24
   

Is technology killing art?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  4  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 04:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Art may vary over time, but I don't agree it is declining
based upon what?


40 years in the art world, and my observations.
Not that the art world has ownership of art/the arts.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 04:48 pm
John Currin is one current artist I find interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Currin

(He's technically very adept by the way.)

One of his (though it's not something to view small, really):

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2008/01/28/p465/080128_currin02_p465.jpg
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:06 pm
@sozobe,
I've watched him too.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:12 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Two separate national surveys gauging youth and adult participation in the arts reported yesterday that visits to art museums are declining.

A study of nearly 4,000 eighth-grade students, part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, found dwindling field trips over the past decade. "The percentage of eighth-graders who reported that they visited an art museum or gallery with their classes dropped from 22 percent in 1997 to 16 percent in 2008," said Stuart Kerachsky, the acting commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the assessment.

The National Endowment for the Arts also released new data yesterday showing that fewer adults were choosing an art museum or a visual arts festival as a leisure-time destination. From 1992 to 2001, 26 percent of adults reported that they visited such attractions, but the number for 2008 dropped to 23 percent. The decrease is small, but it may portend coming declines as the most loyal part of the museum audience ages. The exception, the NEA said, was in the D.C. metropolitan area, where 40 percent of adults said they had visited a museum in 2008 -- reflecting tourism and free admission at most major museums.

In addition, the agency noted sizable declines between 1982 (when it first started documenting arts participation) and 2008 in almost every performing arts field. It reported double-digit rates of decline for classical music, jazz, opera, musical theater, ballet and dramatic plays
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061503026.html
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

This thread is disappointing as it is an important question for which I cant get a good read on the answer. Art is for sure in decline, but what is the reason? I think the decline of art mirrors the decline in the spiritual health of man, the soul can not create or appreciate art when the soul is not healthy. But what is the cause of our spiritual problem?? Many claim that it is indeed technology, usually these folks say that technology has cut man off from the earth and thus left us unattached and withering....I tend to think that rather we are detached from our tradition, as evidenced by the steep decline in our religiousness, but I dont see where technology would clearly be the cause. Maybe life is too easy now, it is the lack of struggle that kills the spirit, our lack of having the experience of overcoming obstacles that is the main problem??

IDK, but I would like to hear thoughtful people considering the nature of the problem...
I do not agree that art is in decline... There are more artists than ever and more talent than ever, and more people feeling the absolute need of self expression... It is not that art is in decline, but it no longer has the magic that once made it marvelous, and enchanting and dangerous while as objects, art follows the same rules as all commodities of supply and demand.. The supply is huge... The product is essential, especially to artist because while this society trumpets individualism it is off the shelf, one size fitzall... People need to assert their lives and their individuality to keep from becoming non persons... Art today is wonderful and alive; but it is too plentiful to support anyone... Its value exists only in feeding the life of those who produce it, who turn themselves inside out for it, who get to put themselves back together more perfectly as a result... Art exists not only for the health of the community, but for the health of the artist; and there it proves its value... In our creations we recreate ourselves... In our jobs we play an insignificant role, doing the jobs of monkeys for peanuts... With meanial day jobs artists suppot lives where they share the work of the gods...
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:28 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

Quote:
Can we agree on that, that impressionism was likely a conscious departure from one of the technological achievement of the day???


No.

Impressionism was directly influenced by photography.
No back atcha... Look at the two side by side... Impressionism is eveything that photography of the time was not... Consider the use of light and color alone, and their place in history... I am certain that people looked at photography and thought art was dead... Photography simply became another form of art... Technology can never kill art, but always challenges art... Look at the way the i ndustial revolution found itself into the deprived and depraved faces of the impressionist and post impressionist... The beer drinkers and potatoe eaters, the rigers, the wage slaves were the tragic grist of the industrial mill... Look behind the bourgoise naked bathers to the lives such people dared to escape...
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
I went to a lot of small plays in the seventies with, say, eight to fifty people in the audience, some friends and relatives, with the odd reviewer or small theater freaks filling up some of the seats. Performance art as such burgeoned after that though. Art will find a way, even sans support systems. My first serious show was state supported - California Arts Council. That was cool. I don't know as much about music - although I follow it to some extent - but it seems plenty alive to me, even with the rampant changes in the industry.

I agree it's a shame that schools have increasingly dropped the arts, even as discussion or reference to (assuming they have): tight money, skewed (my view) priorities. On the other hand, I had probably two days of art lessons in grammar school.

I was originally put off by process art and conceptual art and have had serious back and forths on land art, sometimes pro and sometimes infernally aggravated. Meanwhile, I get those explorations and will use those as an example of "art varys".
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:42 pm
@Fido,
I have looked at the two of them side by side. I've studied the two of them side by side. Four art history courses I've taken deal with Impressionism (General Art History 2, History of Photography, Modern Art Survey, and briefly in The History of Printmaking).

I know how photography influenced the Impressionist painters. I'm not guessing at it.
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Osso nailed it. Arts aren't taught in school. It isn't on the test.

Mo goes to one of the best funded public schools in town and the parents run the art program. Every supply comes from private funds. The school supplies the room for the 12 week program but other than that it doesn't cost them a penny. The only reason the school has art is because some of the parents think it's important.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:00 pm
@Fido,
I agree with that whole post except that I know artists personally making a living out of it - not as many who aren't, though. There is also an in between. And some work in allied fields but are still paid well for some of their art work. Remuneration isn't the measure of art, not that you, Fido, are saying that.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yes...and no !
There are two opposite movements going on...on one side more and more people have assess to education and culture and from there in absolute terms there is an increase in the overall number of good artists even if they just represent 1% of those involved in the "market"...and on the other hand, has you pointed out, art is becoming a commodity, directed mostly to the upper middle class fantasies, build upon recipes and clones of pop culture even in the most higher circles...it gives me the creeps just to think about it...I hate clichés ! (specially exquisite ones...)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:04 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Osso nailed it. Arts aren't taught in school. It isn't on the test
Neither is multiculturalism, global warming and pacifism but all of them are taught in school. I think that the lack of funding and time spent on art in school represents proof that art is not considered to be a priority any more. It supports my position.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
there in absolute terms there is an increase in the overall number of good artists
Are you sure that this is not a illusion caused by the internet making it so much easier to connect artist with art patron? There could very easily be half the number of good artists as 20 years ago but because of the internet it appears that there are a lot more.

I am far from sold...
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:12 pm
@ossobuco,
I'll add that my observations weren't just small plays of associates, but greater los angeles small plays.
Most popular I remember were Teatro Compasino productions. Oh, and way away, San Francisco Mime Troupe.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
that is actually a good sign...it become normalized.
No more need for pad in the back if you get my meaning...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yeah, I am absolutely certain on that regard even considering what you said is well true...
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
art is becoming a commodity


Art has always been a commodity. Ask Rembrandt.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Neither is multiculturalism, global warming and pacifism but all of them are taught in school.


No they're not. At least they aren't in elementary school.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Yes...and no !
There are two opposite movements going on...on one side more and more people have assess to education and culture and from there in absolute terms there is an increase in the overall number of good artists even if they just represent 1% of those involved in the "market"...and on the other hand, has you pointed out, art is becoming a commodity, directed mostly to the upper middle class fantasies, build upon recipes and clones of pop culture even in the most higher circles...it gives me the creeps just to think about it...I hate clichés ! (specially exquisite ones...)


You are out to lunch on this.
You are talking about money.
Do you equate money paid with legitimacy of art? Or interest in it?
You are talking politics and power.
Like this is news. Interestingly, sometimes that isn't just a bulwark and it has been broached, and then been iced, and so forth.

Art is becoming a commodity?

Give us a break.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:30 pm
@boomerang,
True...Mozart did sell it quite well...or Dostoevsky, "The Gambler" coming up to my mind...nevertheless now its a fast food exquisite commodity...go figure this world we live in...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.78 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 01:06:27