Conditions for vigorous, innovative art ambience ?

If you ask me, photography freed painting to emphasize and develop its non-representational functions and capacities.

Maybe we are all missing the obvious...the camera produced the most significant art form of the 20th century, i.e. the movies, including documentaries.

Realism...the word connotes two things, which may or may not be seen to be opposite.
First, it connotes the ACTUAL way an object looks to the human eye. Realistic artists would attempt to capture that look as exactly as possible.
Secondly it would be the ACTUAL qualities of an object, no matter what the object looked like. Abstract artists often claimed they were atempting to capture visually the "essence" of an object or situation, finding new forms and palettes to express this "essence". Hans Hofmann, the great teacher of abstract expressionism and expressionists entitled his famous book on the process of abstraction, "the Search for the REal'.

As long as the world is going to hell in a handbasket conditions for vigorous, innovative art ambience thrives. What deters the the innovative vigor are trends and economics-- people are no less creative now then they were X amount of years ago.

I might have entitled Hoffman's book "The Search for the Subjectively Real." With his permission, of course.
Things do not have "essences" apart from those we subjectively ascribe (or intersubjectively, as in the case of cultural ascriptions) to them. Even "objective" appearances derive in good part from the structure and organization of our neurophysiology, meaning they are in good part a function of us (subjectivity?).

I was reading in Art in America about the great surge of enthusiasm in the three Basque provinces, and how this has resulted in part from the new architecture, especially, but not solely, in Bilbao AND the Basque attempt to establish its own cultural identity apart from Spain. Those are environmental factors. But then it occured to me that perhaps artistic revival is mainly a function of the internal/subjective processes of artists, especially those of "geniuses." Consider the powerful effects of Cezanne's internal drives and experiments on the history of art. Cezanne and all other great artistic geniuses, then, serve as inspirations, as environmental forces, for art in general. Or not.

On a practical level, artists need low rent studios especially in cities.
They then need cool, innovative curators to show their work in local galleries. The presence of both creates a certain artistic buzz in the area and trendy cachet. Attachment to and support from the Arts Dept of a local University or Arts College certainly facilitates the ambience. The area then becomes "discovered", the developers move in and the rents are hiked up.........Then the artists move

and so the cycle continues...........

Art, unfortunately, is an elitist enterprise.

cliffhanger, what do you mean by an "elitist enterprise", as the phrase refers to art?
only rich people are interested in it?
only rich people do it?
art can only be found in expensive places?
art is always expensive?

I'll take a stab at answering the question I posed for this topic?
First, I should like to write that artists are everywhere...talented, creative, productive, enthusiastic...The media are always there, be it paint, clay, wood, metal, etc...The need to express one's ideas and emotions, and often in a way that pleases not only oneself by others as well, is always there....from Timbuctu to Paris, from Punta Arenas to Raratonga.
The question I asked was an attempt to a discover more succinctly and positively WHY art thrived particularly in one region and era, birthed great art, inspired great artists...? as compared to other
periods and places in mankind's history. I intended that the question should refer to man's productions in art, not apes or elephants, or other mammals.
And for the answer here, I turned to art history...to those periods which produced the greatest output nad highest quality of art...ie Egyptian civilisation, INdian civilisation, Chinese SUng civilisation, Greek civilisation, Roman civilisation, the Golden Age of Dutch art,the Renaissance, and perhaps mid 20th century American art.
I draw the conclusion that notwithstanding the unique singular individual artistic genius that might emerge mid 19th century from Timbuctu,(and be rejected, hah, by the politicians who would close a museum because the Timbuctu artist was really anti Christ), the evidence is there that artistic genius arises from and is nourished by a community of artists working energetically together, stimulated not only by the community
and demand for their work, but also by each other.
I would also go further and state that the evidence is there that the community or nation in which the artist works would be economically vital and growing, and at the height of its powers.
I might ask rhetorically, "what does this conclusion portend for western art? does the conclusion have any bearing on what is going on in art today?"

CLIFFHANGER, that was sh*tty. I consider "elitism" to be a put-down term used by those who are envious of the achievements of the few. And the production of great science, art, and literature are a property of the few. I don't mind that. Geniuses are almost by definition the few, i.e., exceptional. What I DO mind is that the education systems of most Western societies focus more on the generation of minds that are equipped--because of an emphasis on the practical arts of mathematics and engineering--to further the goals of making a good living, but not necessarily living an interesting life. Very few people are given the preparation to enjoy the finest achievements in music, art and literature. They are, instead, conditioned only to enjoy the more "recreational" or "distracting" forms of popular arts. Which is one of the reasons I detested the rise of Pop Art.
Elitism in terms of artistic production is inevitable; elitism in terms of the consumption of the fine arts is an unfortunate result of educational deprivation. I hope you are not too dense to know what I'm talking about.

JL, perhaps my delivery of the comment was less than savory, but please do not lecture. Call it envy if you like, however, I contend your defense to be holding too tightly to the preciousness of Fine Art. Pop Art improved the culture, it found it's way into design and graphics, plus, it has some humor to it.

Quite frankly, my answering the questions about the camera and fine artists roiled me because I had to list names-- Hoy Paloy names, names that only a handful are familiar with and all the others could give a rats ass about. How dull it is to list these artists, as if I were back in the classroom, flexing my little idiot art know-how muscles.
A tedious academic excersise that wow's the married volunteer lady docents at a museum.

cliffhanger, I was dense enough NOT to understand what you were talking about. You have a wiseguy way of generalising pontifically...and saying little that is meaningful, because you do not give enough information.
I am a painter; I have worked almost daily most of my adult life. For me, art is hardly elitist...nor has it been bread and butter. It is a way of life, almost like breathing....and for most of many of the people I know, art is NOT elitist. IT is as common as clay.
Indeed, I have come to regard those critics, viewers, collectors...as elitist...but outside the main hall of art. Minor characters in this drama I am engaged in...but very minor...and not necessary to what I do, nor how I do it.
So...I asked you...what do you mean by elitist.
I got no answer, just an insult...I wasn't testing you...I just wanted to understand what you meant.

CH, if you make reference to artists, writers, theories that I do not know, I will look them up and benefit from your reference. Isn't that better than taking offense because you are not talking down to me?

By the way, I consider fine art to be precious, not quite in the sense you gave the word, but as Nietzsche put if (if you'll forgive the reference), aesthetic experience is the great justification for life. I see pop art as changing but not improving American culture. But that's no more than a matter of taste, I know.

JLN a word of thanks to you...should have been said a while back...you come to my aid so very often. Thankyou...

JL, I can understand looking up a writer or painter you are not familiar with, but not a theory. Why does it have to be something established in order for it to be credible?

What is your definition of an aesthetic experience?

goodstein, your view of your painting life is heroic. Tell me honestly, do you think you are somewhat superior to the rest of the world?

I have three pimples on my middle toe left foot....
Now, please, on with the discussion. Therapy is not my field.