Art Lovers discussion

One of the things that makes art history so interesting to me is that it has always seemed to be in a state of flux. Some call it shifting sands, others see it as a regular, rhythmic swinging of a pendulum, others as something on the order of rocking the boat. Whatever the case there is movement, back and forth, often from one extreme to another. In early periods some of these shifts came over a period of a hundred years or so as in the development of the High Renaissance out of the Early Renaissance, and that from medieval painting, etc. As time has progressed, the swings in taste and style have become more and more generational. That is sons rejecting out of hand that which their fathers did, simply because their fathers did it. As an example, Neo Classicism in the early 1700's sprang from the excesses of the Baroque. A generation later comes Rococo, light as air and about as filling as cotton candy--pretty but shallow. Romanticism kept the decadence of the Rococo while breathing new excitement into the staid lines of Neo-Classical artists like David and Ingres. This in turn led to a stratified, etched in stone codification of art into an official, academic style to which the Impressionist so fiercely rebelled. And then, the Post-Impressionists struggled to return painting to something more earthy and solid, if somewhat esoteric as well. And once the disintegration of form began, there was no stopping it until content also largely disappeared.

And in this century, where once these swings took at least a generation, movements rose and fell in a decade, often less as the pace of life and change picked up, dragging with it the pace of change in art as well. Inevitably, if change begins to happen rapidly enough the swings back and forth become so rapid that they can no longer be seen, like wiper blades on an exceedingly rainy night. The effect is to stabilise art rather than move it in different directions. And that, I think is what we are coming to see today. Movements, like those of the past, are passé. There are simply too many of them to make any of them significant. But without movement there is no momentum and without momentum, no real excitement. The result is ennui.

(contributed by Lane, Jim)
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.ph...

Wow that is a great summary of the history of Art and it's different movements. Also shares what caused the changes in history that lead to a different art movement and style! Thanks for sharing this Heather it is very enlightening!

Nice post, Heather. And spot on.

And once the disintegration of form began, there was no stopping it until content also largely disappeared

It should read "disintegration of the representational", not "form". Form and shape did not change, it only became heightened with the loss of representational detail.

As for the comment "There are simply too many of them to make any of them significant. But without movement there is no momentum and without momentum, no real excitement. The result is ennui."

I would beg to differ on this as well but not so much for the first part of the quotation but the latter. The pundits, powers to be, curators and art critics have resolved to elevate conceptual, semiotic, minimalist and post modernist, to the realm of "in work". We`re seeing a gestation period in the more serious art centers around the world in which Foucault is hoisted on false daises, minimalism is purer (it`s not, it`s just boring), any art devoid of aesthetics is conceptual, and semiotics steps off the written page onto a blank wall.

Ultimately, only cutting artists appreciate what the rest of us are witnessing and the revulsion would match the reaction of those in the 50`s witnessing Abstract Expressionism of Kline and cohorts, but for the fact that today, there is more pressure to be politically correct, non-judgmental and more openminded. Consequently, we have to put up with more of this crap that the curators foster on us.

I am sorry I was not clearer. I disagreed with the second statement as to your contention that there were too many movements which caused them to lose significance. On the contrary, there has been a serious contraction. When you read Art News and Art in America, you come across the above movements, which I have named, as the current "in" trends. The curators elsewhere are following this trend and highlighting these four. Semiotics is getting the least play-in fact perhaps should be dropped from the list.