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