Although it may affect the lucidity of any message I may be attempting to convey, I feel it is a more valuable exercise for me to run with a thought, and try to work it out in text (as in my most recent article). My mental processes may be more apparent, but after all, though I naturally believe in pretty much anything I'm going to be writing, I certainly don't want to come off too pedagogical, since for the most part I will be only writing my opinion.
While I was making some less-than-satisfying eggs this morning (read: afternoon), I had a thought about art and music as a reflection of society. Since I am not an art major, and because I inadvertently slept through a good deal of art history, I'm not entirely aware of the discourse regarding "art reflecting life" or "life reflecting art." From my perspective, the two go hand in hand, and I am not overly concerned about the degree to which one reflects the other.
One of my favorite artistic movements (and one that is inspiring a painting I am currently working on), early 20th century Italian Futurism, is an interesting example of art as a movement, to not only reflect the ideology of the artists, but also to influence the direction of the future of society (in a way that I don't necessarily agree with, for the record). However, like all artistic movements, it arose as a reaction to something observed in society (and/or artistic sensibilities at the time). Futurism particularly, emphasized speed, brevity, technology, and a disdain for tradition, seeking to uproot society from the past. This excerpt from the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters creates a pretty clear image of this sentiment:
"The cry of rebellion which we utter associates our ideals with those of the Futurist poets. These ideas were not invented by some aesthetic clique. They are an expression of a violent desire, which burns in the veins of every creative artist today. ... We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past, a religion encouraged by the vicious existence of museums. We rebel against that spineless worshipping of old canvases, old statues and old bric-a-brac, against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."
It is extremely interesting to me that in observing movements in the history of art that there is a trend that tends to move away from the static and all of the notions therein, and into the realm of the dynamic, the youthful, and transient, as well as delving more deeply into the human condition. Additionally, art has transitioned from a rare and commissioned service, to a universally attainable commodity, often directly involved in the goingson of society, aided in part by a gradual deconstruction of the definition of art. Likewise there has typically been a parallel in music, if not a trend toward convergence of many different artistic formats and media. Of course, there were counter-movements to these, but I am merely highlighting the manifestation of departures from convention that were previously absent.
For example, impressionism broke away from the conventions of academic painting, focusing on conveying motion and the passage of time by painting outdoors, fully engaged the subject matter - a feat enabled by advances in technology which yielded paint in tubes.
Expressionism, though not perhaps a proper movement, distorted the image of reality to evoke a snapshot of the emotional landscape of the artist and his/her subject matter.
Art Deco, shared Futurism's admiration for technology, speed, and 'progress,' and was widely popular during the 'Roaring Twenties,' an era characterized by the vibrant spirit of modernity.
The emergence of Pop Art and Dada (related only chronologically) emphasized the artist's ever-present ability to take the familiar and make it unfamiliar, or show us an image of our world in a way that we otherwise may not have seen it. Pop Art isolated the most transient products of our consumption in a way that removed them from their utilitarian context. Dada, a convoluted informal movement, acted as a means to criticize war and approached aesthetic with a deliberate disinterest, diverging from art in a way that causes some to label it "anti-art"
Bauhaus and Modernist art reduced the visual aesthetic to it's most fundamental elements. The pragmatism and relative static nature of this movement may stand in contrast with the aforementioned, but the truth reflected in it's reductionist practice reflects, to me at least, a kind of objectivism that has overseen the advancement of secular society.
Postmodern and contemporary art represents the culmination of the amalgamation of art, design, architecture, music, literature, performance, and perhaps other forms of expression. One of the more recent artistic mediums that has gained mainstream popularity is graffiti, which speaks to the emphasis of youth, transience, and the human condition, as well as (although perhaps not quite as recent) performance and installation art, which serve to inspire a response or create an experience for a short period of time, as a departure from the otherwise "real world."
Within the realm of music experimentation and creativity have exploded into a variety of genres, cross-genres, and undefinable genres.
Of course, the advancement of technology has had a profound influence of all elements of art and society. Within the realm of computing, there is a phenomenon known as "Moore's law," which describes the roughly exponential advancement of technology's complexity.
Personally, I have been tossing around the idea that this might be applicable not only to technology, but to the whole of human society. This cannot, of course, be measured mathematically, and in truth I don't believe it to be an exact corollary, nor am I necessarily referring to the idea of the Omega point. But, in general terms, it seems we are continually broadening that which we find acceptable, enjoyable, or at least tolerable.
When people refer to our "modern lives," (typically marketers) they give the distinct indication that life is more complicated and hectic than ever. Part of this, as I alluded to, is a marketing ploy, but part of it seems to be true. While I don't think we necessarily work more than previous societies, both sexes are more involved in the workforce than ever before, our tasks are certainly more abstract, and there is a tangible disconnect between our efforts and our rewards. Priorities are sometimes juggled back and forth, and our relationship with the concepts of family, happiness, religion, nature, sex, and civilization are constantly changing. It is undeniable that our lives are more fast-paced - we often have to physically be in many different places, but more importantly there is a vast amount of information and stimuli that we must inevitably process on a daily basis.
Not only is our concept of labor and reward abstracted as we've transitioned from agrarian to contemporary metropolitan life, becoming more like cogs in a machine that spits out our fruits rather than the machine itself, but our notions of reality itself are abstracted. People will anxiety disorders now have an outlet for interpersonal communication through instant messaging, social networking websites, and virtual chat. Feelings of real-world adventure and discovery is now emulated virtually, and has become widely popular in the form of MMORPGs, and the two intersect with software like Second Life. Videoconferencing has advanced with Cisco's TelePresence to a point of remarkable accuracy, and realistic haptic technologies are just around the corner.
My roommate was recently involved in a studio that poses the question: "will virtual interaction ever replace real human interaction?" My initial response was that each new generation embraces technologies and societal trends that the last rejected. In fact, in many cases they are not only embraced, but taken for granted. Moreover, i think the question is a bit simplistic, in that it assumes that there will always be a definitive line between reality and virtual reality. The concept of genuine and meaningful human interaction varies from culture to culture and over time. It is likely that not only will our concept of reality be abstracted, but our concept of self will follow suit (and seems to have been on the way for some time now). I suppose the real question is whether physical proximity will ever take a backseat to virtual proximity. Again, I believe that technology and advancements in the understanding of the human mind will eventually blur the line between the two, along with notions of tactile and sensory feedback and perhaps intimacy. In a way, it scares the shit out of me, but I'm willing to bet that won't be the case with my children, and each successive generation. Even electric light was recieved with superstitious revulsion at it's inception.
But what does all this (admittedly tangential) talk have to do with art? Well, there are aspects of postmodern and contemporary art and music that seem to operate under the idea that "anything goes," and intentionally or unintentionally seems to reflect a sense of societal disillusionment. Of course, if I am to be a responsible thinker, I must remind myself how subjective and myopic my perspective is. The generation that grew up with big band and crooners like Sinatra I'm sure viewed Rock and Roll with a similar sentiment. Hip Hop, even without it's obvious 'controversial' subject matter, rebelled against one of the most conventional elements of song - melodic vocals, as well as being produced sometimes without conventional instruments. Consequently it's acceptance was relatively sluggish. There is also the question, regarding some types of postmodern art and music, of whether they intend to shock with the intention to make any communicable point, or simply to get noticed?
Regardless, I personally see a connection between my own observations of societal disillusionment and contemporary art, resulting from many elements of contemporary society - an inundation of marketing and pop culture, growing popularity of pornography, abstractions of traditionally recognized notions of life, growing awareness of global issues and suffering and farther reaching government and industry (which may result in feelings of powerlessness), continuing environmental degradation, aversion to a political climate with no significant means of recourse, and infinite possibilities for distraction, among many other phenomena. Consider the wildly popular art of Kaws, a former graffiti artist, who now sells canvases painted with depictions of spongebob painted with his characteristic 'cross-bones' around the head and X-ed out eyes. From another artist, say Banksy, this might be a clever statement about a variety of questionable societal practices, but I get the distinct impression that that is not the case here.
I suppose the question I'm trying to get at, though it may not be all that evident, is thus: Are there undeniable elements of our nature and our psyche that are adversely affected when our reality is abstracted and the paradigms (and aims) of human life and interaction are so drastically shifted (over such a short period of time)? Or, are we merely clinging on to remnants of the past for our own sense of comfort and familiarity, and the world is better (or at least no worse) off with each new paradigm shift and tradition jailbreak? Either way, although I think it worth rumination, questions of this nature have been proven moot time and time again throughout history. Humanity's progress, if it should be referred to as such, is as perpetual as the dawn of each new day, lending validity to the old (or perhaps only old to me) expression "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way."
Ah, what an appropriately nihilistic conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment