Postmodern art

[Kas]

What is your opinion on postmodern art? Is it art at all?

 

[Opal]

The boundaries of "art" are always being pushed...

As I understand it, most regard art as the conveyance of meaning that exceeds an undefined threshold of relevance to the "dialogue" between pieces in the art world. Some would argue that all of reality is art, which I'm more inclined to agree with.

Breaking the standardization of human experience established by modernism (one size fits all) is necessary, I think, to avoid marginalizing large portions of humanity, but I also think postmodernism will lead to a more inclusive, revised modernism.

...so yeah, I regard postmodern works as art.

 

[magpie]

Sure, it's art, if it has intention.

 

[Qlip]

The term Postmodern encompasses a number of movements. Is there a reason in particular you wouldn't consider Postmodern art, art? I mean, mostly it just tends to be pretty conceptual, how does that invalidate it?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Is this considered to be postmodern by the OP?

 

[BadOctopus]

Art in general is purely subjective. What one person might regard as a masterpiece might be considered total garbage by another.

In my opinion, with a few exceptions, postmodern art is mostly pretentious and ugly. But I know some people who love it. It's all a matter of personal taste.

 

[prplchknz]

I read that as post mordem art and like dead people making art ot art made out of dead people either way cool as long as the first group doesn't eat my brain or something

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Everyone's aesthetic taste is different but in terms of biology, yes, postmodern art is art.

I believe most post modern art comes after the symbolism movement launched in the 20's and 30's when the idea became more important than the form.

Believe it or not...you cannot be alive today without subconsciously believing this. Even believing that only aesthetically pleasing art is true art is putting the idea before the form since to you aesthetically pleasing art symbolizes aesthetic pleasure in a non-literal way since you are critiquing art.

To make a long story short...there is no such thing as any art today which is not postmodern, by virtue of the artist who is submerged in a postmodern medium.

 

[Kas]

The term Postmodern encompasses a number of movements. Is there a reason in particular you wouldn't consider Postmodern art, art? I mean, mostly it just tends to be pretty conceptual, how does that invalidate it?

Last time I heard several opinions that the “real art” doesn’t exist nowadays ( they were mostly questioning the value of the art where you don’t need to be extraordinary talented t become artist) and I was interested was do you guys in forum think about it.
I think the question is interesting because it is about whether there exist the boundaries of art. That’s why I began the thread.


If it is about my opinion, I’m not very fond of it, but there are some pieces that I really like. I was hypnotized by the movie of ants carrying sequins in National Gallery (amazing sounds) and I like some performances and installations art. However to me it doesn’t speak like Klimt, Gauguin or Dali and probably it never will.
I believe that some pieces of contemporary art are questionable. I have nothing against the conceptual art, but the piece of art should defend itself, the symbols, emotions or whatever is presented should be possible( maybe difficult, but possible) to be understood just by contemplating the art. What I see many times is that there is e.g. a yellow painting (nothing more on it) and next to it there is a long description what does it mean.

And as you [MENTION=23115]BadOctopus[/MENTION] write that the art is purely subjective, I don’t think it was ever absolutely subjective before. There was time when having some abilities, like using chiaroscuro or perspective made you somebody. Now it is purely subjective. Some people would though probably say that was a craft and now is an art.

Of course postmodern art serves rebellious function. It is destroying every definition of art that was before and proving that anything can be art. So due to it my question is probably out of the place.
I treat it as temporary movement and wait what will it lead to. I don’t know whether we can push boundaries any further, so maybe a step back, maybe [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION] is right and some kind of new modernism will come. That would be very interesting

 

[Kas]

Is this considered to be postmodern by the OP?

It's dada, isn't it? So modernism I think... but I'm not specialist.
And that one defend itself

 

[Opal]

Last time I heard several opinions that the “real art” doesn’t exist nowadays ( they were mostly questioning the value of the art where you don’t need to be extraordinary talented t become artist) and I was interested was do you guys in forum think about it.
I think the question is interesting because it is about whether there exist the boundaries of art. That’s why I began the thread.


If it is about my opinion, I’m not very fond of it, but there are some pieces that I really like. I was hypnotized by the movie of ants carrying sequins in National Gallery (amazing sounds) and I like some performances and installations art. However to me it doesn’t speak like Klimt, Gauguin or Dali and probably it never will.
I believe that some pieces of contemporary art are questionable. I have nothing against the conceptual art, but the piece of art should defend itself, the symbols, emotions or whatever is presented should be possible( maybe difficult, but possible) to be understood just by contemplating the art. What I see many times is that there is e.g. a yellow painting (nothing more on it) and next to it there is a long description what does it mean.

And as you [MENTION=23115]BadOctopus[/MENTION] write that the art is purely subjective, I don’t think it was ever absolutely subjective before. There was time when having some abilities, like using chiaroscuro or perspective made you somebody. Now it is purely subjective. Some people would though probably say that was a craft and now is an art.

Of course postmodern art serves rebellious function. It is destroying every definition of art that was before and proving that anything can be art. So due to it my question is probably out of the place.
I treat it as temporary movement and wait what will it lead to. I don’t know whether we can push boundaries any further, so maybe a step back, maybe [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION] is right and some kind of new modernism will come. That would be very interesting

I think part of being effective, though, is consciously and defensibly breaking rules (which requires you learn and hopefully practice them first).

It's funny that you mention this, because one of my favorite pieces is an entirely white triptych, titled "White Paintings," and is meant to unearth/highlight the beholder's influence on the beheld (as viewers enter the room and pass by the display, their shadows play over its surface; the paintings are objectively white, but each group and individual viewer perceives them differently).

 

[Kas]

Everyone's aesthetic taste is different but in terms of biology, yes, postmodern art is art.

I believe most post modern art comes after the symbolism movement launched in the 20's and 30's when the idea became more important than the form.

Believe it or not...you cannot be alive today without subconsciously believing this. Even believing that only aesthetically pleasing art is true art is putting the idea before the form since to you aesthetically pleasing art symbolizes aesthetic pleasure in a non-literal way since you are critiquing art.

To make a long story short...there is no such thing as any art today which is not postmodern, by virtue of the artist who is submerged in a postmodern medium.

That is a very interesting observation.

But postmodern began in 60s or am I wrong? I finished my art education a time ago. Now I know only know what I learn on my own.

 

[Kas]

I think part of being effective, though, is consciously and defensibly breaking rules (which requires you learn and hopefully practice them first).

It's funny that you mention this, because one of my favorite pieces is an entirely white triptych, titled "White Paintings," and is meant to unearth/highlight the beholder's influence on the beheld (as viewers enter the room and pass by the display, their shadows play over its surface; the paintings are objectively white, but each group and individual viewer perceives them differently).

Yes, I think breaking rules is neccessary because without it there would be no progress.

Well maybe I'm not deep enough to understand that kind of art or maybe we just have different tastes in art.

 

[Opal]

Yes, I think breaking rules is neccessary because without it there would be no progress.

Well maybe I'm not deep enough to understand that kind of art or maybe we just have different tastes in art.

I definitely read about its meaning for a course, but I love how simple a demonstration it is.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

That is a very interesting observation.

But postmodern began in 60s or am I wrong? I finished my art education a time ago. Now I know only know what I learn on my own.

Yes indeed. I am a huge proponent of the symbolist movement although I believe visual arts can be symbolic too...the symbolism movement began with writers/philosophers/psychologists and many of them believed that symbolism was above the visual arts.

For the modern person the idea is always greater than the form because the idea is always the thing which hits and strikes the soul. The idea of the form is an idea in itself, and within every form is an idea in itself but the form is always the frozen idea, and the life principle is dynamic.

The power of symbols is a psychical thing. We cannot deny the reality. A person needs symbols like they need sex. They need a sense of immortality as much as they need on of mortality.

The person who takes in art in a literal form today has regressed into a state of denial. For them, it is the realisticness of a work which is used to gauge how good it is but the truth is they are in denile for what is real to them is subjective. Hence they say, "art is subjective." It is true, there is a subjective component to art, but the idea that art is subjective to each person is an objective fact.

Hence the person splits themselves. On one hand art is subjective but on the other hand there is an objective tool to measure the quality of art.

 

[Kas]

[MENTION=23213]GarrotTheThief[/MENTION] I don't have an art movement that I like best, but one of my favourite painters (maybe even the favourite one)was symbolist so I clearly appreciate them.

It true that the idea is greater then the form (in right proportions anyway). But even having the greatest idea it is possible that you are not able to put it into the right form, so you can't express it. Shouldn't there be a golden mean then?

Am I derailing my thread?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

[MENTION=23213]GarrotTheThief[/MENTION] I don't have an art movement that I like best, but one of my favourite painters (maybe even the favourite one)was symbolist so I clearly appreciate them.

It true that the idea is greater then the form (in right proportions anyway). But even having the greatest idea it is possible that you are not able to put it into the right form, so you can't express it. Shouldn't there be a golden mean then?

Am I derailing my thread?

No...not at all. I see what you're saying.

I have traditionally operated from the perspective of TE - heavily into form all my life. Ideas to me were like little goat shits - useless things.

But life put me through the grinder. My first impulse is form but my experience and memories know that form is a brutality when put before intent, and intent is an idea, not a physical thing. Intent matters. We are divinely inspired only when our wills are aligned with greater forces and those forces determine our motivation which comes from with in.

I am somewhat of an esoteric fool now, speaking in roundabout ways. As a man who mostly judges a book by its cover (how much money do you make, how fast can you run a mile, how realistic is your drawing), I must kneel to the abstract for it is immortal and form is just a manifestation of it, or an illusion of slow moving abstraction.

But yes, balance, for us, as subjective life forms, is key I believe, but whatever ration that is, surely it must be slanted towards abstraction for we live in a time where form is worshiped.

Do not confuse form for application. I believe in application, then theory. Apply the theory, and make a form...theory without application is sterile, except in Einsteins case...because he was a little bit of a goofball...but you know....the show must go on...

But where form and abstraction overlap, we have a symbol...and a symbol is the state or medium in which both exist...so a symbol will always have form and it will always have abstraction, but abstraction and form will always be a single rail line passing through the air molecules and sound ground of the universe - a symbol.