The Avant-Garde and declining returns

[Doktor Howl]

Condescending and mediocre? Isn't that the formula for Lifetime Original Movies?

So all this time, Lifetime has actually been an avant-garde art project?

That makes a lot more sense than the alternative.

Sheer subtle genius.

I'd like my avant-garde with less "uplifting" (read: depressing) stories about horrible shit happening to kids and housewives, and their struggle to persevere, please.

[Jenne]

Condescending and mediocre? Isn't that the formula for Lifetime Original Movies?

So all this time, Lifetime has actually been an avant-garde art project?

That makes a lot more sense than the alternative.

Sheer subtle genius.

I'd like my avant-garde with less "uplifting" (read: depressing) stories about horrible shit happening to kids and housewives, and their struggle to persevere, please.

BUT ROGER WE HOUSEWIVES HAVE IT HARD DAMMIT!  GIVE US OUR ART!

[Jenne]

The original avant-garde artist didn't try to do anything but express him/herself.   The movement, however, seeks to educate, with some sort of philosophy behind what they are doing, for some sort of effect on the viewers/audience.  The movement has its limitations just like any other movement would, given it would be tied to the circumstances that created it.

But, correct me if I'm wrong here, their writings seem to suggest otherwise?

At least for some of them, thinking for example of those typographical dada prints and manifestos, most certainly had a couple of "we should overthrow the this or that something" and "calls for the destruction of the dominant whatever" and "to subvert the etc" in it?

Anyway, for the topic of this thread it doesn't really matter if the original avant-garde dada peoples really wanted to effect change upon society.

The point is that we want to.

And I agree with Cain that the "shock and awe" technique that was used (intentionally or not) by the old avant guarde is a littlebit stretched too thin these days.

So what is new?

Yeah, no, from what I learned way back in my French uni class (taught IN French, iirc, but damn, it was nigh on 15 years ago) on some of the original avant-gardists (who were only labeled that after the fact, as most labels put to artists are, few pick up an original thought and say, "I'll call this IMPRESSIONISM!"), it was merely the "shock and awe" of WWI that produced their works.  Not a will, really, to change it but instead to say, "Fuck me but we are fucked."

Maybe the succeeding parts of the genre ended up doing a sort of "use this shock and awe to tap into society's subconscious and get them to change their thinking"...but I'm not sure how far back that went, since avant-gardism as a group seems to stretch over most of the 20th century.  And is still alive and well today, as it happens.

I agree that what Cain has set about exploring ITT is separate to a large degree from what the original artists 100 years ago were thinking, but I think it also helps to explore where it came from to know where you're going to end up. 

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I think I have kept my head pretty square on my shoulders in the turmoil of the recent revolutions. I find myself able to distinguish between the artist whose eccentricities and heresies interpret his individual peculiarities and the self-advertising quack who tries to be original by outdoing the most outrageous heresiarch of the moment.

Facebook is sometimes the source of synchronicity.

[President Television]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

[BabylonHoruv]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

Ahh, but if it is bullshit either they like it....or it's bullshit.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

Ahh, but if it is bullshit either they like it....or it's bullshit.

I dunno man... I kinda like bullshit.

[President Television]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

Ahh, but if it is bullshit either they like it....or it's bullshit.

Yes, but it's bullshit that you can feel good about.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

All I'm getting out of this is that you don't actually understand the "avant-garde concept".

[President Television]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

All I'm getting out of this is that you don't actually understand the "avant-garde concept".

Shit, I was really tired when I wrote that. What I mean to say is that it seems to be an exercise in futility to actively try to be avant-garde. I don't know. Pushing boundaries just seems empty as an end in and of itself. If something pushes boundaries, that's good, but it's when artists deliberately engineer their works to shock people with no regard for any other value that they should probably step back and question why they're doing it. If nothing is gained, not even the genuine enjoyment of the artist, there is no reason to labour solely in pursuit of edginess. It's definitely gone too far when we start arguing about  the specifics of what "avante-garde" actually is, as if fitting into that particular pigeonhole somehow grants works an automatic superiority. Who cares if it's avante-garde? Maybe I'm wrong to say this. Maybe it means I don't belong on this site. It's just how I see things. Of course, those "maybe"s can probably be replaced with "probably"s. I'm pretty tired right now, too.

[The Wizard]

I haven't really thought this out, but maybe the art mediums themselves are the problem. Maybe artists are starting to reach the limits of what you can do with paint or with clay. Speaking as someone whose art knowledge is limited to the written word and what my brother (who is an artist) has explained to me, maybe what's needed is new mediums which use different stimuli. Some possibilities that come to mind are using your psyche as an art form. Developing a second personality or some interesting psychological issue would provide a novel method. Just a thought.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

All I'm getting out of this is that you don't actually understand the "avant-garde concept".

Shit, I was really tired when I wrote that. What I mean to say is that it seems to be an exercise in futility to actively try to be avant-garde.

Well, yeah, kind of by definition.

However, it is possible to strive for originality, which is based on inspiration. If an artist follows their inspiration and the vision inside their head they will make original work, and sometimes that work may even turn out to be at the forefront of an entire movement, but that's never clear until history shows it to be clear.

Doing your best work with a medium that intrigues and delights you is really the point. Pushing the boundaries and exploring the fringes of what constitutes art might be what inspires one artist; superb mastery of a traditional medium might be what inspires another. My friend b is an oil-painter, and his work is absolutely incredible. It's very traditional, but also incredibly original. He's unlikely to start a movement with it, but everyone who sees it recognizes the amazing talent and originality it represents. Being a great artist is not about being cutting-edge, but exploring the cutting-edge has inspired some great artists.

I saw glass art a couple of weeks ago that were 3-dimensional paintings, and absolutely incredible. I actually can't explain them, but I immediately felt humbled because the glass painting I've been working on is a similar concept, but these took the concept way, way beyond anything I'd even thought of yet. The media and techniques available to artists aren't limited; if anything they're expanding. There are more tools and media available to us now then there EVER has been before in human history. Packing tape, for fuck's sake!

I feel very fortunate to be where I am right now, both temporally and geographically, because I am surrounded by phenomenal artists who both maximize traditional media and techniques and push the boundaries of new ones, AND the internet is making it possible to be exposed to more art, including (or especially) totally obscure fringe art that none of us ever would have had the chance to see or be inspired by. It's GREAT. It's humbling and utterly wonderful.

[President Television]

So I've been reading this thread, and maybe I'm a little too tired and maybe my blood sugar is all gone and maybe I'm a little fucked up in the head right now, but the whole avante-garde concept strikes me as bullshit. I say just make whatever you want to make and be brutally honest about whatever you want to say, and if people like it, they'll like it, and if they don't, well then you're avante-garde, aren't you? It's win-win: Either you get money out of it or you get to be smug about it.

All I'm getting out of this is that you don't actually understand the "avant-garde concept".

Shit, I was really tired when I wrote that. What I mean to say is that it seems to be an exercise in futility to actively try to be avant-garde.

Well, yeah, kind of by definition.

However, it is possible to strive for originality, which is based on inspiration. If an artist follows their inspiration and the vision inside their head they will make original work, and sometimes that work may even turn out to be at the forefront of an entire movement, but that's never clear until history shows it to be clear.

Doing your best work with a medium that intrigues and delights you is really the point. Pushing the boundaries and exploring the fringes of what constitutes art might be what inspires one artist; superb mastery of a traditional medium might be what inspires another. My friend b is an oil-painter, and his work is absolutely incredible. It's very traditional, but also incredibly original. He's unlikely to start a movement with it, but everyone who sees it recognizes the amazing talent and originality it represents. Being a great artist is not about being cutting-edge, but exploring the cutting-edge has inspired some great artists.

I saw glass art a couple of weeks ago that were 3-dimensional paintings, and absolutely incredible. I actually can't explain them, but I immediately felt humbled because the glass painting I've been working on is a similar concept, but these took the concept way, way beyond anything I'd even thought of yet. The media and techniques available to artists aren't limited; if anything they're expanding. There are more tools and media available to us now then there EVER has been before in human history. Packing tape, for fuck's sake!

I feel very fortunate to be where I am right now, both temporally and geographically, because I am surrounded by phenomenal artists who both maximize traditional media and techniques and push the boundaries of new ones, AND the internet is making it possible to be exposed to more art, including (or especially) totally obscure fringe art that none of us ever would have had the chance to see or be inspired by. It's GREAT. It's humbling and utterly wonderful.

Ok, then. I see what you mean, and I agree. I still don't like having a label for it, though. Calling it "avante-garde" makes me feel stuffy and pretentious, and while I may be pretentious, I try to avoid being stuffy as much as possible.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, then. I see what you mean, and I agree. I still don't like having a label for it, though. Calling it "avante-garde" makes me feel stuffy and pretentious, and while I may be pretentious, I try to avoid being stuffy as much as possible.

Listen; just read the Wikipedia article on what it means and how it's used. It's a valid term, and useful for art historians. So it's French and sounds pretentious; so does Sartre.

I think that anyone calling themselves or their work "avant-garde" probably is a pretentious twat, but that has no bearing on the validity of the term itself.

[Epimetheus]

But these don't seem all that viable in the long run, do they?  As methods, they run up against limits, be they legal, or narrative (the media gets bored of your attention-grabbing antics) or otherwise.  You can only press so many buttons, target so many hot issues in so many ways, before people bore of the act again.

If you want to shock or amaze people, if you want to really change people with your art, don't you have to accept "running up against limits," and just hope that your art/message reaches as many people as it can?
There will always be people who "don't get it"...and I would venture that those will tend to be the vast majority of people.