Nearly seven years into the 21st century and there is no one recognized “art movement” for this new age. The 20th century saw many attempts at changing the status quo, and shaking the art world loose: perhaps beyond repair. Despite all the art movements of the 20th century, a few held on and many gone. There are two art genres however, that have been steadily gaining more attention across the world. While not exactly new genres, there is a freshness being breathed into “plein air” and “conceptual” style art, popularized by artists like Howard Pyle.
Plein air was popular in the late 19th, and early 20th centuries, in recent years it has become renewed for both the skill required to participate, and the public festival atmoshpere it creates in the communities where they are hosted. Another popular standout today is “conceptual” art, this style is being fueled by a new generation of computer savvy game designers and their need for graphics and background scenes. Inspired by great illustrators, and 30 years of “future” based T.V. and movies, this “new” art form is responsible for scenes one might see in movies like “Star Wars” or “Dune”. The unique thing about this art is the inventiveness and imaginative capacity required to create it, artists are literally creating their own worlds based entirely on conceptual imagination. I believe that both these artforms will continue growing in popularity, “plein air” for it’s ties to classicism and the adroit skills needed to capture an essence, the other for it’s ability to delve into the creative depths of imagination. In similar fashion to Jules Verne or H.G. Wells, these “conceptual” artists may inspire through their works, new ideas in the minds of engineers that could indeed become reality.
Does anyone have any ideas about the direction art is heading in the 21st century? Are there art movements that are sweeping your area? What type of art will children born today be influenced by as they grow older?
“Does anyone have any ideas about the direction art is heading in the 21st century? Are there art movements that are sweeping your area?”
Jon, I’m interested in why you think that these are important questions to artists.
I’d rather hear more from you than assume that I know what you mean.
Colin, Sorry to be vague. I am interested to know if artists are aware, or even care about trends that are happening right now in the art world. I am interested if artists are influenced by these or other new trends. Most artists I ask have different ideas of what makes “art” good,(even if they like the same work), and they differ on how they seek their individual success’. Some may say they do not want to compromise their art by following trends, others say their art well never be noticed unless they participate in new trends . Most of us are producing art in a style or method that has been around for a while,(perhaps some “trend” we liked in history).
As a classical guitarist, I have witnessed the near death of the “solo guitar concert” venue in public, (I still play despite it’s lack of popularity with the public), but I would have a hard time making a living from it; I would have to follow some trend to make the most of my abilities in today’s music environment, I choose not to. While “hip hop” “rock n roll”, etc, continue to flourish, I am not going for that “carrot”.
I am asking if other artists are aware of what trends are happening around them (in art). If they do, how does it effect their thoughts and beliefs in their own works? Would they customize their art to fit a trend that is selling? Like entering into a “plein air” contest, even though studio work is what they do regularly. The attention one can receive from the national plein air circuit could indeed boost studio sales if successful at it.
You point out something I’m afraid to mention — that we live in a time oddly free of art movements. I’m afraid to say this because I might simply not be aware of what the movements are.
I don’t see “plein air” or “conceptual” as art movements. “Plein air” is a technique. “Conceptual” might refer to indifference to technique (the word could apply to many type of art I’m sure, so I don’t want to get too concrete in the description).
I think this is an exciting time to be an artist. We have the potential to create the next great “art movement” ourselves, although it might only be called that when it is already past its prime. Whatever it is going to be, I’m sure it will be both powerful and unlike anything we have seen before. These are the characteristics of genuine new “movements” in art. I hope to be a part of it.
Jon: thank you for expanding the thought.
I will try and answer in relation to the art I know best, rather than pretend that I have my finger on the pulse of them all.
In photography there has been a clear trend over the last few years fueled by the rise of digital photography, photoblogging, flikr, and a new wave of mass enthusiasm for camera work.
Increasingly photos appear as if they should be highly saturated, instant gratfication, backlit, postcard sized objects. Paul wrote about one aspect of this recently.
This has bumped into the slightly more long running trend of photography becoming more conceptual and less visually oriented.
Anybody working in a different vein finds that they are ignored by the mass public (not bloggy enough) and ignored by the art establishment (not enough meaning).
The web, however, gives as it takes away, and it allows groups like this one, and my group photoblog, to form. This helps nuture individuals working in a way which is in neither stream.
Away from the public galleries, I don’t think either trend is greatly influencing sales of individual pieces of fine art photography. The people who might walk into a commercial gallery in London and pay £500 plus for a photograph don’t want the instant appeal stuff, and don’t much care if the work hasn’t got the stamp of approval of the foundations and public galleries. Traditional workers like Michael Kenna (name picked by looking at stack of books on floor) seem to be selling books and prints as they ever did. Which is to say not very many, but enough for it to be worth their time.
I wonder how deep seated all those ‘art movements’ have been. But this comment is already long enough.
Colin, Thanks for the comments. You brought up a perspective I hadn’t thought of, photography has had to deal with a lot of change in a very short amount of time. Photographers had to make a choice at some point which direction they would go with the onslaught of digital technology.
Karl, Isn’t that the truth, ‘we live in a time oddly free of art movements’. It appears the resurgence of people wanting to create art are actually the ones directing the future of their art; by our actions today and tomorrow, we are insuring the continuation of our chosen genres. I cannot think of any movement today that doesn’t wish to be more than it is. It is society and their choices that are driving the arts today, or not.
The main way I would characterize what I expect to see in the art of the twentieth century can be summed up in a line from an old Eagles song, of all things. “Everything, all the time.”
I don’t think it’s true that there aren’t any art movements today. What I do think is true is that there aren’t any dominant ones. And I think the reason for that is fairly simple. The world is so totally and instantly connected, between various forms of travel, mass media, and (especially) the internet that many diverse ideas and directions can easily find their audiences, regardless of how small.
I’m personally not all that interested in trends, by which I mean the average direction of things, as much as I’m interested in individual developments. I still listen to Bach, but I also like Beck (especially his new album, which is great!). I still use 500-year old painting technology, but I also use photography and computers. I’m not too concerned about what the trends are, but when something new happens I want to know about it. It might influence my work or it might not.
“The Eagles” were so advanced. David I like your approach, I definitely do not want to become a ludite. I am often surprised by the level of genius I see displayed in so many diverse “arts”. Sometimes, I wonder if it is the “expression” of the art, more than the art, that I really like. This would explain why some things just hit me, and others do not, from a broad range of styles and disciplines.
David, your comments are right on. I think that many of the movements of today are in fact larger than many of the old ones of yesterday that we all know about. But there is more competition today: more activity overall and, as you say, faster, more efficient means of transmitting information. This can increase awareness of some things and bury others, often things of great merit.
The movements of today offer modest innovations, not radical ones. All the most radical things have been done. But small, subtle changes are often more interesting that straining to implement a revolution.
My own interest has been in a group of artists working with ideas of maps and networks, art that is synthetic rather than analytic. I include my own stalled art career in this camp. I have been working to promote and trying to explicate such work through writing. A close look at my blog should make what I’m saying clearer.
I’ll note that I began working in this vein–shortly after the September 11 attacks, as it so happened–in complete ignorance of my trendiness. It took me a over a year to come to a good understanding of who my peers were (and are).
Most of the contemporary plein air work that I’ve seen is awful to mediocre. My high school art teacher David Brewster, on the other hand, is brilliant.
Dividing trends and movements by “centuries” is a theoretical convenience. As to what the trends might be over the next few years, I’ll make some guesses.
Traditional techniques are experiencing a renaissance. The “art establishment” as we know it will be history within twenty to forty years. It will get harder and harder to sell a lot of twentieth century art for ever inflated prices. That trend will be bucked by people who have a lot of money invested, but they will lose the game.
We are at the beginning of “the little guy strikes back.”
The whole gallery system, only a little more than a century old anyway, therefore a new trend, has always been in financial peril. This will get worse. Direct sales are the future. Self representation is the future.
Right now, in the US we have money being made in the market but a diminishing productive capacity. So that well will soon dry.
Artists who wish to prosper will need to focus more on works that can be reproduced. That’s a hundred year old winning trend. It gives us the Thomas Kinkaid slash P.T. Barnum crowd pleasing artists, but it also gave us Frank Frazetta, Maxfield Parrish, and N.C Wyeth. The art of the future will be art that ordinary people can afford, or it will be art that doesn’t sell.
We will see more and more cheap imported schlock art to fill that demand.
It’s only going to get tougher.
Direct sales. Self representation. Reproducibility. Low prices. Those are the megatrends.
Direct sales. Self representation. Reproducibility. Low prices. Those are the megatrends.
But at the moment people who are doing this are getting a lot of flak for it. I’ve recently bought a bunch of some of the most beautiful photographs I’ve seen from somebody’s direct sales website. He is selling A4 prints for USD20 each, or less, if you buy a set. Some of the forum crowd are livid.
We are at the beginning of “the little guy strikes back.”
I’ve seen this referred to as mass amateurisation. I suspect it is the topic of muliple draft theses right now.
However, trend or no trend, I suspect people will go on producing work which is unsuited to reproducibility and low prices. Lisa may have something to say now……
Hey Colin,
But at the moment people who are doing this are getting a lot of flak for it.
Weeeell, of course they are. That is a Sign. Follow it.
However, trend or no trend, I suspect people will go on producing work which is unsuited to reproducibility and low prices.
And the gods smile upon those who also do their work for love. As always. Just because a thing is a trend, doesn’t mean it’s good. As the I Ching says, “The superior man sees the meaning of the times and makes his plans therof, but the truly sublime are not tainted by corruption.”
Rex, I do agree with your evaluation of the trends.
In my world, if you cruise around the internet you will see many “fiber postcards” for sale. But unlike the painting a day folks quilters seem to be willing to part with these 4″x6″ pieces of art for only $35. And the vast majority of these small pieces are sold in the name of charity - not for personal gain. The most successful being Fiberart for a Cause, who have donated over $110,000 to cancer research. It’s been interesting to watch as there is a lot of money in the quilting world.
I wonder how successful those that want to sell these small pieces of work for their own personal gain are making out. Does it make these artists look self centered because they aren’t donating all of effort to charity? And are there significant number of buyers for these works for profit given that the charity efforts have basically saturated the market in the name of good.
Okay, that little rant was a bit off topic.
But Jon is right, I see the trend and I can think of how to turn it into a successful marketing tool for myself. But I have no interest in going that route.
Instead I think that Hugh MacLeod’s concept of a global microbrand has more appeal to me. I do think there will still be a place for one of a kind, large, expensive works. But I agree with Rex, the marketing will not be through the existing gallery circuit, but instead self promotion and direct sales.
Weeeell, of course they are. That is a Sign. Follow it.
Or note it and do your own thing anyway,,,,,,which is what I think you are saying.
Arthur mentioned, “Most of the contemporary plein air work that I’ve seen is awful to mediocre”, most is the key word here; there some very talented artists in this genre, probably 10% of the participants really have something to say.
“The movements of today offer modest innovations, not radical ones. All the most radical things have been done. But small, subtle changes are often more interesting than straining to implement a revolution”, this is a point I was trying to make; we are all following old trends or movements, and trying to perform equally or better than what has been done in the past. In some ways, it is likened to one big “evolution of art” in general; all styles, movements, trends, included. Now we are at a saturation point, only the best will probably make it through. There will be an illusion however, as the failing artists are falling off the radar, new ones will take there place: this will cause the appearance of a saturated market. When in fact, the market is winnowing out the chaff.
Others have all made great points as well, it is obvious we are in the middle of the river and the rapids are definitely coming; hang on. This group has really put in some good thought on a post I thought was broad and vague. I appreciate being able to have access to your insights, the fact we all have different perspectives behoves us to read the gamut of posts. I see through the different eyes of each one of you as I read through your comments.
There is no doubt that reproductions sell to part of the market. They can be sold at a lower price than one-of-a-kind works, and it’s fairly efficient for the artist, who can create one piece and sell it multiple times. But even though the means of reproduction have gotten easier, it is not a new thing. Various printmaking methods have been around for quite some time, but the print market hasn’t eliminated the market for paintings and sculptures. If anything it has enhanced it.
My guess is that the market for reproductions will continue to grow, but so will the market for unique works.
My own interest has been in a group of artists working with ideas of maps and networks, art that is synthetic rather than analytic.
Arthur, where on your blog can I find the reference to this? I’m working today (day job), so I don’t have time to dig around too much, but if I could get right to this section I’d like to read about it.
My own work is going very much in this direction too, having been seduced into it by a combination of looking at aboriginal paintings and out the windows of airplanes, as well as looking at maps, and reading about all kinds of networks (biological, social, financial, and of course the internet).
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you have to say about your interest in this area. Could you include a link in your reply to that section of The Thinking Eye?
I haven’t written on this in a concerted way, although I should. Check out Some Thoughts on Landscape, More Echoes, and this off-site review Better yet, look through the “Artists” section on my sidebar.
Jon,
The majority of plein air work turns me off, not so much because it is poorly done (although this is common), but because it seems like a rote imitation of work being done a hundred years ago. I don’t want to make a blanket condemnation of consevativism (much less traditional techniques). But I just don’t see it working very often.
we are all following old trends or movements, and trying to perform equally or better than what has been done in the past
I wouldn’t say that. I think that there are new movements, but that they are small relative to the overall mass of work being made and that their innovations are subtle compared to the great movements of the last century.
Lisa,
I followed that Hugh MacLeod link. Most fascinating. I felt like I’d grabbed a little thread and pulled, and pulled, and pulled. There is a planet sized ball of yarn in that global micro brand idea.
Damn.
And I agree, there will always be a place for large, expensive, one of a kind pieces. I like living in a world that has such things, and I think artists who persist that way in this tough selling environment are to be cherished.
Yet the above notion — a “think local; act global” concept provides hope. Through the internet, we can reach across oceans and continents. Our market base, even if locally sparse, is nevertheless in totality HUGE.
And there’s another megatrend. Yes, yes, yes!
Perhaps a ‘trend’ in art could be a new form of ‘globalisation’ via the internet - art by the masses for the masses. Because of Web 2.0 (social software) it is now interactive - artist now gets feedback from the viewer which informs practice. This is similar to the trend in journalism. As a teacher I am seeing students influenced by this new way of thinking about and doing art… they have an international audience and fan group, informed by comments and feedback, stimulated by the virtual community that they belong to.
So in a sense this is a revolution /movement that will get stronger as the digital natives grow up.
But I am also interested in the how postmodernism has created an ‘anything goes’ panorama in art with often conflicting schools of thought about the purpose and validity of art. I am very interested in the work of Ken Wilber, who has analysed some of the conflicts and suggests that to move on we can think about art from an integral perspective. He has a conceptual framework which enables various art movements to be situated in terms of how it addresses interiors or exteriors of experience, individual or collective experience. There is also a cultural evolutionary aspect.
A key aspect of his theory is to include partial truths and then transcend them into new emergent whole. It enables us to see where we have been, what we are missing and room for exploration.
Personally as an artist I am very interested in exploring what it means to be a integral artist (as well as integral teacher) - how can having a conceptual framework help me to grow as an artist?
And does an integral artist have a manifesto like the great movements do? Will this be a movement that takes on? I am not sure but I know that Integral Theory (or post-post-modernism as it is sometimes called) is being embraced by many discpilines as new a way of understanding and acting thoughtfully and sustainably in the world. So perhaps as it infiltrates consciousness of ordinary people, it will also become reflected in what artists do.
Arthur, thanks for the links to your articles. Of the things I saw, I was particularly drawn to the work of Anna Hepler. Not only is her data cloud image compelling in itself, but the title is a wonderful play on Ucello’s explorations of perspective, and I can see how her work relates to that. I’m thinking especially of his crazy tangle of lances going off in all directions.
Will explore the other artists on your site later when I have more time. Thanks again.
Yes, of course, the lances–how could I have neglected to see that?