|Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:00 am: |
I love all forms of modern art. Anyone got strong views for or against?
I only give one example at this stage: modern serious (classical?) music such as that by Penderecki*, Ligeti, Thomas Ades, James MacMillan etc. etc. really conveys, for me, the feel and ethos of HORROR!!
*have you heard his 'Threnody For the Victims of Hiroshima', just as one example?
THE NEMONICON about this trade paperback.
NEMONYMOUS about this famous journal.
Irreducibles: the main DFL blog.
Weirdmonger Wheel: Shortened version.
THE HAWLER: the start of DFL’s 2006 trilogy of novels that can be read for free on the internet.
THE VISITOR: the start of DFL's 1974 novel where you can learn about ‘The Egnisomicon’ (1967), the Visitoral hordes and the unforgettable art Master. All free on the internet.
candlemass, snail trail, grass etc. (2006)
|Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 03:05 am: |
How about, say, blank canvases masquerading as art?
|Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
Therefore, do you feel it is now impossible for an artist (in whatever field) truly to confront an audience?
|Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:59 am: |
I find it interesting that you put the type of material that the discussion forums here major in as Modern Art. I think indeed much of it is challenging the audience, and, even so, is being successful in a mainstream way. Good on it.
But challenging is not the same as confronting ... insulting ... the audience ... as Modern Art does as part of its brief.
Yet, even with Modern Art (as it is understood), is it *possible* any longer to confront the audience? I suggest not. Because it's all been done before.
So where can these artists go? Not confront the audience (because that is now impossible because we are all over-dosed on blank canvases or lumps of stale food in the corner of a glass case?) So all they can do is comfort the audience, give them what they want to make a lot of money, pander to them, or simply ignore them.
I suggest that 'ignoring' an audience is far more possible these days than 'insulting' them.
Then the topic, inevitably, leads to a further question. Are there artists (of whatever field of art) who want to insult an audience or need to do so? And, if so, why?
And is ignoring an audience a new art form? The extreme of this attitude would to keep the work in a cupboard. Buried Art. Has Buried Art replaced Modern Art?
This does not sit well, personally, with me giving away all my new works in recent years on free blogs? But I feel that act may be a brand of Buried Art. Overexposed free Art (which nobody reads) is akin to Buried Art.
|Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 03:28 am: |
Agree that there is very little room left for confronting the audience, and for some reason these confronting pieces of art seem really boring. Maybe that's not the whole story about art?
If art is about communication - which it may or may not be, then there doesn't seem much point in producing buried art, although maybe a lot of outsider art may be thought of as buried art as nobody much looks at it. On the other hand, suppressed art could be very powerful, if suppressed by, say, an oppressive political force, so you never know.
Another point is that quite a bit of modern art seems too obscure to understand, so that maybe it is in effect a form of buried art as nobody really understands it, which leads on to elitist art, where only a select few can understand it, so the meaning is purposely buried.
Maybe every artist (or writer) has to ignore the audience to a greater or lesser extent, as you never really know what the audience will like, and a lot of art is more inner directed anyway, and produced as part of some compulsion or drive. So maybe a good compromise is required, as probably being wholly audience directed (even if your sole purpose is to insult them) doesn't produce stuff that is good (look at film sequels for example)
--Carole (brainstorm in a teacup)
|Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:24 am: |
I like the distinction between Buried Art and Suppressed Art, Carole.
I think there is much good material when considering Modern Art and it acts as a foil or backdrop to more 'sensible' concerns. For example, you talk about 'understanding' modern art - I find it, personally, the easiest thing to understand; it's a question of whether it is to one's taste. Avant garde 'classical' (or 'popular' if that's not a contradiction in terms) music I find very relaxing and enjoyably atmospheric or imaginative, but I don't think I think about understanding it or not. (I know nothing about music technically).
Separately, to my mind, the most *potentially* avant garde of all the arts are the Horror Arts.
|Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 05:41 am: |
Yes, I agree about the Horror - there seems to be a basic element of horror in most things, and it's also something that appeals directly to the senses, so is more compelling - so I don't know why it's not more popular (probably because gross-out horror is impeding it).
There is some good modern art out there, but ya gotta admit, there is some drivel also, and it can be hard to tell the difference. I don't know if it's that much like music as music is much more direct, and modern art might take some thinking about or getting used to. Don't people who understand music tend to like stuff like Jazz? (which is complicated and might leave some people cold).
On the other hand something like a Rothko is very immediate and has a much more visceral appeal, but some modern art is very technical, and kind of coldly technical at that.
There was a programme recently where they got some famous people and put them through a modern art course, and there was that famous journalist (can't remember his name) who was really otherwise very intelligent but absolutely did not understand modern art at all. So maybe the problem is that it's not a rational type of understanding, and that could be what causes all the problems with it, as you have a lot of people who might be saying something like 'well, I'm intelligent, but I don't understand *this* so therefore it must be cr*p'.
|Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 05:54 am: |
...oh, and talking about Hiroshima (Ist post)there was a project in Japan where they got all the surviving victims to draw or paint their experiences, and this was just amazingly effective - just horrible and also extremely moving. That was maybe an example of the power of art, just for ordinary people to express themselves, which I think is what art is more about than elitist art (of any description)
|Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:10 am: |
Yes, I agree about the Horror - there seems to be a basic element of horror in most things,
I call that the Ominous Imagination. We need a neo-ominous one, perhaps! As to gross-out horror impeding it, that's partly true, but also how art-mediators package it. Extreme Horror in an art museum is just another way to package it. Blatant jagged noises played as music, yet another.
There are not so much individual prejudices against various forms of art or music or writing, but a mass anti-hysteria where we all follow mutely the pattern-trails laid for us by coordinated paper chasers who *do* have individual prejudices.