Many will argue art has always had imitation, reinvention, and even plagiarism at its heart. Hell, T.S. Eliot said, “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.”
Composer Harold Boatrite thinks that the aim of art is not originality -- which can be achieved simply by doing anything that hasn't already been done -- but rather what he calls "coherent self-expression."
I didn't know what the "Sad Keanu" meme was. So I looked it up and came upon this: Keanu Reeves on His Fame.
I've been convinced for awhile, and have some evidence to support my conviction, that all this postmodern mashing-up of culture in various ways is an indicator of mannerism and decadence. In other words, it's the end of an artistic period. Look up Mannerism in art history, which was the period after the Baroque period, and you'll see some amazing parallels.
ReplyDeleteBen Lewis, in an article called "The Dustbin of Art HIstory" in Prospect Magazine lays these points out very clearly. They apply directly to what you're talking about here:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/05/why-is-modern-art-so-bad/
As for composer Boatrite's comments, they merely reiterate the narcissism of decadent, mannerist art: art isn't anything but self-expression.
Baloney.
I agree with all that you say, Art, except what you say about Harold, who is an old friend of mine. Perhaps it is because I took his quote out of context. His point is that one need not belabor this business of "originality." If you go about authentically aiming at "coherent self-expression" -- i.e., your actual encounter with reality -- with an eye toward beauty (for which his "working definition" is "an order indicating perfection") you will necessarily be "original" because there is only one you.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
ReplyDeleteStill, the problem is that Boatrite's definition neglects to include art that is NOT self-expression, which encompasses most religious art ever made, from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism. If you limit his definition to Modernist art, he's quite correct, because that has been the definition of art for a century and more now: but that limitation ignores millennia of art history.
And that is myopic. And that's why it's not a full and useful definition.
The definition of art as primarily self-expression arose with the modern era, and is found first amidst early Romanticism. In the Medieval period, this definition would have been beyond comprehension, even blasphemous. The emphasis on originality arose WITH the definition of art as self-expression; in fact, the two go hand in hand. The cult of originality and the cult of the artist as expressing originality AS self-expression are very much linked.
Again, Art, I fear I haven't presented Harold's point clearly enough. The self-expression of which he speaks is an effect of the artist's complete absorption in his art -- as Gautier said of poetry, "the perpetual invention of detail, the choice of words, the exquisite care of execution.” So the "self-expression" is on the order of a signature, an outward sign of authenticity, which is actually the subsuming of the self into the art. I would submit that even the religious art to which you refer -- temple friezes, etc. -- expresses the self of the maker. Who touches those touches a man, too. You and Harold do not actually differ except semantically. His point is that the artist serves the art, by devoting himself -- in the strict sense -- to his art. The cult of originality would have the art serve as a vehicle for advertising the artist.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's the latest development, in which art is becoming merely a lifestyle. Visit Berlin.
ReplyDelete