So I am going to begin to answer this question in two places: Here and as part of a restack note in order to bring more opinions into the conversation.
'Movement' in itself indicates MOMENTUM. Something must happen to trigger a directive which brings more energy, more people, more resources to a 'position'. First we need a cohesive position. In most cases in history, there needed to be a shift away or toward something for change. This requires dissatisfaction. Not just a little, a lot!
Currently as a culture we have a pacifier in our hands. The electronic device of choice, a phone in most instances, allows one to instantly express dismay, disagreement, anger in a limited amount of characters and press 'send' for it to go out in the ether. Most perceive this as having 'accomplished' something. Especially if it goes 'viral' because now there's a louder roar or sign of agreement. Unfortunately, it most often stops there. It does become effective, in cases of #metoo and #blacklivesmatter along with others in various countries. These qualify as movements, why? Because the wave gains enough momentum for people to DO SOMETHING.
When we apply this principle to art, we would have to have dissatisfaction with some part of the status quo in art practices, opinion or schooling which moved people to come together in dissent. Ai comes to mind. But Ai is not a movement, it is a tool. However, depending upon what kind of activism begins to build, the defense or rebellion against Ai being included in the pantheon of 'fine art' or even 'art' may just die off. Because it's more about legislation than passion. So we narrow to the idea that Movements require Passion.
And no one seems to be getting very passionate about anything particular in art, except that and a banana stuck to a wall, these days.
I decidedly agree about PASSION. This is the issue I am experiencing now in the art scene in Santa Fe. I don't claim to know everyone, in fact I am pretty isolated, but in my interactions, this is the common thread, what appears to be lack of interest in things for the sake of themselves. I am chafing severely.
Once we had the great depression, now it seems to be the great apathy.
This is why I have decided to set my own table, claim my own space, and invite people to that, for I have survived far too much for far too long to do anything else!
With Passion also comes a form of Integrity. For why produce something with such a well of fire behind it if it weren't sincere? Instead in many 'art communities' we come across art produced to sell-- I get it. We need to make a living. But create a system of things 'produced' versus works imbued. Please. Then market them accordingly and price them as if it means something...
Got a question for you: why is there no artistic movements anymore? What do you think?
It also required some consultation. Let me get on my keyboard and off the phone tapping to dive in.
This is a great question! Let me get some ☕️in me…
Hahaha it does require coffee
So I am going to begin to answer this question in two places: Here and as part of a restack note in order to bring more opinions into the conversation.
'Movement' in itself indicates MOMENTUM. Something must happen to trigger a directive which brings more energy, more people, more resources to a 'position'. First we need a cohesive position. In most cases in history, there needed to be a shift away or toward something for change. This requires dissatisfaction. Not just a little, a lot!
Currently as a culture we have a pacifier in our hands. The electronic device of choice, a phone in most instances, allows one to instantly express dismay, disagreement, anger in a limited amount of characters and press 'send' for it to go out in the ether. Most perceive this as having 'accomplished' something. Especially if it goes 'viral' because now there's a louder roar or sign of agreement. Unfortunately, it most often stops there. It does become effective, in cases of #metoo and #blacklivesmatter along with others in various countries. These qualify as movements, why? Because the wave gains enough momentum for people to DO SOMETHING.
When we apply this principle to art, we would have to have dissatisfaction with some part of the status quo in art practices, opinion or schooling which moved people to come together in dissent. Ai comes to mind. But Ai is not a movement, it is a tool. However, depending upon what kind of activism begins to build, the defense or rebellion against Ai being included in the pantheon of 'fine art' or even 'art' may just die off. Because it's more about legislation than passion. So we narrow to the idea that Movements require Passion.
And no one seems to be getting very passionate about anything particular in art, except that and a banana stuck to a wall, these days.
I decidedly agree about PASSION. This is the issue I am experiencing now in the art scene in Santa Fe. I don't claim to know everyone, in fact I am pretty isolated, but in my interactions, this is the common thread, what appears to be lack of interest in things for the sake of themselves. I am chafing severely.
Once we had the great depression, now it seems to be the great apathy.
This is why I have decided to set my own table, claim my own space, and invite people to that, for I have survived far too much for far too long to do anything else!
With Passion also comes a form of Integrity. For why produce something with such a well of fire behind it if it weren't sincere? Instead in many 'art communities' we come across art produced to sell-- I get it. We need to make a living. But create a system of things 'produced' versus works imbued. Please. Then market them accordingly and price them as if it means something...
(as I go on to the empty room...)