Globalization has resulted in art students and work that emphasizes highly personal experiences and less focus on work that is related to a unique visual development stemming from regional inspiration. While there are natural trends within the art world (Such as the revival of surrealist art and west coast cartoon stylization) it feels as if these trends are not rooted in any kind of intentionality.
Would the De Stij art movement still have occurred with the immense globalization of the internet? Or would it be decentralized and found in pocket communities? The surrealist art movement was slightly decentralized as it held focus in North America and Western Europe but there were still many other specialized artistic focuses during the period such as the unique art of the harlem renaissance and mexican left wing populist art.
With every movement it seems like there is a need for a figurehead, as culture has moved forward to emphasize a singular artist and less of a collective. My first thought would be wondering if this was a natural consequence of popular culture but in reality since popular culture is in fact an expression of those in power to influence the people, it may be a real decision to ascribe less artistic developments to a collective and emphasize a singular individual.
As all artistic movements are a response to current events it mimics how authorship is not the last say of a work but a marker of a transient culture. It seems as if the current surrealist style among students in the fine-art field seems to be a natural consequence of a nonsensical real world and the embrace of trying to find order within an immaterial internal space.
Though this trend seems to be unintentional and decentralized, as many emerging artists believe an exact aesthetic similarity is necessary to call oneself an “art movement” when there is a very real ideological similarity shared among fine art students.
I need to remind myself that movements can only be said in hindsight, and constantly develop. The surrealists were never chained down by a singular consistent aesthetic, and were only labelled as such from recognizing each other in their own respective corners in the fine art world.
I need to remind myself that movements can only be said in hindsight, and constantly develop. The surrealists were never chained down by a singular consistent aesthetic, and were only labelled as such from recognizing each other in their own respective corners in the fine art world.
This consistency is a kind of death in terms of creation. One of the biggest benefits of a post-genre art world through the internet, there is always a transience and never an end goal. The ability to hold authority of visual culture were gatekept by small and powerful communities, oftentimes held down by those with enough money to manipulate the era’s visual culture.
This consistency is a kind of death in terms of creation. One of the biggest benefits of a post-genre art world through the internet, there is always a transience and never an end goal. The ability to hold authority of visual culture were gatekept by small and powerful communities, oftentimes held down by those with enough money to manipulate the era’s visual culture.
However I can also argue there’s an opportunity to “divide and conquer” in decentralized art communities where it’s difficult to organize and present physical work that can reach mainstream cultural influence. Those in power to define and develop culture are less rooted in any real art or aesthetic exposure, and more aesthetic neutrality for profit incentivization.
- Arbiters of culture such as the surrealists were often in small localized communities within specific regions and cities. This made it difficult for any external and experimental art to ever be able to influence a larger culture.
- Now, because everything is so globalized, it is even harder for online communities with nicher aesthetics to do anything in real life. Due to the nature of the online world always changing, trend hopping with no real end goal, the aesthetics are transient and frequently outdated before any real material development is made.
- There is no material cultural influence online, only trends, so the arbiters of culture are even less connected to an artistic community— the arbiters of culture are profit incentivized companies.
- These companies hire artists that often take inspiration from the transience of online trends without developing their own unique style. The online space takes inspiration from these artists and visuals become inbred. We have resulted in a creative bankruptcy. Occasionally, those who take inspiration from real life experiences (or unique visual media) keep the cycle alive and fresh-- especially if these individuals are good at their craft.
Of course there are always exceptions, but I feel like this can be true on a broad scale.