Dialogue on the postmodern uncanny continued,
Hi Dale,
I agree with you, Modernist art does signify and break with the past
> and with tradition.
>
> The interesting question is why did artists break with the past at that
> point in history? This is where the origins of Modernist art are; The
> notions of alienation in the new cities (new industries, the first
> skyscrapers, think of Metropolis and Eliot's Wasteland), fear of machines
> (second wave of industrial revolution, first mechanised war etc. which gave
> rise to Dada of course) and a general fear brought about by rapid changes
> and advances in medicine and science (Bleriot, motor car, the first Ford
> production line were machines made cars and not people, Freudian analysis,
> telegraph etc, etc. and loads of other stuff that I can't remember)
>
> I just wonder if something similar is happening today? Possibly linked to
> fears about terrorism, nuclear war or disasters brought about by global
> warming. This is where my thoughts about TV and the media playing a part
> come from. As artists how do we respond to these changes in our culture and
> society? What does our art look like? If it reflects the society and culture
> that made it then it is going to be a bit f*cked-up in my opinion!! I really
> do think there is a swing towards the unsettling, the unhomely, the
> de-skilled, the art of so called Outsiders, of black humour and irony, of
> spooky little drawings that depict adult content but look like they have
> been drawn by a child and so on. I find all of these styles and genres
> uncanny. Maybe there is no connection at all?
>
> Maria.
>hello
Do you think it was a move toward a global visual language and even
more so today(new technologies enabling world wide communication)?
especially after 9-11 artists all over the world would have seen the
images and responded to them - governments and moneymakers can spread
fear at a rapid rate - i am intrigued by this subject !!
dale
Hello Dale, I can't imagine a global visual language.
Different cultures, races and even classes have such radically varying ideas
and values. Although there will be some universal shared commonalities now
that I think about it more; it's an interesting idea. I do think there is a
very strong link with globalisation on a more general level though.
Especially the movements of peoples and the mass-transfer of information.
It's not just fear and anxiety that can be rapidly created by media
constructions either- the mind set, biases and convictions of the masses can
be shaped and manipulated at will. I find this quite scary. It is
particularly the layers of our society who do not have the ability or
opportunity to experience the wider world and develop their own opinions who
are most susceptible. This is most unfortunate and ultimately culture-
shapingly- buggered as this sector of our society are the ruling class so to
speak. I don't mean to be insulting or controversial at this point!
Incidently, I think 911 was a spectacularly uncanny disaster. I am still
really haunted and disturbed by it.
Maria.
>
I agree with you, Modernist art does signify and break with the past
> and with tradition.
>
> The interesting question is why did artists break with the past at that
> point in history? This is where the origins of Modernist art are; The
> notions of alienation in the new cities (new industries, the first
> skyscrapers, think of Metropolis and Eliot's Wasteland), fear of machines
> (second wave of industrial revolution, first mechanised war etc. which gave
> rise to Dada of course) and a general fear brought about by rapid changes
> and advances in medicine and science (Bleriot, motor car, the first Ford
> production line were machines made cars and not people, Freudian analysis,
> telegraph etc, etc. and loads of other stuff that I can't remember)
>
> I just wonder if something similar is happening today? Possibly linked to
> fears about terrorism, nuclear war or disasters brought about by global
> warming. This is where my thoughts about TV and the media playing a part
> come from. As artists how do we respond to these changes in our culture and
> society? What does our art look like? If it reflects the society and culture
> that made it then it is going to be a bit f*cked-up in my opinion!! I really
> do think there is a swing towards the unsettling, the unhomely, the
> de-skilled, the art of so called Outsiders, of black humour and irony, of
> spooky little drawings that depict adult content but look like they have
> been drawn by a child and so on. I find all of these styles and genres
> uncanny. Maybe there is no connection at all?
>
> Maria.
>hello
Do you think it was a move toward a global visual language and even
more so today(new technologies enabling world wide communication)?
especially after 9-11 artists all over the world would have seen the
images and responded to them - governments and moneymakers can spread
fear at a rapid rate - i am intrigued by this subject !!
dale
Hello Dale, I can't imagine a global visual language.
Different cultures, races and even classes have such radically varying ideas
and values. Although there will be some universal shared commonalities now
that I think about it more; it's an interesting idea. I do think there is a
very strong link with globalisation on a more general level though.
Especially the movements of peoples and the mass-transfer of information.
It's not just fear and anxiety that can be rapidly created by media
constructions either- the mind set, biases and convictions of the masses can
be shaped and manipulated at will. I find this quite scary. It is
particularly the layers of our society who do not have the ability or
opportunity to experience the wider world and develop their own opinions who
are most susceptible. This is most unfortunate and ultimately culture-
shapingly- buggered as this sector of our society are the ruling class so to
speak. I don't mean to be insulting or controversial at this point!
Incidently, I think 911 was a spectacularly uncanny disaster. I am still
really haunted and disturbed by it.
Maria.
>
posted by maria edney at 3:21 AM
1 Comments:
Interesting conversations here - I agree about the globalisation and the concept of a global visual language is something to consider.
As I said before I think that globalisation has affected every aspect of our lives and so must have a profound effect upon artists and their work.
Throughout history there have been great surges of knowledge and art has changed significantly at that very time - art and science (and now business) are inextricably linked.
I wonder about how a global visual language might evolve? With more and more exposure and incorporating ideas from other cultures will it just become one homogenous mush? Isn't that a frightening idea? I find myself thinking of Sunil and his entropy. Quick, man the lifeboats - entropy is coming to get us...
Post a Comment
<< Home