Ste Yuj @xlyre - Tumblr Blog

What is Aesthetics? A Study of the New Art Movement that Art History is Looking Over

It started on tumblr [citation needed], we've all seen the "a e s t h e t i c" tags and all the blogs dedicated to the many many different types of aesthetics. I have spent the better part of 4 years collecting, studying, and categorizing theses aesthetics. I do have a formal education in art and architecture so I sort of know what I'm talking about. I'd like to share with you what I've found. I've also made a chart (link) of my findings. This chart is very rough and not meant to be taken as fact. It is how I've categorized almost 700 different aesthetics but that is not even close to how many there are. I do plan on expanding it more. If I get some attention, maybe I'll make more posts that dive deeper into defining this new art movement.

In short, today's use of the word "Aesthetic" is a noun that refers to a title/word given to a specific atmosphere, emotion, feeling, or vibe that a collection of images evokes when viewed together. A comparable approximation would be a "mood board".

Anything can belong to a particular Aesthetic; an art piece, a song, an entire show, an outfit, etc. In my opinion however, its very rare that a singular work can express an entire aesthetic. As stated, an aesthetic is a very specific emotion. Thus, in most cases, a singular work (work here referring to any form of expression) is likely to be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. The only exception to this is if a particular aesthetic is based on a very specific motif found in a particular work that is unique to only that work and from there new pieces can be made that also carry that motif or relate to the original work that the aesthetic was built upon. This will be discussed later. Not every genre of art can express an aesthetic, for example, some aesthetics may not translate very well to fashion, imagery, music, etc. That is to say that it may not be possible to express the emotion evoked by the aesthetic through other mediums other than the original medium the aesthetic was created in.

In summary, an aesthetic is a collection of images that evokes a specific emotion. Most often, this emotion is evoked through the combination of particular motifs found in each work that contribute to an overall "vibe" or atmosphere. These motifs can then be used to create new original works that belong to this aesthetic.

There are a multitude of categories of Aesthetics that I have identified and some of them may seemingly contradict this definition. We will discuss these later. There is also much overlap between specific aesthetics, it is extremely common to find that an art piece may belong to multiple different aesthetics.

This is a very brief definition of the movement. But to fully grasp the depths of this new art movement, we will need to discuss a lot of art history and definitions.

#art

hamletthedane

I was meeting a client at a famous museum’s lounge for lunch (fancy, I know) and had an hour to kill afterwards so I joined the first random docent tour I could find. The woman who took us around was a great-grandmother from the Bronx “back when that was nothing to brag about” and she was doing a talk on alternative mediums within art.

What I thought that meant: telling us about unique sculpture materials and paint mixtures.

What that actually meant: an 84yo woman gingerly holding a beautifully beaded and embroidered dress (apparently from Ukraine and at least 200 years old) and, with tears in her eyes, showing how each individual thread was spun by hand and weaved into place on a cottage floor loom, with bright blue silk embroidery thread and hand-blown beads intricately piercing the work of other labor for days upon days, as the labor of a dozen talented people came together to make something so beautiful for a village girl’s wedding day.

What it also meant: in 1948, a young girl lived in a cramped tenement-like third floor apartment in Manhattan, with a father who had just joined them after not having been allowed to escape through Poland with his pregnant wife nine years earlier. She sits in her father’s lap and watches with wide, quiet eyes as her mother’s deft hands fly across fabric with bright blue silk thread (echoing hands from over a century years earlier). Thread that her mother had salvaged from white embroidery scraps at the tailor’s shop where she worked and spent the last few days carefully dying in the kitchen sink and drying on the roof.

The dress is in the traditional Hungarian fashion and is folded across her mother’s lap: her mother doesn’t had a pattern, but she doesn’t need one to make her daughter’s dress for the fifth grade dance. The dress would end up differing significantly from the pure white, petticoated first communion dresses worn by her daughter’s majority-Catholic classmates, but the young girl would love it all the more for its uniqueness and bright blue thread.

And now, that same young girl (and maybe also the villager from 19th century Ukraine) stands in front of us, trying not to clutch the old fabric too hard as her voice shakes with the emotion of all the love and humanity that is poured into the labor of art. The village girl and the girl in the Bronx were very different people: different centuries, different religions, different ages, and different continents. But the love in the stitches and beads on their dresses was the same. And she tells us that when we look at the labor of art, we don’t just see the work to create that piece - we see the labor of our own creations and the creations of others for us, and the value in something so seemingly frivolous.

But, maybe more importantly, she says that we only admire this piece in a museum because it happened to survive the love of the wearer and those who owned it afterwards, but there have been quite literally billions of small, quiet works of art in billions of small, quiet homes all over the world, for millennia. That your grandmother’s quilt is used as a picnic blanket just as Van Gogh’s works hung in his poor friends’ hallways. That your father’s hand-painted model plane sets are displayed in your parents’ livingroom as Grecian vases are displayed in museums. That your older sister’s engineering drawings in a steady, fine-lined hand are akin to Da Vinci’s scribbles of flying machines.

I don’t think there’s any dramatic conclusions to be drawn from these thoughts - they’ve been echoed by thousands of other people across the centuries. However, if you ever feel bad for spending all of your time sewing, knitting, drawing, building lego sets, or whatever else - especially if you feel like you have to somehow monetize or show off your work online to justify your labor - please know that there’s an 84yo museum docent in the Bronx who would cry simply at the thought of you spending so much effort to quietly create something that’s beautiful to you.

altrbody

Abstraction:

"Abstraction is flying. Abstracting is ascending to higher and higher levels of conceptual generalization; soaring back and forth, reflectively circling around above the specificity and immediacy of things and events in space and time, from a perspective that embeds them in a conceptual framework of increasing breadth and depth, a framework without horizon, ceil-ing, or basement; a framework composed of increasingly comprehensive concepts that generalize over increasingly comprehensive classes of things, organize them relative to one another, unify them into a coherent tapestry, a dizzying object of contemplation the details of which stun one into panic by their connectedness, significance, and vividness.

Abstraction is also flight. It is freedom from the immediate spatiotemporal constraints of the moment; freedom to plan the future, recall the past, comprehend the present from a reflective perspective that incorporates all three; freedom from the immediate boundaries of concrete subjectivity, freedom to imagine the possible and transport oneself into it; freedom to survey the real as a resource for embodying the possible; freedom to detach the realized object from oneself more and more fully as a self-contained entity, fully determined by its contextual properties and relations, and consider it from afar, as new grist for the mill of the possible. Abstraction is freedom from the socially prescribed and consensually accepted; freedom to violate in imagination the constraints of public practice, to play with conventions, or to indulge them. Abstraction is a solitary journey through the conceptual uni-verse, with no anchors, no cues, no signposts, no maps, no foundations to cling to. Abstraction makes one love material objects all the more."

--Adrian Piper

From Adrian Piper: Reflections 1967-1987, Alternative Museum, New York City April 18-May 30, 1987.

#art

alcrego

Digital walls, but walls

I encourage you to have a seat and read this little ‘essay’ I wrote back in 2014 if you really want to understand what I’m doing today. I would be really grateful and I’m sure you’ll have a much better understanding of my whole work.

Digital walls, but walls

On the way to space and public art | came across the digital walls. They can be “painted” but they also have the function of limiting, of delimiting, of separating…

A change of paradigm has been happening for some years now with the arrival of the internet, which has completely changed some aspects and concepts that have to do with the world of art and more specifically with urban art or public art. From the beginning, this type of art has been carried out in public places with the aim of being observed by anyone on the street and thus making it free, accessible and free from any premise or institution when it is created. (not considering the “warlike coexistence” with the advertising).

The appearance of the Internet has changed it. A vast majority of the art is seen online on a screen, what questions that the street is the natural canvas of this art discipline. While it is for the one who creates the piece, it is almost never for the one who looks at it. Public spaces are no longer just physical, in the same way that the plastic arts are no longer just plastic.

Due to the access to technology and its cheapness, nowadays it is inconceivable to think of art without considering the whole digital sphere, whether as a tool, a method of creation or of dissemination. But at the same time, all these centuries of art history condition the understanding of art, sometimes acting as a burden in terms of understanding what art is.

The dragging of already preconceived ideas and the weight of the genetic inheritance makes us repeat concepts about what art is and was. In the face of such a rapid change of paradigm, it seems that we find it difficult to understand that this whole new digital world is still the world. Both virtual and augmented reality are also reality, but the fact that it is appreciated through a screen sometimes causes it not to be considered as something artistic or even real. Thinking that way we could say that looking at a piece of art on the Internet does not have its complete experience, since we are not seeing it in the place for which it was devised, and neither are we perceiving it in a direct way, but with a screen as an intermediary. But at the same time, I think about all the content that we consume today with these devices - movies, series, photographs, news, and even art, current and classic - and not because of that we think or say that they are unreal.

At this point, where the analog space merges with the digital space, a new artistic expression is born that is entirely digital, where the final piece is born and ends up in the digital realm. Conceived through digital tools and deposited in the public digital space. These pieces of art suggest skipping the step of "existing” first in the ‘real reality’ to reach directly the virtual reality, which is also reality, and once from there, to have an impact on the analog reality.

It would also be curious to reflect on the parallelism between urban art and digital art, since, being in public places, both are susceptible to being stolen, altered or appropriated by other people for different purposes. And also, on the idea of anonymity, always used by urban artists to be able to work in the street without risk of infringement, and now also used in the digital environment. Either by often using copyrighted content that we find on the web (street 2.0) for an artistic purpose or by the “erosion of sharing” in which at some point someone does not credit the work, but it is still shared. In this case there should be a new word to define those people that everybody knows, but nobody knows who they are. “Famonimous” characters or the concept of “famonimity”; people or artists who are known precisely because they are anonymous.

Since the beginnings of urban art, the idea was to use public space to express oneself freely, but we must bear in mind that public space is nothing more than the remainder of the space divided by the private, the “leftovers” after the developers pass, the worthless places left open to the common people by institutions, etc., etc….. With the change of social, technological and artistic paradigm, urban art has been normalized and is now used as a method of decoration of places in poor condition, as a complement to a public road or simply as a means of open artistic expression as it has always been. Because if the initial objective was to make art accessible, direct and open to everyone, that idea has moved to the internet and, in some ways, the radical idea of urban art would no longer have that sense.

Therefore, if we understand urban or public art as a type of art accessible to everyone, free of charge and without any kind of condition, | believe that digital art fulfils this role today, since it inhabits all public places, whether analog or digital. Urban art needs this digital sphere to be able to expand and be visible. Because nowadays most urban art is seen through screens, not in the place where the piece has been created, which makes all these works more accessible to everyone at any time. And so, the ’paradox of the graffiti artist’ is born, the one who expresses his freedom in the walls that imprison him. These walls generate private spaces and what is outside them is considered public space by the mere fact of being spaces where people pass through. But it does not mean that this public space is open to intervention. Every public space is under the supervision of a privative entity, whether it is a municipality, a company or simply, the property of an individual. Public space does not exist, neither in the ‘real reality’, nor in the virtual one. It is always subject to something superior that manages it.

Within this dilemma, augmented reality becomes another alternative to the path of public art. It gives the possibility of creating art in public spaces, only seen on digital devices, and using the ‘real reality’ as the piece’s canvas. Until recently, photography and/or video were methods of capturing reality. Now, with this change of prism, these disciplines moved from being the purpose itself, to becoming raw material for the creation of other new artistic expressions. In this direction, | want to focus on the gif format. This format is strictly digital, so it gives us the option to edit, to add movement to pieces that, before, condemned to live still. We can spread in on the Internet and make it accessible to everyone at any time. When adding augmented reality, the two concepts intertwine, urban/public art and digital art, what gives rise to new artistic expressions that call into question deep rooted concepts such as museum, art and reality.

There are already many centuries researching, testing and creating the same type of art, whether sculpture, painting…. Except for the birth of new “isms” within these disciplines, it gives the impression that they are exhausted. At this point it would be convenient to think about the idea of unique work, copy, forgery, recreation… Thinking about the evolution of art we must consider that all new progress is born of the technological options that occur in each era. Nowadays, the difference is that progress happens every day, very fast, and it seems that it is difficult (or unwilling) to understand this change because of the speed of it. This cultural and genetic heritage blurs our vision and sometimes prevents us from conceiving new artistic expressions as such, since there are no previous references to support them.

But, at the end of the day, every new artistic expression, in its beginnings, was not art. “Science develops ideas that come from art that is inspired by science.” The world of classical art enjoys an aura of untouchable deity because when we are born it has always been there, but we cannot forget to think for a moment with perspective that all this classical art was created mainly by the entities of power of each era: kings, church, political powers…

This is why today (without underestimating the technique and the work of the artists) these types of classical art enjoy an invulnerability as, in the end, it was created by and for the power itself.

Then, this type of art collides with the urban and/or public art, along with digital art. In the public and digital space those who decide what is "art” are the people.

I am sure that the first Cro-Magnon who used a tuft of horse hairs instead of his own hands to paint was seen as an art/magic/belief apath.

Now we live in a new paradigm shift, but in this case it is not local or national, it is global and immediate.

A. L. Crego, 2014.

tuurverheydepoetryandprose-deac

In some corners of the internet there is a readiness to call anything pretentious whenever it is complex, abstract or deliberately alienating. Some people are also eager to claim that artists are too self-serious, snooty and elitist whenever they create something that is not straightforwardly understood.

They pretend art has always existed to appeal to the greatest number of people and appeal in a way that is simple and explicable. If you look at the history of art that could not be further from the truth. Even art that was performed to an ‘illiterate’ public often maintained layers of meaning and ambiguity throughout long periods of history (just look at the global historical traditions of oral storytelling)

The simplification of art and the expectation that everything should appeal to a wide audience is the result of commodification not democratisation. Art has arguably never been less revered than now and still there are people who think it has further to fall in esteem. Just look at the AI movement’s desire to undermine artists while stealing their work.

I believe that the ‘it’s not that deep’ crowd who is eager to wield the accusation of pretentiousness whenever something doesn’t connect to them is part of an anti-artist, anti-intellectual movement to do away with mainstream non-consumerist (non-recuperable) art.

There has been a concerted effort by corporations and those purely interested in consumerism to erase the notion that art is primarily a human expression that is not necessarily made to pander to a wide audience. Every day we see more efforts in the social media & technological culture wars to devalue art and demonise artists who wish to create artistically fulfilling works rather than crowd-pleasing content.

I think we need to push back harder against this. The anti-complexity consumerist mindset is not only incurious and subservient to corporations, it’s also anti-intellectual, anti-cultural and insidiously reactionary.

mr-orion

Idk who needs to hear it but if you have Aphantasia you can absolutely do character art. Don't let it discourage you. Especially since a good portion of art advice won't fit you and will leave you feeling like its your fault.

I have Aphantasia, its super hard to put characters in poses from my mind. I cannot draw cartoons or exaggeration well, its very hard because I do not see the drawing until it is on the page. I use so many construction lines and blocks of color and always need a reference to base my character poses on. I cannot imagine things artistically before they're on the page and it is super frustrating.

You can still do it with Aphantasia though, it just takes practice. So many of your sketches without references are going to look awful despite you knowing the proper proportions of the human body, it doesn't mean you don't know what you're doing.

It just means you need to give yourself extra help. You're not lesser or bad for not being able to draw on a whim or not having these intricate details. Trust me, I've struggled with thinking that.

The best thing you can do to work with it is collect so many references, use a pose software (like magic poser), and absolutely screenshot and collect art that has a creative element you struggle with. (For me its color, backgrounds, and splash text.) Also, maybe practice abstract art. You have a brain unhindered by a visual expectation, I recommend it. For me I like to do surrealist/abstract pictures of water and space. It takes technical skill but everyday is a good day to start practicing.

Having Aphantasia is a neutral thing. It's not bad or good, it's just there. That bad part is not acknowledging that you work differently so you need to adapt differently.

darkandstormydolls

I am now experiencing ✨feelings✨ about how so many dresses in art museums are in as “title: dress”

Because these weren’t made as works of art, like paintings with titles made to be hung on walls and in museums. These were made to be lived in, to be danced in, to be worn to parties, to be worn at home wrapped in a blanket reading a book.

And, as is a well-established fact within dress history, most of those dresses were kept in the original condition were sentimental. These were wedding dresses. Debutant gowns. Worn to special events. Gives as a gift from someone special. And they were worn; plenty of these old dresses were altered, or have holes in the lining or the silk worn down in places. Clothing is such a personal form of art, holding memories in the way that few sculptures or paintings made to be admired and displayed ever could have.

And when you think about it, I’m sure some of, if not most of these dresses, did have titles. Simple ones, sure. Personal ones. “My blue silk”. “The brown dress with fringe”. “The white floral”. But they weren’t named as art. They were named for practicality, for ease of understanding. Because they weren’t made as art. But they are nevertheless.

Dress history is such an under appreciated form of art history, even with how closely it’s tied to so many other parts of history. And clothing is such a complex and undervalued form of art. Unlike so much of the other art in museums, we often don’t know who made these dresses, anonymous dressmakers with names lost to history, so instead we marvel at their craftsmanship.

So yeah, these dresses don’t have titles because they weren’t made as art. But they are. And we may not know who made them or what they were called, but now we put them in museums and look at them as art and give the the best titles we can. “Dress”. Because, when all is said and done, that’s what they are.

#art

spicymochi

he has a flower for you!

saiwriting

Thoughts, Thoughts, Blog #1

The concept of hunger and the ways we use it in metaphor is so interesting. Some things that we "hunger" for are always linked to our desires, but we never really desire the physical sensation of hunger willingly. To hunger is to suffer, if we're being completely honest with ourselves. But, just like there is a risk to eat too much and overstuff ourselves full of gluttonous fervor, there's a huge risk to overindulge in trying to satiate the metaphorical sensation.

I too, sometimes struggle with both the physical and metaphorical ways in which hunger presents itself in my life.

On one side of the coin, there is the inevitable period of life where we all reach a personal understanding about the instruments of overindulgence. It formulates what we first understand to be the healthy coping mechanisms strictly forced into place by familial and societal influences. I grew up in a family with a mother who was deeply entrenched in retail therapy. I could always tell when she was having a difficult bout because time would freeze around us and various sugary food items would find its place among the nearly-expired ingredients and the pile of dishes waiting to be attributed to the rest of the family's "messes." She battled with the hunger for a life she once thought she were to have, she hungered for the relief of the present, and she hungered for a better-a healthier- version of herself for the future. I never indulged in these practices on a conscious level. In fact, I portrayed the opposite behavior in detest for my mother's effect on the family during these periods of insatiability. I would starve myself. I would use the emptiness to hopefully dull the noise of what I truly hungered for in my life. I did not allow myself to hunger for more than what was in front of me. Sometimes, it was not much at all. I never allowed the stomach of my desires in life to grow deeper or to even be satiated without the association of contentment and fullness with guilt.

Growing up in a strongly Evangelical Christian household, the cognitive dissonance to understand that desire is sin and sin is death while experiencing very human hungers within me was enough to drive me disorderly. This is the other side of the coin: the side where we realize that nothing we knew to be right was going to work any more. I wanted beauty. I hungered to be desired. I yearned for sex and to be seen as more than a vessel for others. I hungered for myself. But, that sense of guilt still lingered. It still does to this day, somewhat. It is not hunger that will lead you to places where you will damage your gut, your intuition. Listening to your hunger will only lead you into people, places, and things meant to satisfy you, but you have to listen. You have to listen for when it says no. You have to listen for when it says enough. You have to listen to when it says that you are just fine where you are.

I am still learning what it truly means to be hungry. Was it my insatiable appetite living as a soccer player for 13 years? Was it the desires I had for a version of myself that I deeply hunger for but still feel guilty for wanting to consume? I hunger for a life of satisfaction, but still feel like satiating myself will land me in a world of trouble. I hope that one day, in the near future, my eyes will be opened to what the fresh, whole food life has to offer. Then, maybe, finally, I will be satisfied and able to rest peacefully with said satisfaction. l

tuurverheydepoetryandprose-deac

kairosrhys

Embers of a Dying Day: The Sky Ablaze, Trees Whisper Silence🔥🌅🌲 (Soft Pastel)

heikala

Dawn 🌷 Continuing with the theme of tiny characters in huge surroundings. Really happy with the glowy effect. Lately I noticed that the watercolor paper texture my home scanner makes is very prominent compared to the Epson at my studio 😅

thecollectibles

Art by Anthony Brault

starsandwhales

I know this isn't ninjago guys but I finished this 17 hour painting for my art class and I was proud of it so...enjoy.

I love Egypt fun fact about me. :) [ID: a detailed, realistic painting of the hathor columns at the dendera temple complex in dendera, egypt. /end ID]