Art movements

March 10, 2007 at 10:41 am (philosophy of the arts)

Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. maximum defiance said,

    Cubism? Expressionism?Dada?Constructivism?Neoimpressionism?Realism?impressionism?mo dernism?postmodernism?avant garde? any artist and a description of each would be helpful thx
    basicly the what? when? who? how? why?

  2. ingrid said,

    I think you are asking rather a lot of hard work from someone , why not pick one of these movements for discussion ? As they are in many ways related , this should help you know more about all of them . Which one interests you in particular from a philosophical point of view ?

  3. sharan said,

    Yes, you`re asking in a general form, it`s like you wanted to see your homework appear magically here, but as you ask in general terms I could give you my general answer..

    Garbage:
    Cubism
    Dada
    Constructivism
    Realism
    modernism
    postmodernism
    avant garde

    Beauty and real art:
    Expressionism
    impressionism
    Neoimpressionism

  4. devil said,

    The above post is just silly, the Avant-Garde as garbage? The Avant-Garde is the underlying factor that evolved all movements within art, even your beautiful Expressionism.

    To the original poster, I suggest reading many art history books. The task you have set would take way to much time to summarize. You cannot explain those, without explaining the little movement in-between etc etc.

    Try here…these are brief and miss out lots of key points, but it fulfils what you asked for?

    http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/ – or something like this, try it anyway.

  5. sharan said,

    No, no really, I refer avant garde in it`s lateness, as the garbage like putting a big black square with some barbed wire and a teddy bear sticked to it, but yeah maybe i`m wrong but that`s why it`s my general and my own opinion, I`ve never tried to sound smart or in fact giving some worthy info about that. If the original poster would ask more concretelly instead of wanting his homework done i would`ve answer better. Peace.

  6. nixnix said,

    From a philosophical point of view, what is an art movement?

    The apparent explosion of different movements, “isms”, during the 20th century (there must be almost 30 or 40 of them!) was, I think, a side-effect from industrialization, urban congestion, mass media and the intensity of many extraordinary world events. People manifested their thoughts about these events and the most influential manifestations were thus mentioned in the history books and labeled accordingly. Some movements, like “futurism” and “dada”, were directly connected to the world war and must be seen in the light of their contexts to be understood.

    Another aspect of the emergence of art movements is artificial and commercial, were producers continuously invent changes to evoke the latest- and the most shocking- “new” in order to maintain their businesses (like in the music-, the design- and the fashion- industries). Since this aspect has disadvantages in that it corrupts immaterial value, movements in fine art are often distinguished by their disinterest in money and objetcs which could be sold (except for the event itself and the signatures connected to it). Concept art, land art and performance art of various sorts are a few examples.

    These are just a few things I come to think of if one would like to understand what an art movement is, before getting entangled in the different manifestos.

  7. phillip said,

    Reading your post about the proliferation of art movements in the 19thc and 20thc,I was struck by the similarity to the politics of the time . Perhaps this splintering of groups and subgroups e.g dada , surrealism futurism etc, and the various branches of cubism, vorticism etc is more like what was happening in politics than to do with any real advance in art . Wasn’t some famous artist thrown out of the communist party for being a surrealist and then thrown out of the surrealist movement for being a communist ? Many of these groups had charismatic leaders ,were intolerant of dissent and issued manifestos to advance their ideologies just like radical factions of the left.
    Though they have left some admirable pictures and sculptures , I suspect this was despite their ideologies not thanks to them .

  8. nixnix said,

    Yes, like a competition for attention and influence. But art exhibitions will hardly cause riots on the streets anymore and someone who is considered “world famous” in one branch can be completely unknown next door. Really, art as a social movement seems almost obsolete, which I don?t mind, because I like art which can be specific, ideosynchratic, instead of influenced by others.

  9. maximum defiance said,

    In particular cubism plz

  10. attaca said,

    the above post by ledualr is nonesense…especially on a philosophy board. Rather subjective dont you think?

    inparticular cubism>? you mean you want a description.

    Cubism is actually one of my favorite “forms” of art. It was a style prominant in the early 1900s and led by artists Picasso and Braque. The idea was to break up an image visually and reassumble it in a sort of jagged and geometric manner. There are various concepts and styles, like cubism painting that cover a span of time, or different visions of an object. Like Man descending a flight of steps shows a man throughout the process of descending. Other pieces like picasso`s cubist still lifes show, at the same time, the back, front, side and inside of violins, quitars etc.

    In the beginning I believe the colors where limited (and this is the style I like) lots of earthtones, grays and browns. Later on more vibrant colors, lettersm, words and musical notation began to jump into the painting and I think Russian Supremisism and color field painting came out of that (however loosely) But Im not sure.

  11. nixnix said,

    Attaca wrote:
    …I think Russian Supremisism and color field painting came out of that (however loosely) But Im not sure.

    Suprematism is said to have begun with Kasimir Malevich and his exhibition 0.10 in Moscow. I think it was in 1909. The style was inspired by non-euclidean geometry and like french cubism, italian futurism and the dutch de stijl, suprematism belonged to a general tendency towards non-figurative representation in art at that time.

  12. the boss said,

    avant-garde is whatever’s trendy, or new, but in its strictest sense ought to be original as well.

    An art movement is perhaps best described as a ‘school of thought’ concerning artistic form, expression, representation, meaning, aesthetics.

    It’s whenever one artist creates something, and others like it enough to try to imitate, vary or otherwise innovate it. It ‘catches on’ and in time (if influence is widespread, or successful or controversial enough) critics might label it as an art movement – and the ultimate prize: it gets given an ‘ism’.

  13. phillip said,

    Attaca wrote:
    Cubism is actually one of my favorite “forms” of art. It was a style prominant in the early 1900s and led by artists Picasso and Braque. The idea was to break up an image visually and reassumble it in a sort of jagged and geometric manner. There are various concepts and styles, like cubism painting that cover a span of time, or different visions of an object. Like Man descending a flight of steps shows a man throughout the process of descending. Other pieces like picasso`s cubist still lifes show, at the same time, the back, front, side and inside of violins, quitars etc.

    In the beginning I believe the colors where limited (and this is the style I like) lots of earthtones, grays and browns. Later on more vibrant colors, lettersm, words and musical notation began to jump into the painting and I think Russian Supremisism and color field painting came out of that (however loosely) But Im not sure.

    It seems that critics try to justify some of these stylistic experiments around the early 20thc by saying they were influenced by changes in scientific thinking (ie relativity theory and quantum mechanics). for example it is often alleged that the cubists’ multiple viewpoint and fragmented vision are somehow influenced by Einstein and relativity .Is there any evidence that Picasso or Bracque knew anything about relativity or that it affected their world view ? Were they in fact attempting to portray a ‘truer’ version of reality or were they (as it seems to me)just making variations on a decorative scheme. If there is any evidence of intellectual content which can be even vaguely described as ‘philosophical’or scientific in Picasso and co. this I would like to see .

  14. nixnix said,

    The intellectual content would be the expression of a sign of the time, I suppose. All cultural goods are intensional documents that more or less clearly express the attitudes, hopes and thoughts people have. Today an artist might find the manifold of all things competing for attention inspiring. It would be a sign of the time I suppose. Others might play with some aspect percieved when visiting the particle accellerator in Cern. Or the latest finding in genetics. I saw one artist join a “reality tv” soap opera and the art work was “to become famous”. Oh and Jeff Koons documenting his “relationship” with that italian porn actress on huge silkscreen images and sculptures to play with our notions of taste. I think I would prefer a cubist painting, in case my parents would come for a visit.

  15. attaca said,

    certainly. The entire role of the artist has shifted from paid laborer to philosopher.

    p.s. thanks to Nixnix for the elaboration on Supremisism.

  16. geographyhorse said,

    Maximum Defiance wrote:
    Cubism? Expressionism?Dada?Constructivism?Neoimpressionism?Realism?impressionism?mo dernism?postmodernism?avant garde? any artist and a description of each would be helpful thx
    basicly the what? when? who? how? why?

    http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images_942_78240_Je

    Stay kind to those around you…..

  17. geographyhorse said,

    Maximum Defiance wrote:
    in particular cubism plz

    http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/cubism.html
    http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images_942_78240_Je

    Stay kind to those around you…..

  18. shame said,

    If the cubists or the artists you decribe who borrow ideas from science merely pick up notions of current thinking , plucked from the media without proper study . Isnt it possible they may have misunderstood or mistaken the implications of these theories when incorporating them into their art ?
    I dont know if that would necessarily lessen their value from an aesthetic point of view .
    In the past it wasnt expected that artists should work out for themselves theories to incorporate into their work. In the renaissance it was common for a humanist scholar to work out for the artist a ‘programme ‘ i.e. a schema of symbolic meaning and iconography for him to turn into finished visual form .The artist needn’t know the original sources but should have some insight into what the ideological/ intellectual intentions were . What if he had got his mythology all wrong or didn’t grasp the underlying Platonic allegory or thelogy ? Does this lessen the value of HIS art? If he merely aped the pattern provided without understanding , he would be producing just so many square metres of naked gods cavorting .
    Do artworks which try to borrow ideas from other fields like science become worth less because their understanding was faulty or if the intellectual content/justification wasn’t even there originally but is falsely read into the work by critics ?

  19. nixnix said,

    shame wrote:
    … ..Isnt it possible they may have misunderstood or mistaken the implications of these theories when incorporating them into their art ?? …

    Of course it is possible, but also scientists can misunderstand the implications of their own theories. I don?t think a work of art is generally presented as if it was a scientific document. For example, Malevich designed costumes and backdrop for an opera called “Victory Over the Sun” because scientific discoveries at that time implied a belief that humanity would be able to master nature completely.

    shame wrote:
    … What if he had got his mythology all wrong or didn’t grasp the underlying Platonic allegory or thelogy ? Does this lessen the value of HIS art? If he merely aped the pattern provided without understanding , he would be producing just so many square metres of naked gods cavorting .
    Do artworks which try to borrow ideas from other fields like science become worth less because their understanding was faulty or if the intellectual content/justification wasn’t even there originally but is falsely read into the work by critics ?

    I think art can be justified when it interprets scientific discoveries to investigate what those discoveries mean for humans. Many artists see their work as a form of investigation in this sense. But to see their work as a mere tendency to ape a pattern provided without understanding is, in my opinion, ignorant, because it is a tendency all humans can be “guilty” of.

    Also scientists can ape the patterns provided by their previous discoveries, giving their research an air of value and usefullness prior knowing if it will be of any value- or of any use at all. I know of science projects which have been aping artistic patterns in order to inspire research results.

    Art and science are not separate worlds. They are part of culture and both are cognitive aspects of experiencing and discovering the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: