February 29, 2K4:
when i was
younger, i wondered what state of movement art was in. you know, like
modernism or futurism or mannerism. for awhile, i thought that i had
to have a movement to attach myself to in order to be an artist, or
create one of my own. it scared me, because i didn't have a clue what
any of the movements of history were, let alone what the contemporary
movements might be.
eventually i got observant and decided that there is no movement going
on now, at least not at a large scale. i didn't know whether i was right
or not until we finally got around to talking about it in art history
last month. dr. raverty spoke on how the trend for the last several
decades has been for the artist to do whatever he or she wants. there
are no large schools of thought going on. it seems odd to me, because
as far as i've been taught (and i could easily be wrong) there have
been two main ways of making art: continuing in the classical style,
or embarking as part of a movement.
it could be argued that art movements only alienate audiences or force
artists to reduce their works to universals. in fact, that was argued,
pretty much word-for-word, by scott of Webmaster Scott fame. My reply
was that movements always alienate people. that's their job. outsiders
find them strange until you get enough weirdoes to follow you and explore
it. that's just the way it was, it seems like: you either painted in
a more or less traditional painting style (i.e., movements that had
already been accepted) or you had a movement.
the purposes of these movements were to advance thinking or to advance
humans or to advance art. futurists believed that it was the role of
the artist to press man onward. they did art that the Man of the Future
would want--full of movement and complexity, with everything done at
once. through them, art changed and the thinking about art changed.
they were revolutionary at first, but there are few movements that we
look back on now that seem bizarre to us.
but now, it's like we're stuck. maybe because of the influx of outsider
art and the loss of emphasis on academicism, so many people without
proper training are coming in, taking art up as a hobby, and some are
making it as artists. and i'm not saying that this is a bad thing. but
there's nothing unifying any of it anymore. it's hard to compare artwork
to artwork in the present day, because the "movement" is like
free love--let everybody do whatever they want, because everyone who
wants to can find an outlet somewhere. naive middle-classers who want
cheap art, or the hundreds of discussion boards on the internet.
i'm a horribly mean art critic. i hate almost everyone. it links strongly
back to this, in my opinion. the art world doesn't have a direction.
when there's a movement, it unifies the efforts of artists so that all
their advancements can build upon each other. independent, "discovery"
artists are forging a way alone. they learn little from each other,
and they aren't forced to look at the world in a new way. you know what
you get from this? thomas kincaid paintings and pencil sketches sold
in mall booths of eagles and deer and golf balls.
i have no
idea how coherent this is. it's a late night rant written several days
after the inciting event, and it's not as if i'm the most cogent of
writers as it is. but enjoy. and let me know what you think.
are finally up and online! i'm excited, even if no one else is. so there.
the study of art history
must have in innate attraction for nuts. not necessarily the bad nuts,
like the lady in my soc class, but the flamboyant and theatrical and
sex-focused. today we studied mannerism, a weird little movement that
was sort of a sub-movement during the high renaissance period. it's
definitely creepy and not at all flush with the movements preceding
or following it, but the professor was flailing and was eager to point
out the innuendo in the paintings. you'd think the crucifixion and paintings
of mary and her baby jesus would be innocuous little pieces, too. of
course, last semester's professor talked (and looked) like the hypothetical
offspring of JFK and Woody Allen, and he found sexual connotations in
everything. According to him, the steam engine was one large monument
people are so weird. i'm
in sociology lecture, and there's some guy two rows in front of me licking
a spoon, sure he was probably just eating a breakfast on the go, but
it still looks weird in the middle of lecture. also, the crazy lady
who usually sits in the corner to my left is now sitting in the row
behind me. when she sat down, she was talking to herself about souls.
she's asking a question now--which she does often--but today she seems
to have affected an accent.
today, i am finally turning
in my glass sculpture. its craft is a little messy, and i've thought
of a multitude of things i'd do differently if i had the time or patience,
but it's due today, and that makes me the happiest girl in the world.
also, my hands are the happiest hands in the world.
perhaps when i get the piece back, i will tear apart the bits i don't
like to make them neater and more pleasing. or perhaps i will accidentally
drop it while sashaying carelessly around the top of the stairwell,
and enjoy watching it explode.