7 ms·

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a w

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual artist, I can't help but look at previous eras – say, the Italian Renaissance, or the high point of Ottoman miniature painting [1] – and admire the lack of complete self-expression. Instead, you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas [2], whereas today you'd certainly never have two world-famous painters in direct competition working on the same type of painting – because their value is determined by their individuality and self-expression, not their expertise/skill. This is a widespread post-modern culture thing and not limited to art, of course, and probably won't go away for a long, long time, or at least until you get a massive society-wide idea like Christianity to take root again. 1. The book "My Name is Red" by Orhan Pamuk is all about this. Great book. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Red https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Red 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(art) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(art)

JohnFen 2y ago
Art is creativity expressed under a constraint. That constraint can be the medium, the style, or even something as arbitrary as writing a novel without using the letter 'e'. I've noticed that most of the truly great works of art (in my opinion) have been works produced under unusually restrictive constraints.
squigz 2y ago
> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other in some way? "Aha, my painting of Madonna is better than yours!" sort of thing (I know nothing about art history, so I'd be happy to learn why this is silly :P)
- keiferski 2y ago
  That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting that artists themselves were more directly competitive. Da Vinci and Michelangelo had a bit of a rivalry, for example: https://artrkl.com/blogs/news/art-history-feuds-michelangelo-and-leonardo-da-vinci https://artrkl.com/blogs/news/art-history-feuds-michelangelo... https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-michelangelo-rivalry-inspiration-artists/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-mic... You can't really imagine this happening between top contemporary artists today. "Gerhard Richter says he's a better painter than Takashi Murakami," is a headline that wouldn't make much sense.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Thanks for the explanation > The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying artists now are generally less skilled than artists from back then...? As for realism: isn't this still very much the goal of plenty of video game design, TV/movies, and various other forms of art?
    - keiferski 2y ago
      Sorry if that wasn't clear. I didn't mean that artists are less skilled today, but that realism and technical skill are generally considered less important today than in the past. "Top" artists today are usually not considered so because they have amazing technical skills at drawing/painting/etc. The metrics for success are a bunch of other things I won't get into here, but hyperrealistic portraits aren't typically considered to be art worthy of being in Gagosian and Hauser & Wirth (two of the top contemporary art galleries.) Whereas they would have been in the era of say, Dürer. Video games, movies, etc. typically do care more about skill and realism, but they're a different thing from "fine art", i.e., art in art galleries.
smokel 2y ago
I'm not sure if this trend will continue for as long as you fear. Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). A strange culture developed where narcissistic art critics praised even more narcissistic artists, supporting the notion that these artists were actually responsible for their amazing ideas. I sincerely hope that I'm not the only one who is no longer interested in this state of affairs. Aside from some misguided nonsense, the woke cancel culture seems to have provided some welcome balance here, and when the dust settles it may become preferable again to be a modest artist once more. I for one am not so convinced that individual expression is worthy of so much praise. I'd rather see people care for the weak instead of for the wealthy. Perhaps Hacker News is not the best place to vent such ideas though :)
- keiferski 2y ago
  I think it'll continue as long as high-end artworks are financial instruments. There is a lot of money invested in the idea that a painting by X well-known artist is worth millions and will continue to be worth millions. That said, the art market is currently way down, and just anecdotally I feel like a lot of New Money (especially tech money) isn't that interested in art as much as the previous rich oligarchs were, so it may simply become less popular over time.
- SebFender 2y ago
  If there's one critical thing we need is differences in opinion. Please continue sharing as it forces me to think differently - here and everywhere. I'm all for helping others, and especially the weakest. But when I see students and other folks with full bellies and ideas considered the "weak" that's when I'm lost.
- badpun 2y ago
  > Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). My understanding is that "individual expression" has been with us firmly since Romanticism (it was Beethoven who first promoted the idea that great artists are above kings). The whole "art for art's sake", artist as a high priest of culture etc. - these were all ideas that dominated the XIX century. They kind of withered in XX century after WW1, WW2 and Holocaust, and were replaced by post-modern modes of expression (i.e. we abandon search of the truth via art, because there is no "the" truth).
scruple 2y ago
> I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. Same. Agreed. Where are you finding art elsewhere, then?
- keiferski 2y ago
  In terms of fine art, I mostly just follow individual artists and read art history books about past art movements / art forms. I don't have any specific suggestions, unfortunately.
Daub 2y ago
We can probably travel the first clear instance of such self expression to the romantic era. Probably Goya who was the Spanish court painter but whose uncomissined black paintings were uniquely personal.
- keiferski 2y ago
  No I'm sure you can find clear examples of painting purely for self-expression much earlier than Goya. What's new-ish is that the structure of the art world/market is set up to incentivize self-expression.
  - Daub 2y ago
    > No I'm sure you can find clear examples of painting purely for self-expression much earlier than Goya Name one. Perhaps one can mention artists like Caravagio and El Greco. But all such artists addressed themes that were common: the bible and the clasiics. The unique thing about the romantic movement was that they placed immediate human experience above god and godliness. Honestly, check out Goya's black paintings and you will see what I am talking about. I challenge you to find an equivalent precedent.
    - signal_space 2y ago
      I feel like the obvious answer here is cave paintings.
      - Daub 2y ago
        Maybe. But I feel that the stuff our ancient ancestors did on walls is a different class of activity to that which we now call art. I suspect that their paintings were done as a votive: maybe as part of a prayer or a ceremony. There are too many things that are grouped under the same word: 'art'. Objects which serve different functions should not share the same name.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        I don't know about that, I think cave painting was highly meme driven. Chauvet Cave and Lascaux are similar (lots of overlapping paintings of large animals), but some 16,000 years separate them. Is that individual self-expression? It looks to me like entrenched tradition. Stencil paintings of hands are a common theme, but bizarrely are found all over the world: Argentina, France, North Africa, Australia. This too can only be a meme, I think. Possibly the method, spitting out paint, was the meme, and the idea of making stencils of hands arose naturally by accident in all these places, but even then there is no sign of real individual self-expression going on. It's also intriguing to me that three of the places I mentioned (on three different continents!) include stencils of animal hands (large birds or lizards).
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
Ironically the "individual self expression" is uniform - a certain kind of tame depoliticised artistic creativity marketed as a hustle. It's there all the way down from Gagosian to Etsy. And there are good reasons for it, and also good reasons why you'll find ab ex in bank foyers and very expensive homes. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt... There's always been a tight and complex relationship between art, money, and power, and there's always been a propaganda angle, or at least a statement of public values, to public imagery. But so far as I know the 20th century was the first time state agencies began inventing new aesthetic traditions for political ends (socialist realism in the USSR, ab ex in the US).
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Is it really depoliticized? Much of modern art has a leftist bent and art by oppressed groups is particularly celebrated.
barrysteve 2y ago
[dead]
spinach 2y ago
It's easy to look back at history and build a simple narrative, but during that time a lot of art was being made even by amateurs and people without much money. And the majority of drawings and paintings that are done are going to be lose to time and only the most well cared for survive. And then there are different types - pottery, basket weaving, etc. In several hundred years, the majority of art created now will be lost and people will be able to create a simple narrative about the art of our era as well.
detourdog 2y ago
I see art and religion as completely misunderstood in modern times. Art was the original science of materials. Early creatives simply manipulated the surrounding materials until they achieved mastery and understanding. This is what drives human achievement. Once a repeatable understanding is achieved the development effort morphs into science. The contemporary art world was birthed from the financial industry. The financial art world can be very different than an individual's study of materials and the surrounding culture. The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054.
- leetrout 2y ago
  > The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054. People with both money and art will not let that happen
  - verisimi 2y ago
    Great comment. The tax loopholes require art!
dgellow 2y ago
Lots and lots of artists recreate the same pop-culture characters over and over, with their own style. Doesn’t that count? We even have remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels of movies, books, comics, games. Evolving universes and styles.
olsonjeffery 2y ago
Capitalism and atomized market actors have subsumed the feudal patronage arrangements of the ancien regime. Would you say that you love this current system, but hate the outcomes?
orwin 2y ago
Agree, but i don't think postmodernism can go away. One thing i find fascinating about postmodernism is how antagonistic it is. As it core, it's deeply anti-metanarrative, and i think that it's main structural characteristic. Which is, in a way, a bit anti-intuition, as we like to understand the world with meta-narratives. I won't go into politics (basically, all parties create metanarrative, all use postmodernist arguments against each others), but one sign the world is really becoming postmodern is the state of particle physics, where physicists are more and more critical of theories seeking to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. Once string theory and other "unifying" theories are completely abandoned (probably won't happen, but i'll never know), postmodernism will have become mainstream.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  I don't disagree, but post-modernism's anti-meta-narrative and anti-institution sensibilities are a response to the failings of meta-narratives and institutions as they exist within modernism. Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of modernism. Post-modernism too can't escape critique embodied today in the constellation of meta-modernism's ideas.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    > Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of [post]modernism. Postmodernism is precisely as guilty of this — so framing it as a rejection of that concept from modernism seems wrong. Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups and patted themselves on the back for vapid virtue. Which suggests that postmodernism is instead the abandonment of principle for self indulgence — echoed from the artistic (collapse of skill into banal “self expression”) to the political (calling institutional racism by euphemisms such as “anti-racism”). Postmodernism was nothing but phonies.
    - orwin 2y ago
specialist 2y ago
Great comment, thanks. Yes and: What of all the non-famous artists? I know nothing about (contemporary) art. But my SO attended Gage Academy, an atelier model org intent on training working artists. (Versus most higher-ed art studies which train degrees in art.) > ...but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. The Gage artists give a lot of thought to balancing individual expression and earning a living. If there is a shared ethos or ideal among this local community of artists, I'd guess it's: how to keep making art. https://gageacademy.org https://gageacademy.org
lifeisstillgood 2y ago
The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society - one could uncharitably but not inaccurately characterise the modern art world as a means to arrange for low cost materials to be purchased for vast sums in tax advantageous ways. If we look at an art form where there is a lot of validation by the majority of people, tv and films, we see people “painting the same thing” all the time because that’s what the “zeitgeist” is interested in 500 years ago there were very few books and the west European zeitgeist was mostly the bible anyway.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  Some relevant links / reading - https://www.rusi.org/publication/understanding-art-market-and-anti-money-laundering-regulations https://www.rusi.org/publication/understanding-art-market-an... - https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Money-Laundering-Terrorist-Financing-Art-Antiquities-Market.pdf.coredownload.pdf https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Mone...
- glitchc 2y ago
  This. The modern art world is predominantly a tax evasion and racketeering scheme, designed to transfer assets outside the influence of national and international law.
  - philosopher1234 2y ago
    How does it work? And what’s the evidence that this is true? People love to say this but I’ve never seen anyone go beyond the surface on the took. The impression I get is it’s mostly people who don’t know what they’re talking about repeating a pleasing idea.
    - amiga386 2y ago
      It's used for money laundering, wealth transfer and tax avoidance. You buy and sell art, especially art that permanently resides in freeports, with cash, with shell companies that don't declare their ultimate beneficiary. You then avoid anyone knowing that you paid criminal X or criminal X paid you with the proceeds of crime. You avoid your government knowing that you have $XXX,XXX,XXX of assets stashed away that you're not declaring. You don't pay capital gains tax on it. And so on. Governments around the world have been passing legislation in the past few years, and putting diplomatic pressure on governments of other tax havens, to tighten scrutiny of these international financial transactions. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-freeports-operate-margins-global-art-market https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-freeports-oper... https://news.artnet.com/market/switzerland-freeport-regulations-367361 https://news.artnet.com/market/switzerland-freeport-regulati... https://safehaven.com/markets/markets-other/How-The-Ultra-Wealthy-Are-Using-Art-To-Dodge-Taxes.html https://safehaven.com/markets/markets-other/How-The-Ultra-We... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
creer 2y ago
Why / how do you admire this lack of self-expression? What's so interesting about that specifically?
lordfrito 2y ago
I think the best art is done within constraints -- namely because it forces the artists to be creative within those constraints. Their creativity is what is inspiring. When anything goes, you get splatters of paint on a canvas, which is much less interesting as it's much less creative. That, and the market forces as you said -- it's not creative, it's just signaling and marketing. It's not high art, but what I admire about the original Star Wars film is that it was so difficult getting it made -- it took passion, talent, and craftsmanship to make a movie like that possible -- they had to literally invent new ways of doing things for that to be possible. Seeing the same kinds of movies today, where it's all done on computer -- requires less craft, less creativity -- and that's why these modern movies all feel uninspired. Creativity within limits is where it is at.
- dingusdew 2y ago
  [dead]
- whilenot-dev 2y ago
  Interesting take on Star Wars, because I think it should rather be used as a counterexample: Star Wars was made during the starting era of the "Blockbuster"-movie[0]. Just after movies like Jaws (1975) were a huge success at the box office two years earlier, studios were willing to throw money at directors to counteract any creative constraints. Far better examples would have been The Blairwitch Project (1999) or Following (1998). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Blockbuster_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Bl...
coldtea 2y ago
>because their value is determined by their individuality and self-expression Rather by their conformity and tame-expression
- keiferski 2y ago
  Can you name me five well-known contemporary artists that you would consider conformists?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, the list is endless. And those are the big names - the conformity of the middle-tier fine arts scene is mind numbing...

JohnFen 2y ago

Art is creativity expressed under a constraint. That constraint can be the medium, the style, or even something as arbitrary as writing a novel without using the letter 'e'. I've noticed that most of the truly great works of art (in my opinion) have been works produced under unusually restrictive constraints.

squigz 2y ago

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other in some way? "Aha, my painting of Madonna is better than yours!" sort of thing (I know nothing about art history, so I'd be happy to learn why this is silly :P)

keiferski 2y ago
That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting that artists themselves were more directly competitive. Da Vinci and Michelangelo had a bit of a rivalry, for example: https://artrkl.com/blogs/news/art-history-feuds-michelangelo-and-leonardo-da-vinci https://artrkl.com/blogs/news/art-history-feuds-michelangelo... https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-michelangelo-rivalry-inspiration-artists/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-mic... You can't really imagine this happening between top contemporary artists today. "Gerhard Richter says he's a better painter than Takashi Murakami," is a headline that wouldn't make much sense.
- squigz 2y ago
  Thanks for the explanation > The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying artists now are generally less skilled than artists from back then...? As for realism: isn't this still very much the goal of plenty of video game design, TV/movies, and various other forms of art?
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Sorry if that wasn't clear. I didn't mean that artists are less skilled today, but that realism and technical skill are generally considered less important today than in the past. "Top" artists today are usually not considered so because they have amazing technical skills at drawing/painting/etc. The metrics for success are a bunch of other things I won't get into here, but hyperrealistic portraits aren't typically considered to be art worthy of being in Gagosian and Hauser & Wirth (two of the top contemporary art galleries.) Whereas they would have been in the era of say, Dürer. Video games, movies, etc. typically do care more about skill and realism, but they're a different thing from "fine art", i.e., art in art galleries.

smokel 2y ago

I'm not sure if this trend will continue for as long as you fear. Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). A strange culture developed where narcissistic art critics praised even more narcissistic artists, supporting the notion that these artists were actually responsible for their amazing ideas. I sincerely hope that I'm not the only one who is no longer interested in this state of affairs. Aside from some misguided nonsense, the woke cancel culture seems to have provided some welcome balance here, and when the dust settles it may become preferable again to be a modest artist once more. I for one am not so convinced that individual expression is worthy of so much praise. I'd rather see people care for the weak instead of for the wealthy. Perhaps Hacker News is not the best place to vent such ideas though :)

keiferski 2y ago
I think it'll continue as long as high-end artworks are financial instruments. There is a lot of money invested in the idea that a painting by X well-known artist is worth millions and will continue to be worth millions. That said, the art market is currently way down, and just anecdotally I feel like a lot of New Money (especially tech money) isn't that interested in art as much as the previous rich oligarchs were, so it may simply become less popular over time.
SebFender 2y ago
If there's one critical thing we need is differences in opinion. Please continue sharing as it forces me to think differently - here and everywhere. I'm all for helping others, and especially the weakest. But when I see students and other folks with full bellies and ideas considered the "weak" that's when I'm lost.
badpun 2y ago
> Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). My understanding is that "individual expression" has been with us firmly since Romanticism (it was Beethoven who first promoted the idea that great artists are above kings). The whole "art for art's sake", artist as a high priest of culture etc. - these were all ideas that dominated the XIX century. They kind of withered in XX century after WW1, WW2 and Holocaust, and were replaced by post-modern modes of expression (i.e. we abandon search of the truth via art, because there is no "the" truth).

scruple 2y ago

> I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. Same. Agreed. Where are you finding art elsewhere, then?

keiferski 2y ago
In terms of fine art, I mostly just follow individual artists and read art history books about past art movements / art forms. I don't have any specific suggestions, unfortunately.

Daub 2y ago

We can probably travel the first clear instance of such self expression to the romantic era. Probably Goya who was the Spanish court painter but whose uncomissined black paintings were uniquely personal.

keiferski 2y ago
No I'm sure you can find clear examples of painting purely for self-expression much earlier than Goya. What's new-ish is that the structure of the art world/market is set up to incentivize self-expression.
- Daub 2y ago
  > No I'm sure you can find clear examples of painting purely for self-expression much earlier than Goya Name one. Perhaps one can mention artists like Caravagio and El Greco. But all such artists addressed themes that were common: the bible and the clasiics. The unique thing about the romantic movement was that they placed immediate human experience above god and godliness. Honestly, check out Goya's black paintings and you will see what I am talking about. I challenge you to find an equivalent precedent.
  - signal_space 2y ago
    I feel like the obvious answer here is cave paintings.
    - Daub 2y ago
      Maybe. But I feel that the stuff our ancient ancestors did on walls is a different class of activity to that which we now call art. I suspect that their paintings were done as a votive: maybe as part of a prayer or a ceremony. There are too many things that are grouped under the same word: 'art'. Objects which serve different functions should not share the same name.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      I don't know about that, I think cave painting was highly meme driven. Chauvet Cave and Lascaux are similar (lots of overlapping paintings of large animals), but some 16,000 years separate them. Is that individual self-expression? It looks to me like entrenched tradition. Stencil paintings of hands are a common theme, but bizarrely are found all over the world: Argentina, France, North Africa, Australia. This too can only be a meme, I think. Possibly the method, spitting out paint, was the meme, and the idea of making stencils of hands arose naturally by accident in all these places, but even then there is no sign of real individual self-expression going on. It's also intriguing to me that three of the places I mentioned (on three different continents!) include stencils of animal hands (large birds or lizards).

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

Ironically the "individual self expression" is uniform - a certain kind of tame depoliticised artistic creativity marketed as a hustle. It's there all the way down from Gagosian to Etsy. And there are good reasons for it, and also good reasons why you'll find ab ex in bank foyers and very expensive homes. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt... There's always been a tight and complex relationship between art, money, and power, and there's always been a propaganda angle, or at least a statement of public values, to public imagery. But so far as I know the 20th century was the first time state agencies began inventing new aesthetic traditions for political ends (socialist realism in the USSR, ab ex in the US).

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Is it really depoliticized? Much of modern art has a leftist bent and art by oppressed groups is particularly celebrated.

barrysteve 2y ago

[dead]

spinach 2y ago

It's easy to look back at history and build a simple narrative, but during that time a lot of art was being made even by amateurs and people without much money. And the majority of drawings and paintings that are done are going to be lose to time and only the most well cared for survive. And then there are different types - pottery, basket weaving, etc. In several hundred years, the majority of art created now will be lost and people will be able to create a simple narrative about the art of our era as well.

detourdog 2y ago

I see art and religion as completely misunderstood in modern times. Art was the original science of materials. Early creatives simply manipulated the surrounding materials until they achieved mastery and understanding. This is what drives human achievement. Once a repeatable understanding is achieved the development effort morphs into science. The contemporary art world was birthed from the financial industry. The financial art world can be very different than an individual's study of materials and the surrounding culture. The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054.

leetrout 2y ago
> The financial art world of today may have no relevance to what is deemed art in 2054. People with both money and art will not let that happen
- verisimi 2y ago
  Great comment. The tax loopholes require art!

dgellow 2y ago

Lots and lots of artists recreate the same pop-culture characters over and over, with their own style. Doesn’t that count? We even have remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels of movies, books, comics, games. Evolving universes and styles.

olsonjeffery 2y ago

Capitalism and atomized market actors have subsumed the feudal patronage arrangements of the ancien regime. Would you say that you love this current system, but hate the outcomes?

orwin 2y ago

Agree, but i don't think postmodernism can go away. One thing i find fascinating about postmodernism is how antagonistic it is. As it core, it's deeply anti-metanarrative, and i think that it's main structural characteristic. Which is, in a way, a bit anti-intuition, as we like to understand the world with meta-narratives. I won't go into politics (basically, all parties create metanarrative, all use postmodernist arguments against each others), but one sign the world is really becoming postmodern is the state of particle physics, where physicists are more and more critical of theories seeking to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. Once string theory and other "unifying" theories are completely abandoned (probably won't happen, but i'll never know), postmodernism will have become mainstream.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
I don't disagree, but post-modernism's anti-meta-narrative and anti-institution sensibilities are a response to the failings of meta-narratives and institutions as they exist within modernism. Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of modernism. Post-modernism too can't escape critique embodied today in the constellation of meta-modernism's ideas.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of [post]modernism. Postmodernism is precisely as guilty of this — so framing it as a rejection of that concept from modernism seems wrong. Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups and patted themselves on the back for vapid virtue. Which suggests that postmodernism is instead the abandonment of principle for self indulgence — echoed from the artistic (collapse of skill into banal “self expression”) to the political (calling institutional racism by euphemisms such as “anti-racism”). Postmodernism was nothing but phonies.
  - orwin 2y ago

specialist 2y ago

Great comment, thanks. Yes and: What of all the non-famous artists? I know nothing about (contemporary) art. But my SO attended Gage Academy, an atelier model org intent on training working artists. (Versus most higher-ed art studies which train degrees in art.) > ...but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. The Gage artists give a lot of thought to balancing individual expression and earning a living. If there is a shared ethos or ideal among this local community of artists, I'd guess it's: how to keep making art. https://gageacademy.org https://gageacademy.org

lifeisstillgood 2y ago

The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society - one could uncharitably but not inaccurately characterise the modern art world as a means to arrange for low cost materials to be purchased for vast sums in tax advantageous ways. If we look at an art form where there is a lot of validation by the majority of people, tv and films, we see people “painting the same thing” all the time because that’s what the “zeitgeist” is interested in 500 years ago there were very few books and the west European zeitgeist was mostly the bible anyway.

lifeisstillgood 2y ago
Some relevant links / reading - https://www.rusi.org/publication/understanding-art-market-and-anti-money-laundering-regulations https://www.rusi.org/publication/understanding-art-market-an... - https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Money-Laundering-Terrorist-Financing-Art-Antiquities-Market.pdf.coredownload.pdf https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Mone...
glitchc 2y ago
This. The modern art world is predominantly a tax evasion and racketeering scheme, designed to transfer assets outside the influence of national and international law.
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  How does it work? And what’s the evidence that this is true? People love to say this but I’ve never seen anyone go beyond the surface on the took. The impression I get is it’s mostly people who don’t know what they’re talking about repeating a pleasing idea.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    It's used for money laundering, wealth transfer and tax avoidance. You buy and sell art, especially art that permanently resides in freeports, with cash, with shell companies that don't declare their ultimate beneficiary. You then avoid anyone knowing that you paid criminal X or criminal X paid you with the proceeds of crime. You avoid your government knowing that you have $XXX,XXX,XXX of assets stashed away that you're not declaring. You don't pay capital gains tax on it. And so on. Governments around the world have been passing legislation in the past few years, and putting diplomatic pressure on governments of other tax havens, to tighten scrutiny of these international financial transactions. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-freeports-operate-margins-global-art-market https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-freeports-oper... https://news.artnet.com/market/switzerland-freeport-regulations-367361 https://news.artnet.com/market/switzerland-freeport-regulati... https://safehaven.com/markets/markets-other/How-The-Ultra-Wealthy-Are-Using-Art-To-Dodge-Taxes.html https://safehaven.com/markets/markets-other/How-The-Ultra-We... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

creer 2y ago

Why / how do you admire this lack of self-expression? What's so interesting about that specifically?

lordfrito 2y ago

I think the best art is done within constraints -- namely because it forces the artists to be creative within those constraints. Their creativity is what is inspiring. When anything goes, you get splatters of paint on a canvas, which is much less interesting as it's much less creative. That, and the market forces as you said -- it's not creative, it's just signaling and marketing. It's not high art, but what I admire about the original Star Wars film is that it was so difficult getting it made -- it took passion, talent, and craftsmanship to make a movie like that possible -- they had to literally invent new ways of doing things for that to be possible. Seeing the same kinds of movies today, where it's all done on computer -- requires less craft, less creativity -- and that's why these modern movies all feel uninspired. Creativity within limits is where it is at.

dingusdew 2y ago
[dead]
whilenot-dev 2y ago
Interesting take on Star Wars, because I think it should rather be used as a counterexample: Star Wars was made during the starting era of the "Blockbuster"-movie[0]. Just after movies like Jaws (1975) were a huge success at the box office two years earlier, studios were willing to throw money at directors to counteract any creative constraints. Far better examples would have been The Blairwitch Project (1999) or Following (1998). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Blockbuster_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Bl...

coldtea 2y ago

>because their value is determined by their individuality and self-expression Rather by their conformity and tame-expression

keiferski 2y ago
Can you name me five well-known contemporary artists that you would consider conformists?
- coldtea 2y ago
  Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, the list is endless. And those are the big names - the conformity of the middle-tier fine arts scene is mind numbing...