"I feel the function of the modern artist is precisely to shatter all taboos and that where the subject of the art work causes the most pain, that is where the artist is contributing the most to civilization."
Camille Paglia, Vamps & Tramps (1994)
Must modern art provoke in order to be effective? What does the "pain" of modern art signify about the current state of Western culture?
Camille Paglia, Vamps & Tramps (1994)
Must modern art provoke in order to be effective? What does the "pain" of modern art signify about the current state of Western culture?
posted by:
|
Hawaii
|
-
Re: the function of modern art
Wed, October 5, 2005 - 11:49 AMI think modern art itself is provocative & that is its nature. Though not being a follower of current trends & ideas, I think as in Damien Hirst, it dissected it, taking it to its raw state. Though I see modern art as also being the way poverty can express itself, without being excluded.
I see modern art reaching further into the taboo`s of the sex cultures more than it has ever done before. This we are just beginning to see now & `techno-sex` is merging into creative expression!
Whay do you think jacqueline? -
-
Re: the function of modern art
Sat, October 8, 2005 - 1:00 PM>>`techno-sex` is merging into creative expression<<
i am intrigued by this statement, and would like a further explanation of your views on this.
for me, modern works often lack aesthetics. i find myself with little connection to the artist's statement. for example, once i saw a work which consisted of three lengths of butcher paper which the artist had completely covered with graphite, to the degree that no white showed through. is this art, i wondered?
not that art has to be beautiful to say something, and that is always a subjective judgement anyway. there are modern works that i enjoy. in general, i think art has addressed sexual taboos throughout time, and i agree that social conditions can be reflected without exclusion. what bothers me about modern art is the sometimes predominate value placed by some over classical works, as if they are mutually exclusive expressions. that probably has more to do with cultural and political trends, rather than the art works themselves.
thanks for responding, lynne. i look forward to hearing more. aloha. -
-
Re: the function of modern art
Mon, October 10, 2005 - 3:05 AMTechno-sex is anything that has a connection both to technology ie:phones/computer/camera/sex-toys etc!
It is a massive & growing industry which can incorporate robotics too!
Just as creative expression seeps into porn-industry, techno-sex has its place too & the advancement of robotics indistry is propelled by the desire for `distanced` sex, or sex of a voyeristic nature.
I agree jacqueline that modern art seem to lack aesthetics, but on a broader level could this be part of the journey of art, especially modern art?
I say this because an old famous artist friend of mine, who is now dead, painted in the rubens style, but, as time evolved his own style changed.
This could of been his own personal journey, but it could of been the journey of art anyway. He was painting in the dark near the end of his life. far removed from the usual visual expectations we look for in art!
So maybe this other artist is on that journey too, who knows?
Art is as deep as the human personnae itself. Reaching its moving extremes constantley, could this be the concept of artistic expression? Worth a thought!
-
-
