Presumably you’ve determined what art is?

Sufficiently I think. I don't think a precise definition is required to answer this question. Perhaps a practical description of the work artists produce. Certainly the mediums they adopt are changing, I wonder if the subjects, or narratives are too?

So the question should be; where is art as I know it going next?

That’s not meant to be as scathing as it might sound. But true nevertheless, don’t you think?

Because shouldn’t it include dancing, acting and writing?

Edit: one direction is huge profits in investment of established artists. Another is more people calling themselves artists.

Yes, I don't see it as scathing, but helpful perhaps. Art as we know it? Sounds better to me. When I ask the question I am also thinking of art as others might know it and which I might not be aware of, for example many digital art forms, which I am sure I don't know about, because I am of a certain age and not so wired into those things.

Yes it should include dancing, acting, composing and writing, but my focus will inevitably painting and 2dimensional art works.

Yes, there is a lot of money sloshing around in the establishment art world, with numerous effects, including the commercialisation of art along with the exploitation for corporate, or political reasons. Also, digital media and developments amount the young and via their mobile devices etc.

Is there an art movement I wonder?

Is art a mirror for reality, or a hammer with which to change it? Bertolt Brecht asked.

Is art a mirror for reality, or a hammer with which to change it? Bertolt Brecht asked.

Interesting, it made me think of how up until the end of the medieval period art was a hammer with which to control the masses. Then there was a period of a few hundred years when it gradually became freer until recently it had total freedom, and now it is being used as a hammer again to control the masses. But it seems that it is still free, while hammering away and that is ok because that freedom doesn't get in the way of the hammering. Because the people who might use that freedom have been brainwashed by the incessant hammering.

This article asks if there is a current art movement going on. It mentions Neo Dadaism and Absurdist Art. I had noticed this in some galleries I visit, like a combination of a contemporary Dada with surrealism and fantasy Art. I failed to see it as serious art, but rather a subtle form of decoration*.

I increasingly consider Fine Art to have fractured into many splinters, mini movements perhaps. With no over all direction, no where to go. Somehow the great art movements and periods of the twentieth century, which forged ahead broke the mold, are all past and Art is perhaps in a period of incubation, before the next big development.
https://medium.com/predict/the-21st-century-art-movement-what-is-it-a5db9dcc1d97

*I accept that my not finding it serious Art may be my problem and that I'm sure the artists thought it was.

I think the question is how, if at all, will art survive it's commodification (Spotify for music, million dollar sales of Jeff Koons/et. al works, etc). This ties back to points I've tried to make about the relationship between art and religion, and I don't at all think this is small fry. This is the whole crux of this question. The intuition, or imagination, or whatever, was always connected to the spiritual in humanity. So the real question we're dealing with here is "what happens to art when the spiritual is removed?". Or, the more important question would be "what happens to humanity when art is removed?"

I think the question is how, if at all, will art survive it's commodification — Noble Dust

Can anything survive commodification? The problem seems to be that despite something being commodified people still regard it as the genuine thing. That may be because they’re ignorant about art, or even quality for that matter. When so many people call themselves an artist what does it mean anymore. There’s a difference between being a painter and being an artist but people will tell you without pause that they’re an artist, and of course the whole self esteem movement insists that we’re all creative, we’re all artists.

I think the answer is in your tone, here. An artist makes art despite everything; A fair-weather "creative" makes "art" until the going gets tough (the self-esteem quota isn't being met, etc).

I guess the question is how interested is the public in art? And how are they exposed to it? And how are they to judge in ignorance? The public flock to big exhibitions on The Impressionists, the Cubists or Post Impressionists, because they have faith in the history and art institutes. But most of the public would shy away from private galleries; they don’t trust, or can’t understand, what they’re looking at.

On the other hand the most successful of artists have a relationship with members of what might be called the establishment. This is the history of art. They’re the ones who find some value in art. It’s difficult to know if it’s genuine, but they’re the ones who become collectors, which gives the work it’s value. Of course there’s the whole academic circle as well, which operates alongside. To tell the truth I put more faith in the collectors than the academic world.

All very valid points. It's true that money and art have been hand in hand over the course of history. I think the point I'm trying to make is admittedly pretty opinionated, if not controversial. But, it's the idea that the truly artistic expression is an expression of something higher; quite literally something supra-physical. So, how this relates to monetary problems is that true artistic expression "burns up the world" (to quote Nikolai Berdyaev); it essentially spits in the face of determinism with pure rage. So, the truly artistic is inherently apophatic; it's almost Gnostic.

An interesting analysis, I see the truth in what you say, but rather than reply now, I will have a think and reply a bit later.

Just one initial thought, it occurred to me that the people look to the establishment figures to define art and direct them in its appreciation. What happens when these establishment figures lose their way, lose their moral compass?

the idea that the truly artistic expression is an expression of something higher; quite literally something supra-physical. — Noble Dust

Sometime ago I started an OP titled “Morality and the arts”. This was the OP;

“ In her book “Wickedness” Mary Midgley wrote that ‘It is one main function of cultures to accumulate insights on this matter (morality; our motivation, ambivalence, wasted efforts, damage) , to express them in clear ways as far as possible, and so to maintain a rich treasury of past thought and experience which will save us the trouble of continually starting again from scratch. In this work ... an enormously important part is played by what we call the arts ... From the earliest myths to the most recent novels, all writing that is not fundamentally cheap and frivolous is meant to throw light on the difficulties of the human situation ... ‘

I’m interested in views people out there might have on this, that our morals and human situation are explored and reaffirmed in the arts. Of course this is assuming that morality exists and is not constructed.

What has just come to mind is that the arts have become so shallow and meaningless that if we continue to look to them for insights we will be misguided by the content”.

I think this is largely true. I'm not an art historian so I only have my lay knowledge to go on, but I struggle to think of any art older than 50 years or so that wasn't supposed to either look nice, have some religious/spiritual significance, or inspire people to be 'better'. In fact, it seems quite a strict split with visual and musical arts being aesthetic or religious and stories being inspiring. This trend towards mistaking art for journalism seems to be quite recent and I don't think it's a good direction for the reasons you give.

The trouble is with the Brecht quote that @Bitter Crank gave earlier. I think it's unavoidable that art is both of those things. It can't help but be a mirror to society because artists are both from, and sell to, society. It also acts to shape society as art strongly influences how we feel and act.

So what's created is a positive feedback loop. These systems tend to magnify the effects of small errors. So, to give an example, if an artist reflects inner city life as being brutal and gang-dominated, those growing up with such art will be more likely to act as if it is and so make it more so. The next artist reflects it as such, and the next generation make it so...

This is fine if artists are (as I think many intuitively used to be) careful to err on the side of 'betterment'. That way, any effect of their work is most likely to be positive.

Nowadays what seems to sell best is gritty, violent or bland 'realism'. Which does not so easily avoid the problems of positive feedback.

So the real question we're dealing with here is "what happens to art when the spiritual is removed?". Or, the more important question would be "what happens to humanity when art is removed

I will try to keep mysticism out of my remarks because I find on this forum it turns people away. But this does not mean that I don't recognise that there is a mystical dimension in art and particularly the mysticism of the self, irrespective of whether there is, or isn't a God, or spiritual realm. I will presume there isn't for this discussion.

I agree that for art there is an aesthetic hierarchy like the spiritual hierarchy in religion and that for art over the historical period of civilisations art has been largely controlled and has mirrored this hierarchy. Meaning that we have inherited an aesthetic of high art, which has a pinnacle, a godhead at the top, inhabited by great artists who have the greatest, most noble moral and philosophical considerations at the front and centre of their great work. Leonardo Da Vinci being the archetype. With a hierarchy of prestigious institutions below to whom devotees will flock.

As an alternative to this edifice, with commercialism maybe we will end up with a baby cartoon dragon as the epitome of high Art, with a Disney logo on its bum.

I fear that this ideal I describe is a fragile human creation and that we strike it down to our own detriment.

I had a profound experience a few years ago which illustrates this quite well. I was eating a picnic in a wood with my wife, it was very quiet and suddenly an old man appeared. With a foreign accent he asked where are you heading. Immediately we were transported to a sense of a meeting between fellow pilgrims in a medieval period. As we talked I realised he was a retired Spanish architect. He said we haven't made any progress since the classical period. We weren't sure what he was saying and questioned him in essence what he was saying was the Classical Order was the high point of human civilisation and we had been going downhill ever since. He was referring specifically to architecture, but I took it to mean in all things. To him progress was to build the most solid foundations a human can muster, like the godhead, the Leonardo Da Vinci foundation stone upon which civilisation is built. To him the fact that I knew how to make a square, a tool with a precise 90 degree angle out of a few pieces of wood(straight planed wood) was the highest indication of my knowledge.

I will try to keep mysticism out of my remarks because I find on this forum it turns people away. — Punshhh

That's their mistake, not mine or yours.

The problem, and why it's so easily dismissed, is there's not really a formal or logical argument to make in favor of the connection between spirituality and art. It's experiential, and not theoretical. And maybe that means the concept really doesn't have a place on the forum, but then the question arises of the whole meta-concept of a "philosophy of art". Can it only be done theoretically? If so, does that meta-concept preclude the very possibility of art having a higher purpose? If so, who's wrong: the theoretical philosopher of art, or the artist making the assertion of art's higher purpose? Again, the problem is that, when you begin theoretically, there's not even a question of the artist being wrong; he is. But that doesn't mean he's in fact wrong. If we're going to do philosophy about art, we have to use art's tools: the intuition, the imagination, the connection to the spiritual. Otherwise it's meaningless, or at best, severely handicapped.

I’m interested in views people out there might have on this, that our morals and human situation are explored and reaffirmed in the arts. Of course this is assuming that morality exists and is not constructed. — Brett

Of course this is true. If there's any argument to be made in favor of the idea that art explores and reaffirms the human situation and morals, etc., it's that a lot of that post modern art we might view as meaningless or shallow is, in fact, performing that same function: exploring, and even reaffirming the human situation. We live in a situation where this shallowness and meaninglessness is an expression of the poverty of the human spirit, devoid of a spiritual foundation ("higher", or whatever other word is more comfortable). But even now, there's something of a swing back to some sort of foundation. At least in classical music, there is a large amount of tonal, rather than atonal music being written currently; there has been even since the 70's with minimalism. I think minimalism is another great example, an argument, even. We completely wiped out tonality, as the world wars wiped out so much human "tonality", but now we're slowly beginning again at ground zero: Terry Riley's "In C" being an example (I don't even like that piece that much, but it illustrates the idea). If you've ever taken piano lessons, you know there's nothing more foundational to learning theory and tonality than the key of C...

One example in the visual arts is Makoto Fujimura, who combines classical Japenese Nihonga with abstraction. He's been working for 20-30 years at this point, so these changes have been going on for awhile. But of course Jeff Koons is still making giant balloon dog sculptures and selling them for millions.

One other point I'd like to make is that this idea of art affirming or exploring the situation isn't something that necessarily happens consciously in the artist. Handel writing the Messiah was a situation of 1) getting paid by the church (making a living) and 2) we can assume he was just living within the zeitgeist of his time. Artists are always immersed in the culture of their time, and I think this gives credence to the idea that vapid and meaningless art also expresses the human situation just as sacred music did during the enlightenment, for instance.

I agree that for art there is an aesthetic hierarchy like the spiritual hierarchy in religion and that for art over the historical period of civilisations art has been largely controlled and has mirrored this hierarchy. Meaning that we have inherited an aesthetic of high art, which has a pinnacle, a godhead at the top, inhabited by great artists who have the greatest, most noble moral and philosophical considerations at the front and centre of their great work. Leonardo Da Vinci being the archetype. — Punshhh

This hierarchy as you called it did control art with its aesthetics. For many years it reflected religious and social mores about morality and beauty. These were the vision and creation of God, about God’s world on earth. All art reflected God’s vision. Morality existed in beauty, beauty was a set of aesthetics, morality was aesthetics, God set down morals for man to live by. Art had to be created in that sense because it could be nothing else, it could have no purpose.

Philosophy challenged God’s existence. Man now created and it wasn’t by the rules of God’s vision, it didn’t require rules about perspective, colour, replicating life, good and bad, beauty or horror. It was a totally free act and it was all man’s. Now he could create whatever he could imagine. This is a primitive act, driven by primitive impulses. Mysticism is part of it in the fact that it’s a primitive action. But I would not call it mysticism. I think that confuses things, as if art has a higher purpose.

a couple quick thoughts

(1)Art has been commodified for a long time. Botticelli, for example, was directing a workshop of lesser-artists,in order to complete commissions, for patrons, for money.

(2) There is, without a doubt, a human capacity to approach pure aesthetic experience, something that borders on the mystical.

(3) It's hard to reach this. For most of us, we usually fall short, even if we can understand where the aesthetic experience is tending. Or maybe we have a few peak experiences, we try to repeat, or understand.

(4). It's probably the case that art has always been torn between these two impulses, commercial and aesthetic. Maybe not always commodification, per se - but certainly producing art for social purposes has been there for a long time, probably since the beginning.

(5) Aesthetic creation probably always takes place within a differentiated milieu. I mean this : You remember a very meaningful aesthetic experience. You see trends in the art world that don't reach that. You set yourself against those trends. That probably goes on forever.

Good points, thanks for the reminder that money has always been a big factor in art.

(5) Aesthetic creation probably always takes place within a differentiated milieu. I mean this : You remember a very meaningful aesthetic experience. You see trends in the art world that don't reach that. You set yourself against those trends. That probably goes on forever. — csalisbury

I think this is related to what I'm trying to say about art being a reflection of the human situation; that meaningful aesthetic experience is certainly individual and personal, but as a human participating in the human situation, your response is a reflection of where you are in that situation. And if you then react to trends you don't like by, for instance, trying to create an aesthetic you do like, then you're one individual contributing to that process of art reflecting the human situation. If you're a hobbyist, you may not influence it much, but if you become successful, you might.

And if you then react to trends you don't like by, for instance, trying to create an aesthetic you do like, then you're one individual contributing to that process of art reflecting the human situation. If you're a hobbyist, you may not influence it much, but if you become successful, you might. — Noble Dust

Only a particular kind of work can find itself acting as a mirror. To mean anything it has be seen, it has to make itself known. It’s something about the artist’s obsession that drives the work, that creates the noise that gets it the attention. It’s no place for shrinking violets.

Edit: I don’t want to get mystical, but it’s almost like the art finds the artist.

I think this is related to what I'm trying to say about art being a reflection of the human situation; that meaningful aesthetic experience is certainly individual and personal, but as a human participating in the human situation, your response is a reflection of where you are in that situation. And if you then react to trends you don't like by, for instance, trying to create an aesthetic you do like, then you're one individual contributing to that process of art reflecting the human situation. If you're a hobbyist, you may not influence it much, but if you become successful, you might. — Noble Dust

I think I'm following. Let me test that:

I understand you to be saying something like this : art is created in a shared environment. It's a broad, bigger world, in which artists are embedded. If that broader world is dim and bombed-out, or otherwise dark, but that's a massive part of your lived individual experience, it's part of your reality, it's part of what you're trying to express. If you're in a 'bombed-out world' of Jeff Koontz bubble statues, then that's part of it. And a reaction against it, is still linked back to the world. If there's a full aesthetic experience to be had, it has to take into account the landscape it emerges from?

The question to be asked first is, where are we going, because that’s where art goes.

Edit: unless it’s severely controlled like Communust Russia. But then it simply reveals the Russian zeitgeist.

The question to be asked first is, where are we going, because that’s where art goes. — Brett

If you know where you're going, though, you can just punch it into the gps, and get the route sketched out.

Only a particular kind of work can find itself acting as a mirror. — Brett

What kind of work is that?

To mean anything it has be seen, it has to make itself known. It’s something about the artist’s obsession that drives the work, that creates the noise that gets it the attention. It’s no place for shrinking violets. — Brett

If you're referring to a hobbyist contributing to art's exploration of the human situation, then that is a complicated premise, yes. Art does need to be scene by an audience; I've always said the audience is something like half of the work itself, or at least a third. But the size of an audience is relative; an obscure band like Oceansize certainly has contributed to this process; just read some of the youtube comments. Are they Coldplay? Of course not. Do 8 comments on that particular youtube video constitute an audience, and thus participation in this process? Or the 18,000 views (not alot)? Where's the cut off if not? Edit: make it through to the end of that song for the full effect..

I understand you to be saying something like this : art is created in a shared environment. It's a broad, bigger world, in which artists are embedded. If that broader world is dim and bombed-out, or otherwise dark, but that's a massive part of your lived individual experience, it's part of your reality, it's part of what you're trying to express. If you're in a 'bombed-out world' of Jeff Koontz bubble statues, then that's part of it. And a reaction against it, is still linked back to the world. If there's a full aesthetic experience to be had, it has to take into account the landscape it emerges from? — csalisbury

Yes, you've said it better than I did. :up:

Edit: unless it’s severely controlled like Communust Russia. But then it simply reveals the Russian zeitgeist. — Brett

And to my argument, look at Mikhail Bulgakov. He quietly but persistently railed against Stalinist Russia, sending Stalin letters pleading him to allow his plays to be performed and novels to be published. A few were, but ultimately he died in poverty, a typical story. But read The Master And Margherita, and you will feel all of that rage against oppression, suffering, and the surge upward to find meaning. And the novel gets read more and more with each year. It does indeed express the anguish of that situation. Censorship could not and has not quelled it. It's also outrageously funny, which only underlines the pathos he was able to express.

Ok yeah, we're on the same page. It's really hard to separate what you want to express from the muck you've accumulated, while still finding the proper place for that muck. That's what I struggle with. Like there's so much I want to say, but I can't figure out how to disentangle it from the obscuring theory dialogue I've accumulated - and to add to that, I have to recognize that accumulation is part of it, and also needs its place (but its proper place, not as the directing impulse, but as one element among others) - I noticed you switched your avatar to a still from Stalker - I think Tarkovsky handled this well with that long shot with all the debris in the water. But easier seen than done.

It's really hard to separate what you want to express from the muck you've accumulated, while still finding the proper place for that muck. That's what I struggle with. Like there's so much I want to say, but I can't figure out how to disentangle it from the obscuring theory dialogue I've accumulated - and to add to that, I have to recognize that accumulation is part of it, and also needs its place (but its proper place, not as the directing impulse, but as one element among others) — csalisbury

By "muck" are you talking about personal baggage, etc? I would say that certainly has to play an integral role, and it doesn't have to be the stereotype of a super introspective, personal, almost private expression. It's easier said than done, but personal issues are reflected universally as well; so reflecting them in the work can be a universal expression. If that's not what you meant, then let me know.

I noticed you switched your avatar to a still from Stalker - I think Tarkovsky handled this well with that long shot with all the debris in the water. But easier seen than done. — csalisbury

It's a great film. I don't know him super well, but I would wager that that film expressed something personal as well, but in a masterful way.