Contemporary design magazine, ARTBOX,
showcases some of the best in innovative art thinking, quoted by themselves:
urban design, graphics, architecture, interior design, fine art, illustration,
product design and concept. In the May 2012 issue, artist Luke Pink or ‘Pinky’
describes his work as Neo-psychedelia, graffiti, fine art and illustration. He
is his own zeitgeist: ‘cheerfully abstract and discernibly fresh’ say the
V&A Museum for a recent print collection he gave them. There is no reason a
designer of sport apparel such as he would not be commissioned by a nationally
treasured museum if the work is enlightening.
In the same issue, fine artist Folkert
De Jong explains bluntly how he gets his audience to grasp intended meaning[1], and fine artist Jessica
Wohl’s work is shown: an installed staircase draped in human hair[2].
Self-destruction is the new
self-preservation; though this probably applies more so to the fine art world:
the idea is what justifies the way it was done rather than the other way
around. It is an anti-commercial belief that the simplest ideas in advertising
are the most superficial and greed-investing, but in this climate, self-selling
is a key skill next to the three Rs; and the simpler the idea, the more room
for expansion.
Grayson Perry: Rosetta Vase, 2011
In the BBC documentary: ‘The Genius of
British Art- Modern Times’ with Janet Street Porter, artists were commended for
their loyalties to what they believed to be ‘good’. Gilbert and George withstood
the media by believing, not following[3]. Success is more difficult
to classify now than ever before; unless of course you judge purely by financial
worth. Damien Hirst conquered by leading not following[4]. Charles Saatchi too, in
the 80s by starting an advertising agency and art collection, earning more than
any of his featured artists. Saatchi and Hirst, the publicist and self-publicist
made art which was media-ready, sexy and glamorous.
The Young British Artists definitely
had an impact on the way modern art was to be accepted. Confusedly, Grayson
Perry as a turner prize winner himself confesses his dire straits[5]: taboos of the middle
classes and violations of trust can be discussed in the context of art but not
otherwise; it is revolutionary but we can go too far. The dismissal of values
such as academia and religion over the centuries has caused a sort of fearless inbred
family of art to grow. Perry’s work is what we may now call ‘good’ because it
is both romantically charged and
disgusting with underlying social and historical observations that can be taken
or left. It stands alone. Also exemplary, are the clay and tapestry bases he
works so many of his illustrations and ideas into- demolishing the
craft-is-not-high art stereotype: A true iconoclast who really understands the way
art shift-shapes, and fights for the original meanings of words against the
media’s versions i.e. television’s ‘journeys’.
In January of 2012 Channel 4 broadcast
three episodes of the series ‘What Makes a Masterpiece’, where journalist
Matthew Cain went on a journey of all of the above. It was concluded that
without democracy, the next iconographic British masterpiece could probably come
from a lab; but luckily we are too argumentative to settle for that.
The findings did show a formula,
however. We like optical experiences which remind us of similar ones we’ve had
before, seeing movement and rhythm and tricking ourselves into seeing something
through central and peripheral vision i.e. Mona Lisa’s smile. We like the hit
of recognising or understanding an image and of course formal values which
positively stimulate the brain i.e. depth of field, harmony and grouping
colours or textures in golden sections.
We like compositions which encourage a certain reading: almost like a
book, and layers such as found in cubism- we get a triple hit from the front,
back and side profiles we get in one 2D image. A national test found blue
landscapes, national icons, children and animals to be what the public think
they like to look at. The scientific deduction was four critical subjective
visuals: Blue light, puzzle solving, high contrast and line detection.
Historically, the idea of originality
came from Romanticism in the early 1800s; it was a way to justify the
industrial revolution and was a revolt against aristocratic ideals in the ‘Age
of Enlightenment’. Much like the current technology boom is changing our ideals
and relationships, nature was being scientifically rationalised- and political
stances were being born for dislike of this: liberals, radicals, nationalists
and eventually hippies; those who opposed the realists. Our psychology hasn’t
changed as far as wanting to legitimise the individual imagination as a
critical authority is concerned. We still make high budget films about heroes
who defeat evil and elevate society; but they are shallow in their lifespans.
Timeless originality is said to be
unique in style and substance, clear of derivation clues and culturally contingent.
It is a dumbing thought that so much ingenuity has been applied without the
things we have today to create the
things we have today. But Shakespeare disagreed with the originality argument
and stated he ‘avoided unnecessary invention’.
If we look at ideas, elements of
thinking and the process of creativity, we can see that the not-so-romantic
workings of the brain very much dictate the types of ideas we are capable of;
that is to say it is very difficult to have an impersonal thought.
The breaking-down of the syntheses
behind idea-generation proves the complexity of the situation: People whose
brains are wired to do the same thing, but endless combinations (good and bad) of
the ways we can use them, motivated by the unpredictability of the modern day.
(See appendix one for the break-down)
So what we can be fairly sure of is that
creativity, viable idea-generation and capacity for originality are relative;
that is to say both nature and nurture’s motives. The balance of these and the
variables of intelligence, personality, background, money and cultural
experience, amongst other things, will never be the same in any two people- so
with that in mind, you can only achieve the perfect thing by either designing
for yourself, happening to find something by complete improbable chance, or
buying bespoke. Perfection -although Plato defined it as directly opposite to
the imperfect- is not this definable because imperfection massively outweighs
the perfect. Instead of doing the research, modern taste chooses to be low quality. The phantom brands and grey markets of
the art world laugh in the face of the pretentious because novelty factors will
always be easy to like.
We are an unprejudiced and open
generation with a thirst for innovation; so better-than-perfect which doesn’t
really exist -and better-than-average- because nobody wants average- is the
tells-your-jokes-for-you and so ‘random’ it can’t possibly have been done
before, deliberately ‘bad’.
[2] ‘I’ll take it as a compliment if someone thinks it’s the most
disgusting thing they’ve ever seen. I’m happy to have work conjure up
superlatives, even if they’re arguably bad’
[3] ‘They said we were created by the enemy. We always said we don’t
want to be the scruffy, dirty artists doing horrible scruffy art; we want to be
the artists the mother wouldn’t be ashamed of. We wanted to remain pure and
weird and normal and we could create.’
[4] ‘There are always a million ways to get to the same point. Bend
don’t break the rules.’
[5] ‘Art will serve as a time capsule for British culture’ ‘We’ve
become swamped by the cult of the confessional. Life is a shopping trip’
‘Sincerity is the only way I can rebel. Follow the paths of most resistance’
