Thursday, January 11, 2007

What makes a sustainable movement?

What is the true measure of an art movement? Is it style, philosophy, or something else? As a college art student, I dreamed of finding that personal imprint for my work. That unique style that is so elusive to one under the tutelage of others. Fortunately, I finally reached the point in my work, where it was definitely distinguishable from the rest of the art world. However, I question if that is an anti-motivator for the creation of a new art movement. I fought, within my art, for a singular identity for so many years, how difficult will it be to share my process with others – in order to attain the cohesive nature of a following or movement? Is the true purpose of a movement based on stylistic approach – to remain a moment in time? A polaroid of what occurred from this date to that date, and the influences that led to such styling?

I question the thought behind starting a movement based purely around style and technical approach – or in the case of the “Stuckism” art movement, a rejection of specific stylistic ideals. Relying on a singular approach or equally on the rejection of one leaves the movement destined for death. I constantly evolve my style out of a divergence from boredom. In the last ten or so year I’ve learned that everything becomes uninteresting, if given enough time. Everything that is, but the ultimate questions of human relevance. All art movements have their high period and lost moment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to create a movement around the exploration of the human condition and how it interacts with nature? – DN

10 comments:

JNix said...

So would that make it a Cultural movement instead of a more narrow art movement? Example might be Naturalism in Cultural movements and Symbolism in Art movements. I am not sure...

Leslie Pearson said...

I really don't think any artist or group of artists set out with the purpose of "creating a new art movement". Perhaps their thoughts about social or political change creates a change in their work or style and then you look back a few years later and it is seen and noted. To me, a new movement can only be seen from hindsight, it's not intentional, it just happened and evolved into something that was new. I don't think Cezanne set out to pave the way for Modern art with his style. It was just the way he painted and other people stood back and said "oh, that's new, let's think about this for a minute". He probably tried his darnest to paint realistically and in his mind couldn't get it quite right but just kept on going. Lord knows Van Gogh wasn't trying to forge any new movement. It just happened. Furthermore, everyone is driven by the influences of our surroundings and other artists. I recently read about an artist named Bridget Riley, an English painter who is one of the foremost proponents of op art, art that exploits the fallibility of the human eye. Read on: In the late 1950s, Riley began to produce works in a style recognizably her own, and this style was inspired by a number of sources. A study of the pointillism of Georges Seurat, and subsequent landscapes produced in that style, led to her an interest in optical effects. The paintings of Victor Vasarely, who had used designs of black and white lines since the 1930s also had a strong influence on Riley's early works. In 1965, Riley exhibited in the New York City show, The Responsive Eye, the exhibition which first drew attention to so-called Op art. One of her paintings was reproduced on the cover of the show's catalogue, though Riley later became disillusioned with the movement, and expressed regret that her work was exploited for commercial purposes.
Anyway, to make a point...this lady was influenced by other artists but was also working her way through a new art movement that soon became so saturated with other artists doing it too that she actually regretted being associated with the movement at all!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Well written Daniel.

elaine k bond said...

I agree with Leslie and I think that believing to have a singular identity/unique style in art is a lure!
I think that (as Picasso said after his first visit at the Lascaux's cave), "Nothing has been done better in art since the prehistoric's artists, everything has to be discovered" (bad translation from french!)
I think that most of art is about human condition and how it interacts with nature. Even if a lot of artists I know and have heard of, are "undrinkable's egotistics wankers" calling pompusly their paintings: "work of art", I still enjoy watching artist's websites, but found that the ones who touched me the most are the humble workers, allways searching more about their technique process (inspired by whatever kind of style's mouvement)to be able to reach their goals endlessly .(And share both, technique and soul).
Anyway I do like you and your paintings Daniel! (and again sorrt for my english!)

JNix said...

I agree with you whole heartedly leslie!

Anonymous said...

I don't think you have a clear idea of what Stuckism is, if that's your opinion....

danielnorth.com said...

Elaine,
Your in Europe, are the "Stuckists" as popular as there as they claim? -DN

Charles Thomson said...

Did we claim to be popular? I think most people in the art world have heard of us, but with many we are deeply unpopular.

Benjamin said...

A movement is something that lets people look down at the tips of their noses to see something that is so personal and has always been evident, but one has always focused on the long sight.

A movement is a way to styleize and propgate the evident.

Art or not.

Louise said...

Didn't want to read and run, I am a design student and have found this post and it's comments an interesting read. Thought provoking, thanks!