Hi, I was watching a documentary the other day on Andy Warhol. He said that he does what he does because it's easier than doing painting fine art. It got me thinking that perhaps each generation does less to produce it's art because art should be simple and reflect the culture of the times. I think that the inactivily of the younger generations is it's expression of art. By doing nothing it is making an artist statement about what art is all about. What do you think? Is not producing anythiing but making a statement of not working at making art is a rebelious reflection of the evil times we are living in. I think if art should be as simple as possible, maybe no art is the best expression of art. This is not to say the artists on this site are poor artists, quite the contrary. I love to see the stuff done by you guys.
Who defines art - the artist, the stock exchange, the audience ? It seems today's art is at large parts the art of merchandising it; as if you don't get the public ear on statements like the above, who will know (and bow of it) ? But then - if it's not all about publicity - each of you is living art, impacting your surrounding in whichever way you express your mere being alive, through a million ways. Yes simple !
If you want to do something to get merchandised you have to have a gimick. You need to have something new and maybe improved along with the gimick. You can be a great artist, and if it's not accepted by people it will just be good art that noone ever hears about.
I kinda know what you mean... to me it seems like Andy Warhol put a lot of work into his stuff, but maybe at the time it was simpler. But yeah like today people make art using a computer, and honestly, I think thats less creative most of the time. I feel like it takes a lot less work and is way more boring to look at. I used to make digital art and I paint so I think my opinion is legit. I hardly ever see digital art thats beautiful or very interesting cuz I really don't think it took a lot of work (not in all cases, I have rarely seen beautiful digital art that might have taken a lot of work, but in most cases). I just hate it! So I know what you're saying. OH and the fucking photography thing. I consider a lot of things art but then I rank it on how much creativity it takes to make a certain thing. Photography is art, but how much creativity does it really take? There are wonderful, beautiful photos, but there are also so many kids that take pictures of random things and call it their art - and thats the only art that they do... really how much work and creative thinking is that?? I'm hoping I didn't offend anyone... I mean I'm not saying all digital art and photography is bad so don't misinterpret me...
Art will always be created. I think saying that "the lack of art" is art... is silly. apathy or indifference isn't any good. If you look around you'll see there is lots of great art being created today. Here is a great website of some really far out artists whoa re also mostly younger: elfintome.com
I don't think that there is a lack of art among today's young and developing artists. Musicians, illustrators, photographers are getting their stuff out to an audience quicker and quicker these days i think. In my home town there's an EP launch at least every weekend.
Art is everywhere around you in so many different forms. It will never die, and it has never declined... I'm actually extremely impressed by all the new art movements emerging (such as digital art, art deco, modern art, etc). About Andy Warhol... I never did like him that much as an artist, but he did some amazing things as a cultural icon (such as publicizing The Velvet Underground... one of the best bands to roam this earth).
