Article - "why Is Today's Art So Meaningless?"

First of all I don't believe for a minute that today's art is meaningless. Skimming the article has certaionly not changed my mind. People have likely been asking that question for eons - especially when there is a major shift in society as it "had been." The dark ages, the Crusades, the Iron Age, the Age of Enlightenment, and so on right up to the Digital Age have all caused changes in those "comfortable old shoes" that civilizations had grown used to - an upheaval in the "comfort zone" of society, so to speak.

The other part, in my mind, is that the Huff Post is little more that a sensationalism-seeking rag that is supported by those likely watching reality TV as their post-graduate education. Sorry, JMHO. LOL


---------------
~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

The idea that everything today is skimmed is part of the problem. No one actually thinks deeply anymore. They just skim the headlines and move on.

....

If found this quote the other day that I find very interesting:

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

-- Orson Wells

If modern art coming out of the west is meaningless perhaps its because we've had it so relative easy for decades. More meaningful art is most likely being produced in areas of the world suffering from real hardships.

I wouldn't say "no one". I love details...

If today´s art is meaningless, when was the time, art was meaningful?

When used as propaganda, teaching, spreading ideas, promoting new ways of thinking....

And today, there is no propaganda, teaching, spreading ideas, promoting new ways of thinking....?

Bill,
post grad..lol
even reality t.v. isn't reality!!

Let's discuss the meaning of "meaning" first.

For me, "meaning" means "significant", "serving to clarify a form", "setting a mood", "representing an atmosphere", "finding the harmonies between shapes and colors", and many other things.

"Meaning", thus, can mean many different things to many different people.

To ask the question, "Why is today's art so meaningless?", then, is itself rendered meaningless, because the question assumes three false premises:

(1) "Meaning" means only one thing. If this meaning of "meaning" is not served by art, then art is meaningless. But there is NOT one meaning of "meaning", and so there is NOT one meaning ONLY that art serves.

(2) Any meaning of "meaning" is NOT served by art. Given the numerous meanings that "meaning" might have, art serves NONE of these. Such would be a bold, unsubstantiated claim, since clearly art serves, at the very least, one meaning of "meaning". Art serves to decorate throw pillows, for example - a practical, decorative meaning.

(3) The question begs an absolute truth that does NOT have an absolute means of defining such a truth.

I think the difference today is the art references itself more than the world at large. Its only meaningful within the inside jokes of the modern art world.

that article sort of rambled on. and i didn't see the point to really any of it. more like they had college dissertation and nothing better to do with it, other than posting it up. it also seemed more like a long ad for that site - artenol.

due to my limited attention span, that's all i got from it.

i think the doing away with art in schools, giving kids special pills that turns off creativity, and the insane amount of photo filters phones have where everyone can become an artist - tends to wash away what art is. like if i can do it, why should i care about the rest? and if its everywhere, then nothing is that special. the ancient stuff is special because there is very little of it.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Edward, I completely agree with you. It all reads like small talk in a Victorian parlor. Maybe we can't help alluding to something, but it feels a little more like a Jane Austine novel without the manners.

Art that "references itself" is a valid meaning of art, isn't it ?

Art cannot represent nothing, because nothing does not exist. There is ALWAYS something. Even the word, "nothing" is something. Otherwise how could we even grasp what we had just uttered?

Again, nothing is NOT a condition of reality, because ALL reality EXISTS. Anything that exists, ... anything that we might utter, ... anything we might conceive or perceive requires substantiation in some sort of "thingness" that IS. There cannot ever be "thingness" that is NOT. This is an absurdity.

When it loses all relevance with the public at large it loses a lot of meaning doesn't it? When it becomes nothing more than currency it loses a lot of meaning also.

When it loses all relevance with the public at large it loses a lot of meaning doesn't it?

Which public? Relevant to whom, ... exactly?

There is no organism called "public" for which there is an all encompassing, agreed upon sense of "relevance". There never has been.

Let's say the art museum patrons who leave baffled upon viewing a Damian Hirst spin art painting. Surely the only meaning is that the artist and the collector have gotten away with an elaborate joke.

Robert, who is you audience? That is your public and that's who you don't want to alienate. As you've said ""thingness" that is NOT. This is an absurdity. ". It doesn't mean that there can't be a subcategory, which in Internet terms can translate into some pretty impressive numbers.

P.S. You're a fan of Plato, correct?

Edit: I was trying to address the idea that there isn't any set "mass public", which I think Robert was discussing above. Everyone has different ideas for numbers and audience representation that would define a broad spectrum or public. So, many people have started marketing to and benefiting from filling a niche market (always a subcategory of a more general classification of art). No insult was intended.

BTW - Last Friday I saw abstracts sweep the juried show at my local arts center. Now I can appreciate a well crafted abstract as much as the next art lover but really - when it comes down to it, they had nothing to say. There was no meaning in the work. Beautiful yes. NIce patterns, yes, Great texture, yes. Meaning? I don't know.

I saw this and was going to post it myself, just to stimulate conversation. I don't agree with the premise to begin with. If one wants to find art with "meaning" it is out there. But that means one must search and open themselves intellectually to new avenues.

What I found funny (albeit all wrong) was this quote from the Conversations:

Conceptual art - Created by the talentless and sold by the unprincipled to the completely bewildered.

Even though I certainly don't agree, it made me laugh.

True - there is a lot of modern art out there that is dealing with meaningful concepts unfortunately the meaningless stuff grabs the headlines when it sells at auction for ridiculous prices.

"unfortunately the meaningless stuff grabs the headlines when it sells at auction for ridiculous prices."

Someone obviously finds it meaningful :-)


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

So much of the art out there is laughable. Like the guy who stole other people's photos from the internet, enlarged them, hung them in a gallery and sold them for $90,000 each. And he got away with it. How can anyone read that and not be disgusted?

When art doesn't connect with everyday people, then it's an elitists' indulgence. And I guess I'm as everyday and non-elitist as they come. Frankly, I'd take a Kinkade over a Basquiat any day of the week.

Time will tell.....it always does.

"How can anyone read that and not be disgusted?"

Or inspired? I LOVE art that shakes people up, opens wallets, gains notoriety and expands peoples preconceived notions of art.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Richard Prince was the guy. He's addressing an issue that is meaningful to the art world - appropriation, yet most outside that world don't get it or appreciate the meaning.

....

Can art have meaning when its simply created to be an investment vehicle to be purchase, rolled in a tube and stored? At this point it becomes nothing more than stocks and bonds.

I would think most anything would have some meaning to someone, somewhere. Maybe not to me, or to you, or to most of the world even. Art just need to find the right person to connect with.

Architecture; is it meaningful and or functional "art"? If so what makes architecture different than a mere painting and sculpture in terms of meaningfulness? (example; V. Nam Memorial)

Meaningless compaired to what?
When I painted this I meant it,still do...http://fineartamerica.com/featured/je-suis-charlie-finger-painting-to-al-qaeda-michael-dillon.html

Robert,

RE:.."Before a photo can be ABOUT a thing, it must be OF the thing. You cannot have one without the other. "


Don't you think that a photo OF one thing can be more ABOUT a completely Different Thing?

Say, a photo of the interior of a room, saying more ABOUT the person living in that room,more than OF the particular stuff in that room

Kevin,

RE:....." I have seen works that are easily dismissed, until one grasps the meaning and then they take on a whole new meaning."


Isn't that true with everything we encounter in life.?


Don't you think that to maintain our sanity, we must dismiss almost everything that bombards our senses, daily?

And we have to be very selective as to what we decide to find the meaning of.?

Sounds about right to me. Why not?

Robert,

RE:.."Before a photo can be ABOUT a thing, it must be OF the thing. You cannot have one without the other. "


Don't you think that a photo OF one thing can be more ABOUT a completely Different Thing?

Say, a photo of the interior of a room, saying more ABOUT the person living in that room,more than OF the particular stuff in that room


You make a good point, but it only adds further depth to what I said. A photograph most certainly can be ABOUT many different things simultaneously. But, first and foremost, it is ABOUT the thing that it captures - the lines, angles, relationships, object description - WHAT it is - answering the question, "A picture OF what?" Now what it captures CAN say something deeper beyond merely what it is OF, as you said, something ABOUT a person's taste in interior decorations, or something ABOUT the person's taste in color choices, or something ABOUT the income level of the person living there. But, again, first and foremost, the picture is OF a room, and "OF a room" is the base level understanding of what it is ABOUT.

meanings can be obvious, or just plain missing - relying on balanced compositions or just be pleasing (edit: without being darogatory here, a pleasant image may well be a very great image) , or.. meaning maybe subtle, hidden, abstracted, metaphorical and even multi metaphorical, obviously a viewr mght impose his or her own meaning and hijack the piece to suit his or her poor(edit:/or aternative) understanding ,...or need to impose a perception... the image may give clues or experience of the body of work might aid understanding....

i keep thinking maybe i should..
i might write meaninglessly from now and smile .. ... too many hijacked interpretations; often im writing in humour. edit: er and often very much not.

Everyone has an opinion.

Oh Well,

Dave

re:Roger's comment to Keeevin....
That is the true meaning for me, of freedom.
History has shown us what happens when people are not free to have their own opinions.
In a similar vein, history will show us what art was ultimately considered meaningful.

History has shown us what happens when people are not free to have their own opinions.

Oh, people are always free to HAVE their own opinions. They are just NOT always free to state them, and this is where problems come in.

It would be really interesting to see ALL artists start to produce religious or political art, or art related to highly emotional issues. Here in the FAA forum, we would not be able to talk in terms of what such art was ABOUT. We could only talk in terms of lines, angles, colors, composition, and other technical elements. Deeply meaningful art would be banned from the discussions.

Perhaps it is a fear in many people of confronting deeply meaningful issues that engenders the volume of art that some people might call "meaningless".

They didn't have as many drapes back in the day.

Edward Fielding said: Creating photographs ABOUT things rather than photos OF things.

True, and good art works the same way, I think.

Good theory Robert.
My religious work is the most meaningful of my life's work..I even have accompanying texts to explain religious symbolism as well as artistic implications.
I cna show them here and add the text but they are not up for discussion.

all art is meaningless until you give it context from your life.

Yes, David L., ... and context usually involves feelings, but feelings are not considered rational, and irrational motivations are NOT politically correct.

To continue my "theory", then, ... advanced societies today might be evolving in a way were governance tries to subdue feelings, thus, subduing the juice that gives life "meaning", thus subduing the juice that might infuse art with more "meaning" for those who accuse it of having lost its meaning.

We are forbidden to communicate what a religious painting is about, because it might tread on the rights of those who either do not share this religion or who are not religious. We are forbidden to communicate what a political painting is about, because it might impose only one party's bias, and in a public forum where everybody is idealized as being equal, this promotes one group as standing above another in some way.

As long as a painting does not involve too deep of a sea of emotions, we can elevate it above another painting on RATIONAL grounds. The less emotion, the better. The less deep meaning, the better. No wonder abstract painting reached such a zenith. It conceals the articulation of the details of one's emotions, yet uses them to express them in ways that do NOT articulate those details, leaving the work open to arbitrary interpretations of meaning by all who did not paint it. It's a cultural win/win - artists get to express feelings, while governments get to suppress feelings.

ACtually, I think Abbie will agree that religion and politics have been banned here simply because we fight like cats and dogs!

"Fighting like cats and dogs" is the logical outcome of dealing with irrational forces. At best, we might control such things within reasonable bounds, but to avoid them at all costs has always seemed a bit unrealistic to me.

It's really tough on one's emotional makeup to referee such "fights", but this is life. Nobody said that it's comfortable in the more challenging aspects of it. The flaw is in thinking that the same level of comfort that we experience in making a good cake should apply in making of an open space for discussion or expression of those things that we might use as creative drivers.

For art to have the sort of meaning that I think is under consideration in this topic, we have to be able to feel so strongly about it that we engage others intensely. If that intensity is forbidden to any degree, then the art has no further vocal extension into the culture, and it ends at the silent image alone.

I think that I understand the natural tendency to avoid conflicting situations during times when the person monitoring the whole situation desires a sense of calm over life, but I have found, as a performer, that we are our very best under some sort of mild duress. That's part of the performer's job - to endure this mild duress and use it to inject even more appeal into the situation. It's tough. Doing that here would be very draining, I would imagine. I would not want the job. (^_^), because it would take away from my preferred overall disposition.

Many organizations in our daily lives throughout all advanced culture probably feel this way, and that's why people are more medicated, fragmented, steered toward neutrality, and so forth, because feeling intensely is draining, ... standing by those feelings if challenged is draining, and living by those feelings involves interacting with others who might not share them.

"Meaningless art", thus, is safe art.

But, again, I do NOT see that art IS this meaningless yet. If anything, art has MORE directions of meaning than ever. It just might lack the avenues of talking about its various meanings.

Mr. Fielding, Just an interesting note on your quote from The Third Man....In fact, the Swiss did not invent nor did they make Cuckoo clocks.They designed and made watches and music boxes of superb quality. The cuckoo clock was the work of Germans...an industry which began in the Black Forest and became so popular that it spread all over the Federation...and then the Country.. So, if you think about the quote critically, you'll see that it is meaningless considering that the Germans were well known for their bellicose nature. Mr. Wells was notorious for taking credit for things other people did...which is a real shame considering he was one of the most talented people of his day or any other and his accomplishments were and are singular.

nothing

Robert,
I agree 110%
"But, again, I do NOT see that art IS this meaningless yet. If anything, art has MORE directions of meaning than ever. It just might lack the avenues of talking about its various meanings. "

I completely concur with Robert K's last comment.

To intelligently discuss "Fine" Art we must be able to discuss not only :

The What,When, Where and How

But most importantly

The WHY

I have run into something slightly different that might explain time and art's meaning in a different light.

I was making academic art and now am making commercial art. I was in a local gallery yesterday discussing how
to price my prints. Not originals. The owners of the gallery have become friends of mine over the last year.
Clearly my friend shifted her perspective from fine art to commercial art during this discussion.

Has my art lost meaning by becoming commercial?

And on the internet going forward will more serious VERY NEW academic concepts be discovered?
I am known quite well to family, friends, 19k Twitter followers, some FB followers, and hundreds of artists
here on FAA/Pixels, but I am virtually an unknown. An UNKNOWN, truly.

So I look at her very nice and somewhat prestigious gallery, and I see fine art. I rarely like the fine art. I see utterances
or mutations in the art that are not terribly meaningful. It is not commercial. She has two larger gallery spaces and one
small gallery space. In the last three weeks galleries full, she has not sold anything. Why would anyone buy? Yes two of
the artists are well known, IN MY AREA. Not nation wide at all. The manager of the gallery yesterday said they have had some
bites. Some interest.

So now the big query for the rest of you, the point, was Rembrandt a commercial painter or a fine artist?

(Oh and remember more people have seen my work on Twitter in a matter of months than might have seen Rembrandt's artwork
during his lifetime.)

I would venture he was a commercial painter. He made great money doing portraits for quite a while. That was all he was
about for a while. Plenty of his energy seriously went into the commercial side of his business.

Would my gallery owner friend have hung Rembrandt's work?

Bonus question in Rembrandt's day was art known as "fine art"?
I somehow doubt Rembrandt would have cared.

Dave

I'm not of the mind that a portrait painted for commercial purposes and fine art are mutually exclusive. They certainly can be, but that would depend entirely on the perspective of the artist. That being said, I think artists who do lose the fine art aspect of their work are the artists who suffer the most in the end.

Susan,

By going commercial I have not lost the fine art perspective, but by mentioning going commercial my gallery owner friend changed her perspective quite dramatically and without looking at my more recent work. She physically shifted in her seat and facial appearance. The dialog shifted.

That said, how do artists suffer if they lose their fine art perspective? Was Norman Rockwell a fine artist? I think now he is regarded as such, but not in his lifetime.

I am not sure we can generalize across all artists.

Dave

There is nothing about artists that has ever been suitable for generalization.

Yea

OK