The
beginning of the 20th century marked an enormous transformation in
the image of both art and the artist, triggered by global technological and
industrial influences. In previous centuries, the purpose of art was to
enlighten the viewer on the nature of human beings and the world in which we
live; a man, his life, way of thinking and beliefs comprised the overarching themes
of Renaissance art. Art in the 20th centuryhowever, sought new, more
modern sources of inspiration. Since the onset of the technical revolution, society’s
perceptions of the human existence have shifted,resulting in a more social,
interconnected way of life. It seemed
like all the words have been said about non-intellectual part of a human, about
feelings. It was at this time that the
artist started speaking about his mental part – intelligence. This betrayal of
the artist who changed the theme of whole art was badly accepted by an ordinary
art consumer. Art was previously a reflection of a human and his feelings, his
natural posture and his ordinary life. Influences including religion and
mythology made the consumer even more frightened of the art produced in the 20thcentury.
This art had become antisocial and anti-humanistic. The Renaissance image of a
human and his life were transformed into an object and shaped into a form not
recognizable by the consumer had the piece not been represented in this way. Visitors
to galleries and museums can easily mix up non-transformed ordinary things,
which area product of technology and the object. It will take the appearance of
this thing, but lack its own original contents and the philosophies of the
artist. Mass
spectators were anxious and angry with this new age of art; not so long ago art
brought immense amounts of aesthetic pleasure without knowingly estimating or
conceiving it. Art used to be a narcissistic (Narcissus) reflection of a
spectator. Esthetic qualities of estimating and accepting art failed to
overcome an egocentric accepting of art as a reflection of his own human body
or nature. When a consumer can’t find this plain reflection of his own in art,
when he can’t get an aesthetic pleasure in art, he accuses the modern art of
being anti-humanistic and soulless. The pink
cheeks of Rococo’s girls are not a shape of a modern art; this is thought to be
antisocial. The artists of 20th
century were seen as cheaters because they failed to use archaistic methods of
making art. They took industrial invention and placed it into galleries and called
it “art”. But why? The answer is simple- it’s just an opposite reaction to revealing
art out of museums. The artist of a new age wanted to display art galleries
from the point of view that these galleries are the only one habitation of art.
But the at1950th appears Bauhaus which gave modern art further
direction to design. Equal art
consumer are not aware of minute details of historical interactions of
different styles, art schools ant their battle for existence, so now the
consumer stands in bewilderment in front of abstract artworks and the mediums
of new age. However,
new horizons and possibilities have been created for the other kinds of
artists, the thinkers. Malevich sparked an art revolution; he became Christ for
the sake of art’s survival. Renaissance and old age art found the shapes and
filled them with feelings and emotions of the artist. Modern art doesn’t depend
on this for its existence, it has its own thought and life separate from the
artist’s point of view. A thought became the main topic of the century. From the
point of view of the technical revolution, this theme of modern art (thought)
was placed into the most representativeaspects of the age – industrial objects,
objectsthat are produced everywhere and are part of our ordinary, everyday
life. The surface of the object is
technically weak, but its contents are much strong that internalits outwardly appearance.
Conversely, when comparing old art to modern art, the old style was stronger
from the outside, the stress was on its appearance.Such a
change of the contents and shape of art from the 19th to 20th
centuries baffles the consumer, who is unaware of the source of these changes.
Now the art consumer is completely perplexed: how is one expected to accept
this new kind of art? What is the content of this art? New age art has lost its
ability to provide the consumer with sensual and aesthetic pleasure, so how is
one expected to enjoy or understand this kind of art? People should chiefly
understand that new art is neither experiential norempirical, but transcendental,meaning
that the object possesses its own energy and that the contents of the art
cannot be understood empirically. Art is becoming
increasingly elite. Upon first sight however, it appears to be the opposite of
elite, as the focus of modern art is often on common industrial objects. Artists
create their own space that is not available for an equal art consumer because
only artists and the circle of thinkers know how egalitisation of the object’s
shape is able to make it contents stronger and more valuable. Bauhaus was what brought change to the relations of galleries and art
objects, because these art objects and industrial ones looked identical to one
another. The difference however, is that the art object itself has its own life
and form, and the artist attempts to reveal the true nature of the object to
the consumer. But where
is art if it’s been swallowed by philosophy? There’s no one single answer. I insist
upon the idea that art is NOT an object, which is created by the artist (or
industry), but is a subject itself, with perceptual abilities to reflect
(intellectually and sensually) and with the ability to project one object to
the other including subject’ thoughts and feelings. It’s a combination of
mental and sensual skills, which can provide signs of something novel and
outstanding, qualities thathave never been given to an object. Art possesses
the ability to receive, to analyze and to project, with or without technical
skill which can correctly express the thought.
l
2087
gracieabrams
jimmyeatworldofficial
gummygunk