What Is Modern Art About?
Juliette Aristides made a statement concerning what art has become in modern times. In summary the remark was that art has become about art rather than art being about life. (Classical Painting Atelier – Juliette Aristides)
The interesting thing about this is normally I am not known for agreeing with the more elite within the art world. Yet in this narrative I do believe she is right, at least up to a point. There is something she missed.
In her presented argument, Juliette was comparing the shift of the public mind from the latter 19th century to that of post World Wars minds. She cited rebellion as the core causation for this shift away from traditional art teaching, in this I disagree.
A contemporary colleague to Juliette named Fred Ross also has an interesting take on Modern Art and its impact upon society. While some of the educational aspects I agree with, it hints at an elitism that misunderstands our common laypersons world.
What Happened To Classical And Traditional Art?
There is no doubt that the post World War era held a unique twist to the mindset of art. I personally would not cite Andy Warhol as any great artist, yet this became the genre for an entire generation.
When you compare the art of Warhol’s period to that of a mere 100 years before, they look nothing alike. By contrast looking at the mid Victorian Era art to the preceding 100 years before you can see a natural progression through time. Something obviously happened.
Consideration must be made beyond the aspect of ideas like rebellion. It is too easy to cling to one idea and cite this as a reason for change. More was taking shape.
In the United States a civil war had dominated the continent with its “reconstruction” phase from 1860 and forward. Europe also began to see tension leading up to WW1. With these periods came other radical shifts.
For nearly a thousand years before technology had remained much the same. Yet suddenly the arrival of the telegraph, industrialization, and news media which could spread with speed, the mind of people began to change.
With this shift more was affected than just art. The way in which people lived life would forever be altered. It was this period which brought the end of Monarchist states and the birth of a new world of ideas.
Radical Shifts In Art From 1860 To 1920
The birth of the Art Nouveau period was the first shot across the bow as so to speak for Classical and Traditional Art. While it was relatively short lived and somewhat regionally isolated, its influence was felt.
A transformation had begun and men like Picasso had started reshaping many art concepts. If one looks at the Surrealists, this influence was taking place in other arts such as writing or poetry.
Art was becoming more about the common man, not romanticized figures or idealist images. The world around these people was slowly becoming unraveled by the forces of geopolitical issues and economics.
By the end of WW1 a generation realized that a great war had been fought over one mans assassination and family rivalry. The common man gave up on old world ideas and lost faith in all its institutions.
Rather than rebellion being the cause for a shift in art, it was the natural shift of a changing world. It was a move from pre-industrialization to surviving in a modern world that looked nothing like the past.
The Art Deco period by 1920 was radically different from anything which preceded it. The roaring 20’s saw innovation in other areas such as factories and machining as well as transportation.
By this time Traditional Art while not lost, it was certainly existing within the shadows of newer ideas. Industry itself began to cater to peoples needs rather than old world systems of thinking.
Art became less expensive due to those who would purchase it has less money. The houses of nobility and birth were in decline, they were consolidating, and many were sold or became museums.
Was Art About Art Or Life?
For many art did become about art. Concepts in home decor were born and its first school catering to interior design was introduced in New York just after the turn of the 20th century.
Art for aesthetics was the focus of many. The design industry followed suit as well. Beauty, fit, and function was sought after more than imagery from any period of time.
It is easy to state that art became only about art for the sake of quick profit. This is especially true when one compares the height of what art became to what dominated the landscape by 1920.
Yet at the same time if one looks closely, art was also about life. How? Art carried with it what was important to the common layperson. Art was about their lives.
I do agree with Juliette in that industry itself would seek to monopolize on decor, aesthetics, and eventually mass production to profit. With this in my opinion is where art truly faced near extinction.
I also disagree with Juliette in terms of art no longer being about life. It merely became more simple and tailored to individual desires, realistic tastes, fit, form, and function.
The Real Threat To Traditional Art
I believe a summary can be given by what took place at the turn of the 21st century in order to enlighten us to the real dangers which Traditional Art faces. When comparing what has transpired within our history we can gain a better view of the past.
The boom of the 21st century has been information and communications technology. Today anyone and everyone can have an Etsy or Amazon sellers page. There are also numerous ways to sell your own art online.
What has happened as a result? If artist were left to their own devices eventually the broader art market would justify itself. Yet another player is in the midst.
Maker mass production in small home shops have come like a flood. This has impacted traditional craftsmen as much of what they face is from overseas with cheap imports.
To make matters worse, these places will steal design and ideas to claim them as their own for a lower price. The art world is no different. An image becoming a print happens so quickly it will make your head spin.
With this, prices have plummeted while competition has reached heights unlike anything known in history. It is all about cheaper, faster, and speed of turn over. Today original art sells well below the bar of historical medians.
What has taken place in our time is not about rebellion, wars, or geopolitical issues. Rather it is a further shifting of society, technology, and our ability to individually reach the public.
If one were to look at the gap between the Mycenaea Period and Archaic Period of Classical Greek Art we notice a gap. It has been called the “Greek Dark Ages”. What took place here? Historians are left to wonder.
Could it be that we are beginning a period shift within our present time? Perhaps we are. There are periods like this found throughout history. Nevertheless I believe we should be careful to realize the why behind the shift and adapt to our time.
Is Academic Education And Training Important To Art?
If I were asked, is academic training and education important to art?…. I would say definitely yes. Nevertheless this question is answered by many today who disagree.
Take note of how much importance is placed within art for public education. It has passed being in decline and is near extinction. We have a serious problem there.
Allow me to add another layer to this thinking. With the rise of the individual artist and methods of self marketing, how many do you believe are truly seeking out education? The answer is very few.
We have two additional layers of thought to peer through. Traditional art galleries are in decline and modern guild systems are failing. Add to this archaic thinking within higher education that cannot adapt fast enough to changing technology and we arrive at a mess.
How fast does industry change? For an artist who seeks to market themselves, an online course would teach them 10 year old techniques that no longer exists within algorithms. In some ways education cannot keep up.
Today a tablet can perform tasks with software that makes what is offered in some classrooms look antique. There is a natural resistance to new ways especially for those who focus on Classical Art and wish to exist within Classicism alone.
While education is vitally important, there is a need to bridge this gap which few are able to successfully achieve. While some education centers do a great job at bridging this gap, many do not.
Did Traditional Art Survive By Educated Artists Alone?
Juliette also asserts that the reason why Western art survived past the period of the early 20th century was due to educated artists who persevered. Their teaching a new generation she claimed was key to this survival.
I will not totally disagree with Juliette, yet I do not give these institutions anywhere near the credit that she claims. If anything our institutions of education do exactly what others do, they go where the money is.
The fact that the better schools have modernized with technology show this principle. The additional fact that students must have greater work loads for some courses resist integrating this change also shows the stubbornness of older ways.
Why did our art appreciation and history then survive? While education played its role, it is also because of individual interest, archeology, and those few who wished to push the limits within art.
It may be easy to ascertain that art has become about nothing but art when looking at the masses. Yet within those masses are artists who seek out the older ways outside of educational thinking. This has been especially true for artistic craftsmen.
If one looks at the art movements within France at the turn of the 20th century I credit the guilds for the preservation of knowledge more than education. Many of these individuals were well trained, yet sought newer paths.
Classical Art itself may have never revived to the extent it did without archaeological discoveries which were made within the Neoclassical period. This fueled the interests of the public and artists of that time.
There is an ebb and flow to all things within the world and within life. Trends come and go, Interests rise and then fade. Yet preservation is the key.
With our information capabilities today there is little danger in history disappearing. There is far more danger in it being rewritten and altered.
Will Art Return To Classical Paths And Traditional Ways?
I do see Traditional Art coming back to life yet with a twist from that of history. Rather than it being tied to family and generation to generation, it appears to be shaping more homogeneously via information resources.
While apprenticeships are almost a thing of the past, the information still exists and those with interests pursue it. Beyond this, individuals of a like mind come together and it appears new structures are forming.
Online art forums are an example of a modern guild minus any educational instruction or training. How things are breaking apart to form this new paradigm is rather interesting.
As the world is forced to isolate more and more due to issues we face, these platforms may become more dominant in the future. Art Guilds may revive on a local level but still isolated and with less reach than that of history.
Classical Arts with all the lessons it holds will never disappear yet it will suffer for a time. I do see a way to prevent this. Prevention can be found in ways much like the virtual Van Gogh exhibits that appear in cities across the nation.
Creating interest in ideas requires access to those ideas. In a world where information bombards us at unprecedented levels the institutions of education cannot simply sit back idly and wait for people to come to them.
Nevertheless I do believe interest will return to the Classical Arts. Interest always does shift back to those ways, it is why they are classic. Realism in its many forms and varieties has always been the goal of artists.
What Is The Near Future Of Art?
I see further breakdown of old education and gallery thinking. Those who do not modernize will go away. This will severely harm an entire generation.
Art education itself has already been infused with an ideology of telling students what to think rather than how to think for themselves. This will ultimately fail.
Generally speaking people become radicalized after they are controlled and suffer loss of some kind. We are once again on this social curve repeating the mistakes of near a hundred years ago.
The greatest vehicle I see for saving art is the individualization of art to a community that is presently disorganized. Due to its lack of structure and control it may become the vehicle by which real art succeeds.
This force cannot be stopped, for if it could be then those institutions which could stop it would have. The economic decline of traditional institutions are much like that of older Monarchist thinking.
Where we go in the near future of art will be within the hands of little known artists and their small platforms. Once again the old world is being dismantled. Where and how we arrive at its end is unknown.