One thing worries me about the state of the avant-garde, as an artistic mode.
The avant-garde, as a rule, attempts to push boundaries and change social norms, usually through shocking methods. Dada is still the epitome of this in many respects, with its constant trolling of the art world and negation of every artistic convention of the time, setting the standards for later groups to measure themselves against.
But this method, while it may have worked in the past is going to suffer from declining returns. These are some of the reasons why:
Desensitisation. Certain limits have already been broken. Blasphemy and the like may cause "controversy", in a staid, media sense of the term, but they don't cause the sort of shock avant-garde artists seem to seek anymore. Equally, "anti-art" methods are nearly a hundred years old - the artistic establishment now positively fawns over warmed-over neo-Dada works. The Tate Modern, for example, is about as subversive and threatening to the artistic order as the latest "readymade" pop starlet. Gratuitous sex and violence are easily available in our every day media and web downloads. 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. Recycled garbage from the New Left doesn't cut it.
Art is a ghetto. Let's face it, apart from "entertainment" reporting, art recieves virtually no attention anymore. Once upon a time, artists had patrons and were the darlings of high society - now they recieve grants and have their work appear gallery shows for the nouveau-riche, who usually want to show how broad-minded and novel they are by "appreciating" or even buying pieces. Attempts to break out of the artistic ghetto rarely engage people, instead putting a greater divide between performer and audience (Improv Everywhere, for example).
The Shock doesn't last. Even if a shock is created by a piece of art, it is quickly submerged by the dullness of routine and everyday life. It becomes a brief diversion, an amusement, something to fill up the empty gaps in an otherwise full day. As a limited exposure, it can only do so much without being followed up on.
There are of course ways to compensate for this. Art can become even more shocking, for example, moving into quasi-terroristic areas (Don DeLillo suggests that this has already happened, but in reverse. Terrorists are, according to him, the epitome of novelists and artists). By selecting contentious targets and manipulating the media, they can create effects that last much longer, and perhaps effect some of the change they want to create.
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.
So what happens next? Where does this leave the avant-garde? Obviously there are always going to be certain taboos to be broken, but these continue to be less and less over time.
Riffing on the terrorism theme, John Robb suggests conventional terrorist groups suffer from similar problems, and that the best thing they can do to avoid this is to switch to systems attacks, designed to cause economic damage and dislocation. But can that translate over to the avant-garde? And if so, how? Would that involve...oh, I don't know, the invention of certain techniques and methods designed to disrupt the normal workings of the human mind, not based in symbolic artistry, but more subtle and perhaps scientifically grounded methods? I admit I am totally speculating here. How else could the avante-garde overcome these problems? Perhaps by creating new values to later undermine?
I'm open to suggestions.
Hmmm...I am in serious danger of having an idea.
I'll come back to this later.
Excellent, I look forward to it.
All I can think of is throwing a fake body off of a building with a brief case full of fake-money, and it hits the ground then the fake-money goes everywhere.
.. but that wont last too long.
If something interesting comes to mind, I'll share it.
But now I feel like carrying around a brief case full of fake money, then accidently letting the wind take it all....
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 09:59:57 PM
Desensitisation. Certain limits have already been broken. Blasphemy and the like may cause "controversy", in a staid, media sense of the term, but they don't cause the sort of shock avant-garde artists seem to seek anymore. Equally, "anti-art" methods are nearly a hundred years old - the artistic establishment now positively fawns over warmed-over neo-Dada works. The Tate Modern, for example, is about as subversive and threatening to the artistic order as the latest "readymade" pop starlet. Gratuitous sex and violence are easily available in our every day media and web downloads. 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. Recycled garbage from the New Left doesn't cut it.
It's possible that the progression of shock art isn't an ongoing incrementation so much as a cycle, with certain forms of shock waxing and waning with how well they are represented in recent memory.
There will always be something outside of the current status quo, something forbidden or taboo. In 25 years, when they're showing High Def rimjobs on network TV, maybe it'll be really sexy and taboo to tie somebody up and steal their identity on the internet.
Wait in the corner, Slaveboy. I'm going to go get some books about Islam using your library card. \
(http://www.exchange3d.com/cubecart/images/uploads/aff667/cy_01.jpg)
QuoteArt is a ghetto. Let's face it, apart from "entertainment" reporting, art recieves virtually no attention anymore. Once upon a time, artists had patrons and were the darlings of high society - now they recieve grants and have their work appear gallery shows for the nouveau-riche, who usually want to show how broad-minded and novel they are by "appreciating" or even buying pieces. Attempts to break out of the artistic ghetto rarely engage people, instead putting a greater divide between performer and audience (Improv Everywhere, for example).
fucking TRUTH. Art discourse is something only relevant to other artists. It's barely significantly influencing culture anymore, media is.
Although some people would argue that the real art is now taking place on places like youtube.
QuoteThe Shock doesn't last. Even if a shock is created by a piece of art, it is quickly submerged by the dullness of routine and everyday life. It becomes a brief diversion, an amusement, something to fill up the empty gaps in an otherwise full day. As a limited exposure, it can only do so much without being followed up on.
this is a really strong point
POSTERGASM, for example, may only give people a brief "a-ha!" at the moment of contact. Maybe something cool spins out of the retelling of that experience.
My hope is that these little events and experiences form the backbone of larger personal narratives. ... Now that I think about it, the posters are probably most powerful to younger people, who are generally a little bit more accustomed to new information. Their world views are still a work in progress.
QuoteRiffing on the terrorism theme, John Robb suggests conventional terrorist groups suffer from similar problems, and that the best thing they can do to avoid this is to switch to systems attacks, designed to cause economic damage and dislocation. But can that translate over to the avant-garde? And if so, how?
Yeah, to have a real societal impact, artists are going to have to find a wider audience than other artists. We have an avant-garde which seems to continually transgress existing taboos, giving us the sense that it is
progressing in some way. Maybe it's more like Kai's discussion about people confusing evolution with natural selection. "evolution" implies that things are
getting better, but really they're just adapting to changing environments.
QuoteWould that involve...oh, I don't know, the invention of certain techniques and methods designed to disrupt the normal workings of the human mind, not based in symbolic artistry, but more subtle and perhaps scientifically grounded methods? I admit I am totally speculating here.
yeah, I think new forms of media will unveil new kinds of art. New ways to explore existing issues. The [arguably] current big cultural/artistic movement, reappropriation, has really been served by increased public access to audio and video editing tools.
I'm very curious to see where taboos and novelty move in relation to technology and big cultural events. I am positive that humanity will
always have something to get bent out of shape about.
The old point has been brought up before that the old avant-garde created the values that the new avant-garde breaks down. Have we managed to go around and make a complete circle? How many times?
Using psychological techniques to mindfuck the populus isn't precisely a new idea, to the avant-garde or the old guard. Psychological manipulation is fundamental to filmmaking, advertising, etc -- and it is probably preferable to control people via techniques that don't depend upon a symbolic language that will soon expire, particularly if you stand to make big bucks from it working longer.
This isn't intended as a polemic railing against your (very good) post, and I may not be saying anything with more information than "me too!"; it's late and I'm braindumping now.
Maybe the most original thing about terrorism as an avant-garde movement is that they do not model themselves as such.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 09, 2010, 12:38:27 AM
Although some people would argue that the real art is now taking place on places like youtube.
To the extent that art is a mirror to the society which encases it, and presents a sharable perspective to both attack and defend - then something like youtube accelerates one important function of what art provides to society. For example, Lady Chatterley's Lover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley's_Lover#Controversy), forced its way into public discourse by prodding existing taboos and once it had become a best-seller, even out-pacing the bible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/10/newsid_2965000/2965194.stm), those topics were no longer as unspeakable or as unthinkable as they once were. Of course, it took thirty years after the book was originally written, and a mass democratisation of the publishing industry before anyone had the guts to offer it for sale to the British public.
How many social norms and taboos have been defined from a singular point of communication or doctrine? When your subjects are poor, scattered, and unable to construct their own voice - you can pretty much set the rules as they favour yourself. Only when your subjects find a way to communicate amongst themselves can they agree on what they personally find acceptable, and mount a challenge. The ability for harmful and inefficient ideas to exist in a population decreases proportionally with the ability of that population to communicate and work shit out for itself.
Or put another way, if the avant-garde feeds from taboo and shock then as long as communication between people doesn't decrease, then should we not be pleased to note that the ability for a populace to be shocked and controlled is in general decline?
I think the most troubling taboo we have now is with regards the illusion of free-will. Start a thread about it anywhere, even here, and a majority will defend their illusion by attacking the topic as functionally irrelevant or otherwise meaningless or wrong. But in terms of BIP topics regarding our status as meatbots, we could really use an avant-garde revival in that area today - because what is worse, now they don't even bother censoring you, they just click a less-challenging link (http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song).
Quote from: FP on February 09, 2010, 08:01:26 AM
meatbots
Sure is getting hot in here. One might even say this discussion is 'cooking'. Har har har.
Some would disqualify what you're referring to as "art" because it isn't done for the intrinsic value of pursuing an aesthetic idea. Aesthetics take a back seat to achieving a particular reaction, sharing more in common with propaganda and advertising. I want you to be offended! I want you to buy some shit! I want you to be ok with selenium in your drinking water.
Art in this context is just one option in achieving your goal, a possible vehicle but not a necessary one.
Perhaps the solution is abandoning art as THE mode for social change or shocking people's sensibilities and kicking the critical thinking up a notch, which is the opposite of art, IMO. The problem is that critical thinking is often HIGHLY UNPALATABLE, easily miscontrued as malicious, and time consuming.
I don't see the fleeting nature of shock value or any other novelty to be a negative. It's a good thing for artists because it means unless shit gets really bad, we're always in demand and that everyone has to stay on their A-game if they want to succeed.
Also, in almost any discipline there are exclusive conversations that sound like horseshit to anyone very far outside the field of study. Jargon and neologisms happen because they're more efficient when talking about particulars. How this occurs between artists is hardly different than car mechanics talking shop, besides the fact that car mechanics are horrible people who torture small animals for pleasure and beat their spouses with the tiny little corpses.
And one last thing, why do you seem to believe that artistic symbolism ought to be abandoned? Doesn't this preclude spoken and written language as well?
My thinking about avant-garde is that by its very nature, it isn't immediately recognized. Avant-garde isn't shock-art, per se, it's unexpected art, and therefore truly avant-garde work is not immediately recognizable. By the time the general culture identifies it, it is no longer avant-garde, but a generally assimilated style.
Unless you are speaking of it as a movement, rather than a verb, which kind of abandons the concept entirely.
"my" idea:
making it personal. and not necessarily shocking. art crap descriptions often go on about "creating a discussion" or "interacting with the viewer", but they don't really. because the artist isn't there, among other things.
but to make it less mass-appealing, more individual. these are individual times. the "individuum", as my gf calls it.
loose minds are everywhere. not everyone is open, but enough are.
what if you find some sheets of paper that speak about some really cool secret society conspiracy hangout chill awesome music and art and cool people thing going on somewhere in town, and you are invited? or something. that will stick.
say you print out the latest few good writings from PD, and leave it, at a few choice places, like a periodical, five copies per place, to make it exlcusive. be sure to mention that a new edition will appear every "Setting Orange".
you don't need to shock (well, what's shocking for some isn't for others, so it shouuldnt be your goal, nor should you actively avoid it). you need to make a lasting impression. and that means you gotta be real and you gotta be engaging. and that means being about as accessible as possible, while still being of perceived value (so a little work for it is ok), but not so much as that you need to lower yourself below your core goals [discordianism].
of course this is all closely tied up to "going viral". because "viral" is the mass equivalent of personal interaction. after all, a viral is only spread from a friend to a friend if the first friend actually feels it's worth to "sell" the viral idea to his other friend. otherwise they get a "why did you send me this?" misfired chain email accident poop.
i'm in a hurry so this is a bit disjointed all, I just wanted to get my thoughts down quickly.
I used to get a good repeatable shock out using photoshop to play with the uncanny valley then showing the original model the picture. It was really only good once per person though.
I dunno about avant garde or anything, I just thought it was amusing.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 09, 2010, 09:50:17 AM
"viral" is the mass equivalent of personal interaction. after all, a viral is only spread from a friend to a friend if the first friend actually feels it's worth to "sell" the viral idea to his other friend. otherwise they get a "why did you send me this?" misfired chain email accident poop.
I like this. Can I subscribe to your mailing list?
Nigel's got a point--I think the subject critiqued in the OP is not necessarily the art that's produced as the artiist's reaction to the times s/he's living in (which is what the original post-WWI avant-garde movement started as, a reaction to modern war). It's the movement that's behind the art, which sprung up after genre, and therefore produces more of it for its residual effects on the populace.
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.
The art, on the other hand, will evolve as the artist does, and as artists do. I think it can stand alone from the movement that came out of it, making it timeless as all art is, even while it's bound to the moment it sprang out of.
As for the movement itself, if it's going to be used as a tool as it has been, and seeing how it's given birth to offshoots of various sorts, its survival is probably tied to evolution to keep up with its limitations. Or it evolves into something else entirely. I'm not sure you can really shape something that seems sometimes much more organic, but I'm not saying it's impossible, either. Sometimes there's a whole school of folks who study and work together or are otherwise exposed to each others' works and feed off of each other, so they move together like one being, until one decides to tell everyone to fuck off and goes their own way.
Which, given the premise of art, seems all right and good to me.
(I'm just spouting off here, sorry if I've got OT.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Good, original art happens all the time.
It just doesn't go on MTV, so nobody sees it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, "avant-garde" should not be a self-described term. It only makes you look like a prick.
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 09, 2010, 06:01:09 PM
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.
Yeah, I didn't mean the movement as in people who orginated it were part of it, I think there were those who STUDIED the avant-garde artists and decided to become like them...and use it to make statements in their own art for society at large.
But ITAWTC, in any case.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 06:27:21 PM
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.
I'm less prescriptivist about art here, just like I am about language. I do think that everyone can do art. GOOD art? That's always in the eye of the critic. But I think everyone can produce some.
Good answers everyone. Still chewing on some of them, so sorry for the lack of feedback.
I should probably explain some of my thinking, though, since it may help.
1) I was working off the (not entirely unreasonable (http://www.notbored.org/art-and-fear.html) assumption) that certain avant-garde individuals and groups had a methodology similar to some terrorist groups, at least when it came to "shock and awe". The Red Army Faction, IIRC, even made it explicit that their attacks were attempts to "wake up" the public out of a consumerist slumber, in a hail of bullets. Therefore if the methodology was similar, perhaps it would suffer from similar problems. Given people are now more terrified of terrorism than ever before, in that they are pissing their pants over a guy who set his underwear on fire, this is probably not true on either front.
2) I find the "shock and awe" method boring, and wondered if many the wikkid smaht people of PD.com could come up with something with more...finesse.
I'm not very famliar with this topic but as far shock and awe being boring...
I agree and suggest:
Instead if being up-front with the shock, jostling people out of their routine, what about methods that seek to take the shape of routines first. Adapt to the way people already think about things, like a gillie-suit. Create subject matter that people will immediately nod their heads to in agreement, but only on the top layer. Then, place the point, the shock, the catalyst, so far beneath that regardless of how much of a shock it is the person is unable to brush it off because they already agreed with it.
Has this been done? Just an idea.
Quote from: Alty on February 09, 2010, 09:14:06 PM
I'm not very famliar with this topic but as far shock and awe being boring...
Create subject matter that people will immediately nod their heads to in agreement, but only on the top layer. Then, place the point, the shock, the catalyst, so far beneath that regardless of how much of a shock it is the person is unable to brush it off because they already agreed with it.
Has this been done? Just an idea.
There is a chapter on it in Art of Memetics. Maybe two. It's still a damned good idea, IMO. Variants on this theme are fundamental to detournement and particular kinds of marketing.
On a semi-unrelated note, that guy who does the good blog on memetics and advertising (rather than all the bad ones -- I forget his name; he did the mad scientist contest) wrote a blog post a while back about how an image combining recognizable elements of two ffringe subcultures in a striking way will typically spread like wildfire within any intersection of the two fringe subcultures, regardless of whether or not it is useful or meaningful -- his example was a usb port he shooped onto a victorian absynthe spoon (which people then wanted to BUY, despite an absynthe spoon having no conceivable use for a usb port). This could be leveraged mayhaps, though I have no idea how at this point.
The random walk technique for experimental art WORKS, but it requires going through a lot of shit before finding any gold, and typically results in a tendency to mistake particular kinds of shit for gold and mistake particular kinds of gold for shit. It isn't desirable, and does not efficiently generate shock OR awe.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 09, 2010, 06:23:13 PM
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 could not possibly disagree more. That's like saying that the further we push the boundaries of technology, the more likely new technology is to be unoriginal.
Art is not finite, and the further out the boundaries are pushed, the more tools and inspirations are at our disposal for the creation of original, and even surprising, art.
I am watching this thread and posting in it so I can find it. :)
There's an interesting National Endowment for the Arts report showing 25 years of public participation in the arts (http://www.arts.gov/research/ResearchReports_chrono.html). TL;DR version: attendances to museums, theatre, galleries, movies, concerts - participation in art of all kinds - is trending on a downward slope. Whereas interactive forms of entertainment - from video games to the internet (the percentage of interactivity is up for debate), continue to experience growth.
Does art then need to become more interactive to survive? Of course not. But art which uses a popular interactive medium has a greater chance/ability to immerse minds which are increasingly rejecting passive forms of media. In many ways this represents a renaissance of sorts - with shock and awe rendered near-impotent - art of higher quality can compete on merits rather than gimmick.
That said, I think the mass safari/forum-boarding-as-performance-art is (currently) an underused shock and awe tactic which can deliver a statement in an interactive form. Although, if every group with a message used that tactic, the entire internet would crumble under civil war.
Quote from: Jenne on February 09, 2010, 02:23:16 PMThe 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?
Quote from: IptuousIf 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?
These are two very interesting points.
The first seems to suggest the question of do we really need art to effect social change?
And the second, that if we find a new fuel for social change, given that "shock and awe" is played out, we should be careful in administering it, becausd once it hits up to entertainment-level, the gas runs out.
i think the opposite of shock is being careful with people's feelings.
so you gotta be all condescending on them, all careful like.
Condescending and mediocre? Isn't that the formula for Lifetime Original Movies?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 10, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
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?
:ohnotache:
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 10, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on February 10, 2010, 07:14:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 10, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:16:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 10, 2010, 07:14:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 10, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2010, 07:20:36 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:16:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 10, 2010, 07:14:03 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 10, 2010, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 10, 2010, 04:10:20 PM
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!
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2010, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: Jenne on February 09, 2010, 02:23:16 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Mister Aliester Crowley, the old coot
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.
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.
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 24, 2010, 10:47:01 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 24, 2010, 10:47:01 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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".
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 02:02:36 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 25, 2010, 03:12:28 AM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 02:02:36 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 03:46:17 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 25, 2010, 03:12:28 AM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 02:02:36 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 24, 2010, 05:22:05 AM
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.
Quote from: CAPTAIN USA on February 25, 2010, 03:57:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2010, 09:59:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 04:07:20 AMListen; 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.
I'll accept this.
Yeah. I think it was already said in this thread, but if not...
The term "avant-garde" should be used when referring to somone else's work, as it relates to other pieces in a given medium. It should almost never be used when describing your own work.
I just want to chime in and say that the rant kind of reminds me of the comments Stockhausen made about 9-11.
ba ba ba BUMP
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on February 25, 2010, 03:28:14 AM
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.
This is something that's come into my head a lot.
Banksy's been mentioned but only breifly. I think he's a fairly important figure becasue while he's widely thought of a graffiti articst, he's part of something called the post-graffiti movement which generally presents itself in aestetic modifications of public space in multiple forms.
Im interested in the idea of action as art.
Off to write an article on that actually.