The bias of a saeculum towards a specific artform

[naf140230]

Quote:you know its a 4th turning because the culture and values forum is gathering dust.

something's been on my mind for a while. and thats how different saeculums offer great cultural masterpieces in some mediums, but seem to completely fail in others.

for instance, the current cycle will be very well remembered for its music, as well as its movies. however the visual arts that have been made from the 60s onwards is mostly garbage. There are still a couple of living renowned painters, the pop artist David Hockney comes to mind, but his time came and went long ago. I could also name a couple of Australian painters like Peter Booth and Pro Hart, but that may be due to Australia's relatively thin history of any sort of cultural achievement whatsoever

regardless the visual arts of the late 20th century, apart from some notable photographers, will be best remembered for gimmicky stunts like stained bedsheets and sharks in formaldehyde. As i said, it seemed the rot really set in after 50s/60s Pop Art. From that point, the most creatively gifted kids chose to pick up the guitar rather than the paintbrush. There have certainly been good artists, but none that have entered the popular memory, if you're deeply connected with art circles you might know some names, but the average man on the street won't.

But the Jazz age cycle shows a different story. Painting was at its zenith, probably its most socially relevant point since the Rennaisance. From Van Gogh to Pollock we basically see a pattern similar to popular music post WW2: Like Elvis and the early rockers, Impressionists such as Van Gogh never created anything necessarily complex or intentionally offensive, but the mere fact that it just looked so different from all the other art out there caused a public furore. They were told they couldn't paint properly by the older establishment, they weren't allowed to exhibit work, they were outcasts without really trying too hard. As fin-de-siecle Paris made way for the new century, new revolutionaries emerged. The German expressionists such as Kirchner, then Picasso and Braque, and then a crazy splintering of all sorts of artistic factions: futurism, constructivism, vorticism, dada, de-stijl, and so on. After WW1 the idealism turned to cynicism (a number of prominent artists, driven by their nationalist ideals, died in the war). They declared the world absurd, painters like Di-Chirico made great work infected with a social commentary, eery empty landscapes a reflection of the great loss of humanity just suffered. Other artists would come to be influenced by the frenetic energy of Jazz music. But the art started to get abit crazy. Rauschenburg famously did a "reverse-artwork", erasing a completed De-Kooning piece and exhibiting what was basically a blank sheet of paper. This, along with Marcel Duchamp's readymades, is what i consider to have basically lit the fuse that caused the mass calamity that is contemporary art. What began as the free and lively notion "that art can be anything" has left art not even knowing what it is. Judgement, criticism and taste were being murdered. as the 1920s and 1930s progress, there were still some prominent pieces being offered, by the guys who'd been doing it for 30 years as well as with the emergence of the Surrealists (who could be considered a form of 4T escapism), and later the Abstract Expressionists. Dali, Khalo and Pollock are great painters from the GI generation, the Pop-artists that followed them would be late GIs and Silents, but thereafter the well runs dry.

When i was in the states last year one of the lasting impressions were the Diego Rivera murals, usually a tribute to the people of whatever city it was in. They were amazing. Its hard to imagine how a visual artist now would pay such a sentimental tribute to the workers of today. The legacy lives on though, you can hear it every now and again even in common bar talk. some guy makes a doodle on a napkin and says "oh im no Van Gogh". Novels are another prominent legacy from that cycle, it seems many people past say age 65 say they wanted to be writers when they were young, because many of the greatest cultural idols were writers. Obviously technology plays a part in this. the popularity of the novel exploded in the 19th century due to advances in printing and the eventual invention of the typewriter. The aforementioned modernism era in painting was somewhat forced upon by artists because the invention of photography had made redundant the need for realism and accuracy. People wanted to achieve something in paint that the photograph couldn't manage. The popularity of music in the current cycle can be attributed to the emergence of the affordable LP and record player, not to mention the inventions of radio and television. But with the destruction of the music market thanks to online piracy, i have my doubts as to whether the next generation of artists and prophets will take to music as enthusiastically as the silents and boomers did.

I can see this rant is already too long so i'll end it there. other thoughts on this notion?

myk'87's comment on the previous website merits discussion. Here is the URL: http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showt...ic-artform

[pbrower2a]

Art exists because people do art. People do art because such is their nature. Art as a celebration of the artist by the artist -- practically a definition of narcissism -- will become irrelevant. One wisely refrains from baring one's inner life unless such is worthy of expression.

Do you really want to take a voyage not simply into your interior, but instead deep into someone else's interior?In view of the paintings of Vincent, I'm not sure that I want to. Maybe I prefer to see into something else. Maybe to see how fragile something once sturdy (let us say a barn more than a century old) truly is as a relic of itself in better times.

It's the canvas, the sculpture, or the mobile that is the rightful focus, and not the artist who is the rightful focus. The artist as star, as if he were John Wayne or Jack Nicholson (or to be more gender-neutral, Katharine Hepburn or Lauren Bacall) is a 20th-century phenomenon that we may tire of. Maybe we go back to primitives for clarity and lack of pretense. A bit of abstraction might make things interesting.

[TnT]

(05-16-2016, 11:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's the canvas, the sculpture, or the mobile that is the rightful focus, and not the artist who is the rightful focus. 

Much is made by critics of the folks, often other artists, who preceded and influenced an artist's work.  Thus, I'm guessing that what drives the artist, that inner motivation, has importance in the interpretation of the works.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2016, 11:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's the canvas, the sculpture, or the mobile that is the rightful focus, and not the artist who is the rightful focus. The artist as star, as if he were John Wayne or Jack Nicholson (or to be more gender-neutral, Katharine Hepburn or Lauren Bacall) is a 20th-century phenomenon that we may tire of. Maybe we go back to primitives for clarity and lack of pretense. A bit of abstraction might make things interesting.

It started before the 20th Century.  See Sarah Bernhardt, Jenny Lind and maybe Lillie Langtry.  It might perhaps go further back than that, but without big media, easy travel, the ability to record performances and other technological factors, the true superstars or might have been superstars of older times are forgotten.

There is also the link between the great actors / actresses and their audience.  Many, John Wayne might be a good example, develop a well known persona that resonates well with the audience.  The performer ends up cast as playing variants of that persona repeatedly, a persona that resonates very well with a given time and place.  I don't really expect this playing to the audience to go away with cultures being real and media being able to spread a style of performance so easily.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an artist in tune with his audience and an audience who knows what it wants from a performer aren't negligible factors.

[pbrower2a]

(05-19-2016, 02:06 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2016, 11:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's the canvas, the sculpture, or the mobile that is the rightful focus, and not the artist who is the rightful focus. The artist as star, as if he were John Wayne or Jack Nicholson (or to be more gender-neutral, Katharine Hepburn or Lauren Bacall) is a 20th-century phenomenon that we may tire of. Maybe we go back to primitives for clarity and lack of pretense. A bit of abstraction might make things interesting.

It started before the 20th Century.  See Sarah Bernhardt, Jenny Lind and maybe Lillie Langtry.  It might perhaps go further back than that, but without big media, easy travel, the ability to record performances and other technological factors, the true superstars or might have been superstars of older times are forgotten.

...and I have no idea of how good they were. All that is left is the critical reviews. With some musicians... I am satisfied that Fritz Kresiler really was great. I take much delight in recordings of Rachmaninoff playing the piano or Caruso singing.  

Populations were smaller,. and more of the population was consigned to farming and factory labor, so the talent was thin, too. Don't be fooled by the large number of 'opera houses'. So far as I can tell, there has never been any opera performed here.

Quote:There is also the link between the great actors / actresses and their audience.  Many, John Wayne might be a good example, develop a well known persona that resonates well with the audience.  The performer ends up cast as playing variants of that persona repeatedly, a persona that resonates very well with a given time and place.  I don't really expect this playing to the audience to go away with cultures being real and media being able to spread a style of performance so easily.

John Wayne was a fine actor with his dry wit. But most of his acting was in movie scenarios unsuited to a stage.  

Quote:If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an artist in tune with his audience and an audience who knows what it wants from a performer aren't negligible factors.

The basic reality has always been there since at least ancient Greek times. An actor not in tune with the audience might as well seek some other living.[/quote]

[naf140230]

(05-15-2016, 11:01 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:you know its a 4th turning because the culture and values forum is gathering dust.

something's been on my mind for a while. and thats how different saeculums offer great cultural masterpieces in some mediums, but seem to completely fail in others.

for instance, the current cycle will be very well remembered for its music, as well as its movies. however the visual arts that have been made from the 60s onwards is mostly garbage. There are still a couple of living renowned painters, the pop artist David Hockney comes to mind, but his time came and went long ago. I could also name a couple of Australian painters like Peter Booth and Pro Hart, but that may be due to Australia's relatively thin history of any sort of cultural achievement whatsoever

regardless the visual arts of the late 20th century, apart from some notable photographers, will be best remembered for gimmicky stunts like stained bedsheets and sharks in formaldehyde. As i said, it seemed the rot really set in after 50s/60s Pop Art. From that point, the most creatively gifted kids chose to pick up the guitar rather than the paintbrush. There have certainly been good artists, but none that have entered the popular memory, if you're deeply connected with art circles you might know some names, but the average man on the street won't.

But the Jazz age cycle shows a different story. Painting was at its zenith, probably its most socially relevant point since the Rennaisance. From Van Gogh to Pollock we basically see a pattern similar to popular music post WW2: Like Elvis and the early rockers, Impressionists such as Van Gogh never created anything necessarily complex or intentionally offensive, but the mere fact that it just looked so different from all the other art out there caused a public furore. They were told they couldn't paint properly by the older establishment, they weren't allowed to exhibit work, they were outcasts without really trying too hard. As fin-de-siecle Paris made way for the new century, new revolutionaries emerged. The German expressionists such as Kirchner, then Picasso and Braque, and then a crazy splintering of all sorts of artistic factions: futurism, constructivism, vorticism, dada, de-stijl, and so on. After WW1 the idealism turned to cynicism (a number of prominent artists, driven by their nationalist ideals, died in the war). They declared the world absurd, painters like Di-Chirico made great work infected with a social commentary, eery empty landscapes a reflection of the great loss of humanity just suffered. Other artists would come to be influenced by the frenetic energy of Jazz music. But the art started to get abit crazy. Rauschenburg famously did a "reverse-artwork", erasing a completed De-Kooning piece and exhibiting what was basically a blank sheet of paper. This, along with Marcel Duchamp's readymades, is what i consider to have basically lit the fuse that caused the mass calamity that is contemporary art. What began as the free and lively notion "that art can be anything" has left art not even knowing what it is. Judgement, criticism and taste were being murdered. as the 1920s and 1930s progress, there were still some prominent pieces being offered, by the guys who'd been doing it for 30 years as well as with the emergence of the Surrealists (who could be considered a form of 4T escapism), and later the Abstract Expressionists. Dali, Khalo and Pollock are great painters from the GI generation, the Pop-artists that followed them would be late GIs and Silents, but thereafter the well runs dry.

When i was in the states last year one of the lasting impressions were the Diego Rivera murals, usually a tribute to the people of whatever city it was in. They were amazing. Its hard to imagine how a visual artist now would pay such a sentimental tribute to the workers of today. The legacy lives on though, you can hear it every now and again even in common bar talk. some guy makes a doodle on a napkin and says "oh im no Van Gogh". Novels are another prominent legacy from that cycle, it seems many people past say age 65 say they wanted to be writers when they were young, because many of the greatest cultural idols were writers. Obviously technology plays a part in this. the popularity of the novel exploded in the 19th century due to advances in printing and the eventual invention of the typewriter. The aforementioned modernism era in painting was somewhat forced upon by artists because the invention of photography had made redundant the need for realism and accuracy. People wanted to achieve something in paint that the photograph couldn't manage. The popularity of music in the current cycle can be attributed to the emergence of the affordable LP and record player, not to mention the inventions of radio and television. But with the destruction of the music market thanks to online piracy, i have my doubts as to whether the next generation of artists and prophets will take to music as enthusiastically as the silents and boomers did.

I can see this rant is already too long so i'll end it there. other thoughts on this notion?

myk'87's comment on the previous website merits discussion. Here is the URL: http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showt...ic-artform

In the posts, I saw something else as well. One person who responded said that during the Great Power Saeculum, classical music split into art music and popular music, or something like that. I think I know how that happened. It was because of the War of the Romantics. On one side were the musical conservatives led by Johannes Brahms. On the other side were the progressives led by Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner. This was fought during the 1T symbolized by Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. The War of the Romantics led to this split in music. The work of Liszt and Wagner eventually led to Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Karlheinz Stockhausen, John Cage, Bernard Herrmann, and other composers of the musical avant-garde. The work of Johannes Brahms as well as Antonin Dvorak eventually led to Scott Joplin (via the Hungarian Dances of Brahms and the Slavonic Dances of Dvorak), George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Cole Porter, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, the Beatles, David Bowie, Michael Jackson, and other popular music and American classical music composers. Based on how unpopular most of the musical avant-garde has been (Note: Bernard Herrmann was a popular avant-garde composer of film scores which are a form of classical music.), it is clear that Johannes Brahms has won the War of the Romantics. What probably helped was the invention of the phonograph by Thomas Edison in 1877.

[Remy Renault]

It could just be that much of the great painting and literary work created during the current saeculum has yet to be "canonized" within the 'grand tradition'.

[naf140230]

(07-01-2016, 11:47 AM)Remy Renault Wrote: It could just be that much of the great painting and literary work created during the current saeculum has yet to be "canonized" within the 'grand tradition'.

An excellent point.

[Tim Randal Walker]

It may well be that the next cycle will emphasize the visual arts. As I recall, painting (along with music and poetry) has one of the few ways to evade the strictures of a 1T.

[Bill the Piper]

The next cycle's favourite art form might be virtual reality.

[David Horn]

(09-18-2018, 06:35 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: The next cycle's favourite art form might be virtual reality.

I agree.  I'm sure traditional forms will do well too, but we're moving into a new paradigm and that means new art.

[pbrower2a]

(09-18-2018, 06:35 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: The next cycle's favourite art form might be virtual reality.

Like cinema, the emergence of that artistic expression is a technological innovation. Michelangelo might have been an excellent film director except that cinema did not exist in his time. I can easily imagine J S Bach falling in love with the possibilities of a synthesizer, but note was available to him. Picasso would have likely done well with virtual reality, but it wasn't available to him.

The old standard media (and by 2050 even cinema will be an old form of expression with nobody remembering the 'early' cinema except as an exercise in appreciation of the archaic) will still be around. Replacing a dead-tree edition of a book with a Kindle or Nook (or whatever follows) will not make the use of the text something other than reading.

[Hintergrund]

(09-18-2018, 06:35 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: The next cycle's favourite art form might be virtual reality.

Makes sense.