News:

I hope she gets diverticulitis and all her poop kills her.

Main Menu

The Avant-Garde and declining returns

Started by Cain, February 08, 2010, 09:59:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Elder Iptuous

If the boundaries of art are now wide enough that it takes something truly amazing to get people thinking that it is outside them, then perhaps the importance of pushing them is not that important.  The effect that art can have on social change could be realized within those bounds, or they must be sought through other means. 
In that sense, it seems to me that the impulse of shock that can force social awareness or harness attention was a limited resource (that renews slowly) and perhaps it was frittered away to some extend on simply amusing or superficially interesting images. But if it was desired for social 'progress' then perhaps it was not used as effectively as it could have been?
I guess that's why I was previously under the (mistaken) impression that the avant-garde artist was simply trying to push the boundaries of art itself, which they believed to be to rigid or stifling and that the effect that this had on society was uncontrollable, and therefore only of secondary importance.

LMNO

I've been trying to respond to all this, but I can't find a starting point.

Something about how every generation thinks the limits have been reached, plus the shift from transgressing formal techniques to transgressing social conventions, add to that the conflict between creating what you want versus creating something that will shock (intention), and finally throw in the Situationist critique of dada that (as far as my understanding goes) dada's rejection of the status quo served to strengthen the status quo.


It's all in a muddle right now.

Kai

Since culture tends to be quite cyclical, I think it would be very avant guarde to go back to previous styles and pull them off just as they were done back then.

Consider a renaisance style painting done as graffiti. Not altered up Banksy style or any of it, just done straight up and serious.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Captain Utopia

Every time I read the OP I get something new from it.

Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 09:59:57 PM
The avant-garde, as a rule, attempts to push boundaries and change social norms, usually through shocking methods. 

...

People aren't as easily shocked as they were a hundred years ago, and while some people still operate on a mostly symbolic level in how they interpret their lives, those symbols are rarely state, church and family anymore.
So what are some of the symbols which are shared widely among people?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: LMNO on February 09, 2010, 02:44:48 PM
I've been trying to respond to all this, but I can't find a starting point.

Something about how every generation thinks the limits have been reached, plus the shift from transgressing formal techniques to transgressing social conventions, add to that the conflict between creating what you want versus creating something that will shock (intention), and finally throw in the Situationist critique of dada that (as far as my understanding goes) dada's rejection of the status quo served to strengthen the status quo.


It's all in a muddle right now.

May be a muddle, but all the elements are there.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

Good, original art happens all the time.

It just doesn't go on MTV, so nobody sees it.
Molon Lube

E.O.T.

CAN WE

         Still create original stuff? That's a question which has been around for a while. The 'avant-garde' is not identifiable when it happens, by its nature. It isn't 'shock-art' either, by any necessity. The avant-garde inspires, which is the purest form of art, because it presents a new possibility, or perspective. Possibly it upsets some people, or makes a lot of people go - WTF(?), but to someone it says "fuck yeah". A little later on a genre begins.

ALTHOUGH, YES

         Our "modern" age accesses every excess, that's not to say our spirits aren't striving ever onwards. Or, perhaps, looking around at the wreckage surrounding us, we're searching to find a meaningful creative expression even more. Much of art is a process of self discovery (or recovery). Mostly I think 'art' becomes recognized or important when more than one person gets something out of an action.  
"a good fight justifies any cause"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Basically, avant-garde is new, experimental, unusual art. Often the people making this art are simply experimental artists, not consciously trying to be at the cutting edge of anything but using the materials at hand with the inspiration that comes to them. There was no avant-garde movement, although there were several movements that can be considered avant-garde for their era.

The best way to think about it is as a literal phrase; disassociate it with the art you've come to think of as examples of avant-garde for their time, and think of it instead as any art that's pioneering, in its own way.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 05:58:28 PM
Good, original art happens all the time.

It just doesn't go on MTV, so nobody sees it.

Aaaaand this.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

Quote from: E.O.T. on February 09, 2010, 06:00:53 PM
CAN WE

         Still create original stuff? That's a question which has been around for a while. The 'avant-garde' is not identifiable when it happens, by its nature. It isn't 'shock-art' either, by any necessity. The avant-garde inspires, which is the purest form of art, because it presents a new possibility, or perspective. Possibly it upsets some people, or makes a lot of people go - WTF(?), but to someone it says "fuck yeah". A little later on a genre begins.

ALTHOUGH, YES

         Our "modern" age accesses every excess, that's not to say our spirits aren't striving ever onwards. Or, perhaps, looking around at the wreckage surrounding us, we're searching to find a meaningful creative expression even more. Much of art is a process of self discovery (or recovery). Mostly I think 'art' becomes recognized or important when more than one person gets something out of an action.  

The thing to remember about original art is that Sturgeon's Law still applies, and you have to wade through 90 pieces of shit to see 10 things that wow you...since most people are too lazy to do that, they assume there's nothing out there.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Jenne on February 09, 2010, 02:23:16 PM
It's the movement that's behind the art,

There is only one "artistic movement", and I did it about 20 minutes ago, having eaten Indian food last night.

An artist that identifies himself as "avant-garde" is bloviating, and probably doesn't produce anything, or anything worth looking at...It reminds me of "experimental music".  In both cases, what usually happens is an untrained person does some pineal-arsed shit, and calls it "art".  Yoko Ono comes to mind in both cases.
Molon Lube

LMNO

Yeah, "avant-garde" should not be a self-described term.  It only makes you look like a prick.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on February 09, 2010, 06:08:48 PM
Yeah, "avant-garde" should not be a self-described term.  It only makes you look like a prick.

Plus you have to hold your cigarettes backwards, and that makes your wrist get sore after a while.
Molon Lube

Rococo Modem Basilisk

Quote from: E.O.T. on February 09, 2010, 06:00:53 PM
CAN WE

         Still create original stuff? That's a question which has been around for a while. The 'avant-garde' is not identifiable when it happens, by its nature. It isn't 'shock-art' either, by any necessity. The avant-garde inspires, which is the purest form of art, because it presents a new possibility, or perspective. Possibly it upsets some people, or makes a lot of people go - WTF(?), but to someone it says "fuck yeah". A little later on a genre begins.

ALTHOUGH, YES

         Our "modern" age accesses every excess, that's not to say our spirits aren't striving ever onwards. Or, perhaps, looking around at the wreckage surrounding us, we're searching to find a meaningful creative expression even more. Much of art is a process of self discovery (or recovery). Mostly I think 'art' becomes recognized or important when more than one person gets something out of an action.  

The problem, I suppose, with the 'modern' age (and the passage of time in general in this context) is that the more you push the boundaries, the further out the boundaries are -- the stuff one creates through any given mechanism is less likely to be an experiment per-se because it is more likely to fall under an existing established category (or an existing abandoned category, more often than not, since not only will most of it be shit but most of it will be unoriginal shit).


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 09, 2010, 06:23:13 PM

The problem, I suppose, with the 'modern' age (and the passage of time in general in this context) is that the more you push the boundaries, the further out the boundaries are --

Balls.  That's why art is hard.  If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Molon Lube