07-14-2015, 04:39 PM
Since this discussion everytime I go to a museum or even see my sister paint I can't help but ask this question to myself. I have tried to find things in older mediums that are unique but I haven't seen or heard anything original that hasn't been done before.
This last year I have been teaching a class on logistics at UB. Last month in a staff meeting I ran into some professors of the arts at UB. I brought up this same topic. They pointed out to me that artistic mediums do run in long term cycles.
When the mediums are first created they strive to become more and more complex. Occassionally savant talent shines through and the complexity of the said medium reaches its peak. Those peaks are often not surpassed even with the onslaught of technology. Typically at that point the medium then moves towards more simplistic versions that are more unique. Say a Monet to a David for example. I asked "if mediums become more simple over time isn't there a point where that medium no longer has any fresh or new idea's?" I said to them point blank, "does mankind only have a very limited idea's when it comes to artistic ventures?" If things get simple eventually when do we stop calling a dot on canvas art?
These professors were taken back that I would suggest art mediums are in-fact very finite in their unique idea's. They gave many of the same arguments that many of you gave in this thread. I asked them where these new and unique artist were and which mediums we were talking about but everytime they brought up an example I was able to show how those artist were not unique at all. Needless to say the conversation was not as fruitfull as I would have liked.
A Dr. Davis (can't remember is first name) overheard our conversation. He is an Astronomer. Dr. Davis said to me that if I wanted to find infinite unique idea's coming from our species the only place to find that is in science not art. He hypothesized that art is our species way of dealing with and expressing emotions. As we become more civilized and less brutilized we have less need for artistic realease and our artistic mediums become more sterile.
I asked him "so you are saying if we don't live in a world where we aren't always worrying about starving, dying at age 28 from the pox and being oppressed, raped and always in fear of our overlord we can't be good artist? He said "no, you can still be a good artist but the one thing you can't do is appreciate art like someone who lived 1000 years ago. Basically the importance of a good meal is lost on someone who has never really been starving. The importance of all artistic mediums means less to society so the craving to create something unique dies with those cravings.
The more modern and civilized our society gets the less importance art has on society and the more sterile it becomes.
I said "If that is true then how do you explain the Cardassians? He said "it is a slow process..."
This last year I have been teaching a class on logistics at UB. Last month in a staff meeting I ran into some professors of the arts at UB. I brought up this same topic. They pointed out to me that artistic mediums do run in long term cycles.
When the mediums are first created they strive to become more and more complex. Occassionally savant talent shines through and the complexity of the said medium reaches its peak. Those peaks are often not surpassed even with the onslaught of technology. Typically at that point the medium then moves towards more simplistic versions that are more unique. Say a Monet to a David for example. I asked "if mediums become more simple over time isn't there a point where that medium no longer has any fresh or new idea's?" I said to them point blank, "does mankind only have a very limited idea's when it comes to artistic ventures?" If things get simple eventually when do we stop calling a dot on canvas art?
These professors were taken back that I would suggest art mediums are in-fact very finite in their unique idea's. They gave many of the same arguments that many of you gave in this thread. I asked them where these new and unique artist were and which mediums we were talking about but everytime they brought up an example I was able to show how those artist were not unique at all. Needless to say the conversation was not as fruitfull as I would have liked.
A Dr. Davis (can't remember is first name) overheard our conversation. He is an Astronomer. Dr. Davis said to me that if I wanted to find infinite unique idea's coming from our species the only place to find that is in science not art. He hypothesized that art is our species way of dealing with and expressing emotions. As we become more civilized and less brutilized we have less need for artistic realease and our artistic mediums become more sterile.
I asked him "so you are saying if we don't live in a world where we aren't always worrying about starving, dying at age 28 from the pox and being oppressed, raped and always in fear of our overlord we can't be good artist? He said "no, you can still be a good artist but the one thing you can't do is appreciate art like someone who lived 1000 years ago. Basically the importance of a good meal is lost on someone who has never really been starving. The importance of all artistic mediums means less to society so the craving to create something unique dies with those cravings.
The more modern and civilized our society gets the less importance art has on society and the more sterile it becomes.
I said "If that is true then how do you explain the Cardassians? He said "it is a slow process..."