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.
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.