Is Art Cyclical?

[DarkRange55]

I don't think so. I think it works like history, it doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

With the advancement of technology and society and so forth, I think people draw a lot of inspiration from what has come before (i.e. technique, motifs, messages, events, etc.) and juxtapose it against a modern backdrop which creates an entirely new piece of art. It may have familiar components, but it has never been done before, and so therefore it is new.

What say you, SS?

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Since no one is chiming in...

How can it be thought of as cyclical? Every new movement, new piece created, new anything and everything deepens the well of inspiration from which to draw but drawing inspiration doesn't amount to a cycle. I'm not familiar with contemporary art but there were certainly not any full-on repeats throughout art history, always something new building on all that was. Even if something is similar it cannot be the same just like the ebb and flow of species in the natural world. So if it is a principle that art is cyclical, it hasn't ever manifested.

 

[DarkRange55]

Somewhat. What hasn't been mainstream for a while can become "leading edge" again, and then even mainstream again.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Zeir Anpin 729]

I binged watched the entire "Mandela Catalogue" today. The archangel Gabriel (villain for most of the series) acts a lot like the Djinn of Islamic description. And not at all like an angel in the Bible would. I do think art has a way of mirroring the archetypes present in reality and communicating back to the collective unconscious (audience), the subconscious currents (sigils), in the active mind of the creator.

 

[lastsummer_yay]

Everything new is just well-forgotten old, yet it always feels somehow renewed. XD

 

[Forever Sleep]

Many art movements came about as a rejection/ protest of what came before. Although, I suppose we do go through the occassional Renaissance. I think that is more about putting focus and appreciation back on core skills though- drawing, sculpture, accurately capturing reality.

There seem to be less 'movements' these days in general though. You look at the Post Impressionists, the Cubists, the Futurists- they were focussing on a common goal- to capture light, to find a new way of representing the three dimensions on a two dimensional plain, to express dynamism and movement.

Nowadays, Artists seem all out for themselves. A lot of them seem to want to try to profit from creating something shocking. Again, not new of itself. It's been a while since I was that interested in Fine Art but, I remember feeling disappointed with a lot of contemporary work. I remember not liking a lot of the 'pieces' in the exhibition: 'Sensation'. Years ago now of course but, it felt to me like a lot of the people were more fame hungry than die hard Artists. Perhaps that's unfair. Maybe they do still really care about their work. I think some at least though are more about trying to defraud!

But then, why not? That's a form of art in itself, in that it makes a statement. It reveals the art world to be just as about money as everything else. Why not expose it for the grubby, money making scheme it is?