Friday, September 30, 2016
why more art and less diversity?
there is a growing trend amongst art theorists that more art is produced today than ever before, and yet, today's art has less stylistic diversity.
there are four main hypotheses:
1- the "avantgarde-centrist" argument: (stemming from greenberg's early formalism and subsequent developments) modernity stimulated exploration, while postmodernity thrives on revision. there is no way back to modernity.
2- the "art/market redundancy" argument (a bit more complicated):
we have two protagonists: the art system and the art market.
art system (art schools, curators, museums, artcubes) ↔ art market (art auctions)
previous "X" trends, favored by the market & deemed successful become favored by the art system. once the "X" flatlines, the market automatically makes room for "Y" trends, which will be provided by the art system.
the second side of the equivalence has been tackled by baudrillard in his the conspiracy of art.
3- the "end of art" argument: take 1- in the list and add hegel's end of art thesis. in other words, there's nothing else to discover.
4- contemporary art is exhausted: there simply no much more to invent from (this argument resembles the early 20th century skepticism towards the growth of physics, before einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics).
so, more sameness, less stylistic diversity.
is 1-4 true? and if so, which hypothesis is better?
(i will discuss this in a forthcoming post)