The original post was a response to an article by Tom Lubbock in The Independent; http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art-and-architecture/features/is-art-running-out-of-ideas-artists-forced-to-explain-modern-art-866764.html
Is art running out of ideas? Artists forced to explain modern art
Not so much 'Is Modern Art Dead?' as 'Is Modern Art Killing Itself?'
I really liked the article and agree with all the writer says. I can't really add anything myself. Interesting to read the Simon Norfolk comments also. He's a photographer I admire greatly for many reasons, but I think he's missing the point in some cases (although, I think his work deserves a thread for debate in it's own right. He talks about the 'sublime' of war, but to a certain extent I think his work is as sanitising as the media images of war and captions that mention anything but death. His images make the initial ignorance about death beautiful. Given time they make the viewer think, but few give photographs time).
Art has always been more about self-indulgent expression and war has always happened. Some great works depicting the politics of war have stood the test of time and I'm sure some of his photographs will also. However, there have been plenty of affluent periods of history with peace on home shores that have produced great works of art with no political substance whatsoever.
Straying from the OP a little, but I fully understand his frustration and feel that the political voice of art has lost out with the change in management at The Photographers Gallery. There are few venues that attracted as much interest and the media have all but forgotten about the value of art in politics.
Seems the World is changing and there will be less room for self-indulgent art in less affluent times. Perhaps the political voice will be valued more in harder times. I think people will look for more meaning from art. Far from escapism, art seems to have been more about denial during the past couple of decades. Goya's Images of War are still as horrific to look at today as they must have been to the uninitiated in their day. I think art is more about reflecting public mood and questions at the time. We've been lucky to have lived in relatively easy times with few asking political questions and more indulging in their own appreciation of aesthetics and mind wandering.
I've played with the idea of a contemporary Hogarth 'Gin Alley' series myself. Highly political and highly successful financially. Grim in ways, but people bought them.
Modern art is dying for the same reason that modern pop is dying; it's lost it's bollocks. Other people are trying to tell us what is good, what it means, what it's value is, why we should like it and why we should buy it. That's not the way it's supposed to work. And, it doesn't.
Is art running out of ideas? Artists forced to explain modern art
Not so much 'Is Modern Art Dead?' as 'Is Modern Art Killing Itself?'
I really liked the article and agree with all the writer says. I can't really add anything myself. Interesting to read the Simon Norfolk comments also. He's a photographer I admire greatly for many reasons, but I think he's missing the point in some cases (although, I think his work deserves a thread for debate in it's own right. He talks about the 'sublime' of war, but to a certain extent I think his work is as sanitising as the media images of war and captions that mention anything but death. His images make the initial ignorance about death beautiful. Given time they make the viewer think, but few give photographs time).
Art has always been more about self-indulgent expression and war has always happened. Some great works depicting the politics of war have stood the test of time and I'm sure some of his photographs will also. However, there have been plenty of affluent periods of history with peace on home shores that have produced great works of art with no political substance whatsoever.
Straying from the OP a little, but I fully understand his frustration and feel that the political voice of art has lost out with the change in management at The Photographers Gallery. There are few venues that attracted as much interest and the media have all but forgotten about the value of art in politics.
Seems the World is changing and there will be less room for self-indulgent art in less affluent times. Perhaps the political voice will be valued more in harder times. I think people will look for more meaning from art. Far from escapism, art seems to have been more about denial during the past couple of decades. Goya's Images of War are still as horrific to look at today as they must have been to the uninitiated in their day. I think art is more about reflecting public mood and questions at the time. We've been lucky to have lived in relatively easy times with few asking political questions and more indulging in their own appreciation of aesthetics and mind wandering.
I've played with the idea of a contemporary Hogarth 'Gin Alley' series myself. Highly political and highly successful financially. Grim in ways, but people bought them.
Modern art is dying for the same reason that modern pop is dying; it's lost it's bollocks. Other people are trying to tell us what is good, what it means, what it's value is, why we should like it and why we should buy it. That's not the way it's supposed to work. And, it doesn't.
