4 ms·

The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. If you want to be truly free thinking then suffer your whole life for your art/creation and die in obscurity o

The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. If you want to be truly free thinking then suffer your whole life for your art/creation and die in obscurity only to be celebrated decades after your death. Contrarian is used as if it means; I can do what I want against a percieved opponent and get paid handsomely for it. The real contrarians are pushing data collection, adtech, outrage machines and using knowledge to control people. The power in being contrary is found in collective outrage movements, tech and religion instead. Thinkingly freely is part of the order now, as reliable and necessary as bread and butter. It is not contrary.

DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
So the true modern day contrarian is the...conformist? I like it. Feels very 'fourth turning'.
danjac 6y ago
> The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. News to Andy Warhol I'm sure, who lived until 1987.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  His Marilyn peice in '62 was the nail in the coffin for the avant guarde. Being rebellious and contrary ended with his workman-like style and using commercial subjects to cash in on pop art. The desire to create paintings that have a revolutionary and contrary meaning to the establishment, has since faded away. We are seeing the fresh new ideas in video games instead and they were made to be saleable and agreeable products from day one. Its very difficult to get people to see a video game that truly challenges the status quo. We are yet to see a peice of art or media that really challenges the world, since the 60s. All the power is in the online platforms and data, that are used to target people with ourageous ideas. Art production has turned into a normal everyday machine, like the dishwasher or hot pockets.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Of course video gams are made saleable and agreeable, they are among the most expensive mediums to make. If you want unusual challenging or irritating, you need cheaper production then that. And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" - they play them because everyone plays them. That being said, how do you define "challenges world"? Because I am pretty sure I can find challenging pieces made after 1960 regardless of what your definition of challenging is. They are just not mainstream.
    - friendlybus 6y ago
      There was a time when the mainstream view on art was led by academia and the political status quo. There was an opportunity to upset the system by producing a collection of artworks that bucked the trend and opposed the powers-that-be. Simply doing that act had power in itself, bringing the new idea into being, had potential for radical social change. The modern era in particular had a few revolutions of thought and art-style. They were social leaders in themselves. Art history goes over them, like Dada, constructivism, ect. Now anything that breaks the trend is drowned out with money and/or censorship. The banana taped to the wall a few years ago inspired people to think about how much art costs to buy, and how art is a money-laundering front for rich people. There was little discussion and sight of the original intent of the piece as a humorous comedy. It did not change how people view society, the world or art. It is seen as a clever man who could sell a $2 banana for $120k, rather than a comment on what art means. The piece has been captured by neoliberal economics (as if it ever meant to be anything else). The video game Hatred [0] was a misanthrophic mass killer who goes on a genocidal crusade. It was banned from steam and panned by reviews. I don't endorse the content of the game, though it perfectly demonstrates the stifling lack of power any particular piece of art has to change people's minds today. You have to be approved by the internet's gatekeepers to be seen and heard. The act of creation has to be matched with the audience interacting with your artwork and a single image of your game does not have the same impact as a Dada artwork did in the 1900s. >And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" I agree (partly). The advent garde is dead, the power is with the tech platforms to change society, not art. So there are no "free thinking creatives", there are just technologists who push internet platforms further and further into people's lives. That's where the "free thought" is. Art is entirely ordered and almost completely chaos-free. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game) A minor rebuttal, people do like the rebellious aspect of Star Wars, despite it's conformity to everyday art production.

DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago

So the true modern day contrarian is the...conformist? I like it. Feels very 'fourth turning'.

danjac 6y ago

> The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. News to Andy Warhol I'm sure, who lived until 1987.

friendlybus 6y ago
His Marilyn peice in '62 was the nail in the coffin for the avant guarde. Being rebellious and contrary ended with his workman-like style and using commercial subjects to cash in on pop art. The desire to create paintings that have a revolutionary and contrary meaning to the establishment, has since faded away. We are seeing the fresh new ideas in video games instead and they were made to be saleable and agreeable products from day one. Its very difficult to get people to see a video game that truly challenges the status quo. We are yet to see a peice of art or media that really challenges the world, since the 60s. All the power is in the online platforms and data, that are used to target people with ourageous ideas. Art production has turned into a normal everyday machine, like the dishwasher or hot pockets.
- watwut 6y ago
  Of course video gams are made saleable and agreeable, they are among the most expensive mediums to make. If you want unusual challenging or irritating, you need cheaper production then that. And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" - they play them because everyone plays them. That being said, how do you define "challenges world"? Because I am pretty sure I can find challenging pieces made after 1960 regardless of what your definition of challenging is. They are just not mainstream.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    There was a time when the mainstream view on art was led by academia and the political status quo. There was an opportunity to upset the system by producing a collection of artworks that bucked the trend and opposed the powers-that-be. Simply doing that act had power in itself, bringing the new idea into being, had potential for radical social change. The modern era in particular had a few revolutions of thought and art-style. They were social leaders in themselves. Art history goes over them, like Dada, constructivism, ect. Now anything that breaks the trend is drowned out with money and/or censorship. The banana taped to the wall a few years ago inspired people to think about how much art costs to buy, and how art is a money-laundering front for rich people. There was little discussion and sight of the original intent of the piece as a humorous comedy. It did not change how people view society, the world or art. It is seen as a clever man who could sell a $2 banana for $120k, rather than a comment on what art means. The piece has been captured by neoliberal economics (as if it ever meant to be anything else). The video game Hatred [0] was a misanthrophic mass killer who goes on a genocidal crusade. It was banned from steam and panned by reviews. I don't endorse the content of the game, though it perfectly demonstrates the stifling lack of power any particular piece of art has to change people's minds today. You have to be approved by the internet's gatekeepers to be seen and heard. The act of creation has to be matched with the audience interacting with your artwork and a single image of your game does not have the same impact as a Dada artwork did in the 1900s. >And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" I agree (partly). The advent garde is dead, the power is with the tech platforms to change society, not art. So there are no "free thinking creatives", there are just technologists who push internet platforms further and further into people's lives. That's where the "free thought" is. Art is entirely ordered and almost completely chaos-free. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game) A minor rebuttal, people do like the rebellious aspect of Star Wars, despite it's conformity to everyday art production.