimes as "FEEL-SOMETHING-DAMN-YOU-ism"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sumgie1 In reply to Jonmkl [2012-07-28 13:22:42 +0000 UTC]

How about Here's-a-bunch-of-stuff-ism?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MystiqueX In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:56:01 +0000 UTC]

I'd just like to point out that for 99.99% of the cases the artistic intuition is NOT a natural instinct, it is trained and forged through learning, study, practice. Even just visualizing a concept is achieved by the artist's previous experiences and knowledge and also influenced by them, let alone transposing the thought/idea to a medium that allows others to experience/see/feel/hear/taste it.

1. Art has been political for a very long time and I doubt that will change anytime soon. Of course there's room for both and there usually is a very fine line between them.

2. Pretty sure the very existence of this website proves there's room in the art world for anything.

3. Yes, I do look for a meaning, message, back story, try to "read" the author's line of thought. IMO a good image always tells a story (whether we're aware of it or not).
I model environments, so I usually plan ahead when starting a project: medium, software, concept, building it (the technical part), painting and presenting it (aesthetic part). And yes, there is a reason why I choose to start the project and a message to it, i.e. with my current fan art project I'm trying to say I miss the Myst series, the puzzles and the alien worlds, the careful details and the great storylines. Obviously I'm also trying to say, hey, check out what's on my mind these days, but don't we all do that?...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dischart In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:45:24 +0000 UTC]

Interesting. I'm been using the term Suggestivism toward some of my art for about 20 years now.
Even that is not new, at least not to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PwnKage In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:31:18 +0000 UTC]

1. Don't talk to me about politics. Art should only ever be used to challenge politics and never be used as positive reinforcement. God knows our bloated figure heads don't need any more ego stoking.

2. It's interesting that you figure out this entire movement when largely these artists are not connected. I always understood this vague style of art is a reference to surrealism and concept art.

All the art showcased here is magnificent. I think it's a bit limiting to say that they're some sort of 'movement'. I like to think that a movement is more of a thing of the past. So much art is accepted nowadays, it becomes hard to challenge things or put forth a movement's ideology which doesn't seem so narrow in focus. The world just doesn't work like that anymore.

I'm pretty sure some of the artists featured did have an intended message in mind. Possibly.

3. Is it not possible to do both? Although I usually prefer looking at the aesthetics. The bigger picture is more important to me. If it interests me enough, I'll try and figure out whatever.

4. Messages are overrated buggers. I'm always trying to improve my shitty art so yeah. I like working on my technique a lot. If there's nothing on the page, it can't convey a message very effectively. I like to draw characters, they're fun. It's not much of a message, but I like the idea of showing a character through what they look like, what they wear, what they're doing, colour/lighting/tone/line/textures etc. There's a message in technique also.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

stako In reply to ??? [2012-07-28 11:28:14 +0000 UTC]

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

- Depends on the age and need of society. Most artists cannot mannage to witstand the pressure of society, for society's reactions on politics cast emotions on the artist, therefore he/she works. The choice is personal, but in any cast at least a bit of both.

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

- Depends on the point of view and acceptence of art. I wouldnt say movement, but still it's there and it must be acknowledged and respected, although one has the right to opinion and tastes vary as human reactions do.

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?

- Everyone interprets things differently. A piece of art that is made to be political can be accepted as an interpretation of love by some and that is why art is beutiful, everlasting and perfect - because it gives not only freedom to expression, but also for comprehension.

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

- Going by my saying above, freedom is freedom, I don't believe there can be any exact style that depicts only one thing, sooner or later the frame falls - thats why the frame is there and why art exists. And further more why people like and (a)buse it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0