Thanks for taking the time to reply to this thread
it's comforting that art and artists are still being thought of in this day and age. I will try to address all your responses [eventually
] but here are some short comments.
Originally Posted by gOD
1. Where does art rest in society?
Good question. I'm afraid most people see it as a waste of time because it isn't "productive". There isn't a concrete use to it and certainly in our Western society there isn't a bigger sin
Originally Posted by Andy Christ
1. Where does art rest in society?
Depends of the society, but usually on quite an important place. People have always felt the need to express themselves creatively, from the earliest drawings of cavemen to the modern hotchpotch of different mediums and styles.
It's interesting to see these opposing responses - and from opposite corners of Europe
How true, Geert, art is often considerd "a waste of time." I still remember, as a bewildered 5-year-old, being asked by my playmate "why is she using 6 colour crayons when she can use 2 to finish the drawing?" Why? To this date, those who have taken an interest in art are still speechless.
That said, I want to command Andy for his replies.
Art is also regarded highly by collectors becuase it isn't "productive." The common complaint about a work of art is: "My child can do that." Well, what they were trying to say is: "I can't understand it," or "What can I use this for?" To better answer these questions, high prices are put on certain art work. Now, the new complaint, or question, becomes: "What is its investment value?"
I guess human beings are always looking for methods to elevate their own status. To become the owner of something entirely useless is, in a way, an effective mode of social climbing. (You know, Heather and I have a favourite author, Thorsten Veblen who mentioned this and other items in his infamous and humourous book "The Theory of the Leisure Class.")
Still, that doesn't explain the real motives for creation. I don't think one should even try. Art is, after all, just art.
Originally Posted by Che
If you look at the work of Jeff koons, Andres Serrano or Karen Finley, R. Maplethorp the last of the social morales are being attacked and this occured some 20 years ago. Art has come to the end of its cycle in its relationship to society.
As far as what is the new movement in art, that's the million & millions of dollars question
I was reading a new book on China's Cultural Revolution and found this amusing passage. In the mid 1970s, Premiere Chou En-lai was asked what he thought of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a second and answered: "It's too early to tell."
Art movements is an illusive entity. We cannot proclaim the birth or death of any movements because art, unlike science, cannot be quantify. Textbooks can tell us that "Cezanne is the father of modern art," then again, who influenced Cezanne but the neo-classicist Ingre and the Realist Puvis de Chavannes. Robert Mapplethorpe was a person who wanted to make photographs of people in his circle and became known as a master for doing that. The fact that his work got tangled up with Jesse Helms' accusations was pure chance. (Helms would have swiped at any other names in the arts if RM or Karen Finley hadn't come along. To destroy the National Endowment for the Arts was a mandate of the Reagan administration.) If you look closely at Mapplethorpe's photographs, you will find that they are -- well besides those of male nudes no even those of males nudes! -- extremely tastefully composed and painstaking rendered. Ditto with Jeff Koons' art (which I can explicate later.)
Fear not, Che, there are many people doing work. We are not hearing from them before the time is not yet ripe.