Ruh Roh, I pissed off some Stuckists... I better watch-out or they'll put me on their ongoing list of who they dislike

I seem to have drawn quite a few strong opinions with my last rather short post. Leslie stated the opinion that most artists do not set-out to establish an art movement; rather serendipity and history drops them into one (I’m summarizing). Although I do recognize examples of such an action, I also remember moments in “art history” such as the Pre-Raphaelites that specifically set-out to form an art movement as a revolt against the tide of acceptable art. Granted, though, that this group was a rare example an organized “revolt” art group that survived the filter of history. I guess my search for a new art movement is less concerned with rebellion and more interested in finding a common ground that will allow it to survive beyond the typical brief life-span of most art movements. JNix mentioned in his comment that it could be cultural rather than just an art movement and I definitely agree with this approach. Only by interjecting awareness across the social and cultural spectrum can anything survive with a semblance of relevance, particularly in this information age.

Now onto Stuckism…

I'm hard-pressed to disagree with just about any freedom-of-speech/ideas that you can throw at me - unless your idea includes the repression of other's ideas. I had to actually reread what I wrote, because my comment was so brief:

“or in the case of the Stuckism art movement, a rejection of specific stylistic ideals.”

One anonymous posted comment stated “I don't think you have a clear idea of what Stuckism is, if that's your opinion....”

This is what the “Stuckism” website says:

“Radical international art movement for new figurative painting with ideas. Anti the pretensions of conceptual art. Anti-anti-art. The first Remodernist art group.”

and

“The Stuckists are, therefore, opposed to the current pretensions of so-called Brit Art, Performance Art, Installation Art, Video Art, Conceptual Art, Minimal Art, Body Art, Digital Art and anything claiming to be art which incorporates dead animals or beds - mainly because they are unremarkable and boring.”

How are the above two statements not a rejection of stylistic ideals? Furthermore, I wasn’t saying a rejection of stylistic ideals is all-together a poor stance. I simply was giving an example of paths taken by other art movements. For example, I personally find the majority of Pop Art to be boring and pretentious… however, my opinion doesn’t make it any less of an art movement.

The argument for the “importance” of Stuckism is ironically summed-up by Leslie’s previously mentioned comments. History will ultimately decide if their work or movement is of any real importance. The main page of their website boasts "stuckism is the No. 1 international art movement of 30million on google" ... what the hell does that even mean? I visited their website, does that suddenly make me a believer? I find it particularly interesting that everytime I mention, "Stuckism" the stuckist police immediately send emails to my inbox and posts to my blog. Hey stuckists are you really that insecure that you continuously troll the internet for what you view as derogatory comments about your precious movement?

While on the surface, I must admit that Stuckism projects many of the ideals of thought-provoking painting that I personally adhere to as an artist; I heartily disagree with it’s blanket rejection approach to any form of art that does not fit within their standards of figurative thoughtfulness. Where does their movement allow for the acceptance of works like: The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago or pretty much anything by Andy Goldsworthy? (I consider Goldsworthy one of the great true artistic innovators of all time).

When I think of Stuckists – I immediately think: neo-fundamentalists of the art world. - DN