Art Review: Useless Intensity No. III

54 min read

Deviation Actions

techgnotic's avatar
By
Published:
5.4K Views
Img-00c by techgnotic














Not since the days of Picasso has the art world borne witness to such a decisive triumph.


For the last few years — decades, even — art has been circling around something, standing on a precipice, preparing to take a steep dive down into a cavernous black hole, the bottom of which can’t be seen. Today, we’ve reached the event horizon.


yuumei has created a piece called Useless Intensity No. III. It represents a leap forward, a consummation of a brand new, visionary artistic movement. It flies in the face of the abstract minimalism that has dominated galleries from Paris to Tokyo throughout the previous generation, dispatching with it, laughing at it. You want minimalism? This is what minimalism looks like. Especially astute critics will note that this project bears some resemblance to some conceptual experiments that have been attempted over the last few years such as James Franco’s non-visible artwork, which was essentially just air. Except unlike that piece and pieces like it, Useless Intensity No. III isn’t here to ask “what is art?” It’s telling us, in no uncertain terms, what art is. This is art. It is a piece. You may print it, frame it, hang it.


“Useless Intensity No. III” has no patience for explorations and examinations.


It represents a violent break from the embarrassingly self-aware aesthetics of post-modernism toward a more objective state of mind. This piece answers your questions about existence and the human experience. The artist is omniscient, omnipotent.


The one question that remains is where can art possibly go from here? Is Useless Intensity No. III the sound of a dull thud against a glass ceiling, or the sound of that ceiling shattering into a million pieces, forever changing the nature of creative expression as it breaks? Only time will tell. Perhaps other innovative artists will capitalize off of this momentum, bringing us into the next dominant artistic era. Perhaps the artist next piece will be just as revolutionary as this one. In the mean time, we’ll bask in the glow of what art history will surely hail as one of the defining masterpieces of this century for a little while longer.















Your Thoughts


  1. In the not too distant future, do you think fine arts degrees might be replaced with affidavits confirming that the bearer has met and hung out with officially hip, important artists. This new form of arts degree will be valued according to the number of supporting affidavits.
  2. Will classic art criticism soon be replaced with arts sales receipts and artists’ banking records?
  3. Does creativity suffer when too many people think they know what an artist’s piece of art is trying to say, and stop making up stuff from their own under-informed reactions to the work under consideration?












Comments17
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
omzig89's avatar
1. In the not too distant future, do you think fine arts degrees might be replaced with affidavits confirming that the bearer has met and hung out with officially hip, important artists? This new form of arts degree will be valued according to the number of supporting affidavits.
Anybody's taste or ability in art is obvious to anybody else. That is part of art, art study, study art, the study of art, the study of art study, the study of study art, the study of the study of art, and so on in recursion from the nonexistent depths of unreality, to "material life" in between, to scales of omni-dimensional fractal stars. But your question is wrong so my answer is invalid.

Art cannot be given degrees. In a degree-giving world, the type of experience you describe should be enough for an "Associate's Degree in Art Appreciation" but you'd need to verify each affidavit individually to accredit an individual wherever they try to "utilize" (fuck that word where "use" would be enough) that credential for gain.

2. Will classic art criticism soon be replaced with arts sales receipts and artists’ banking records?

No. Art just knows how to be art. Art is made for show and art is show. Art criticism is part of the art (each Deviation is stored in association with so many details - the comments almost become part of the image metadata similar to time of upload, dimensions in pixels, etc.)

3. Does creativity suffer when too many people think they know what an artist’s piece of art is trying to say, and stop making up stuff from their own under-informed reactions to the work under consideration?
DeviantArt has always been an inspiration to me. I don't think I have anything necessarily specific to say with my artsing anymore - I give art (and collections) to let you see it (and myself through it) as a viewer. I can control what I show, but I can't directly control what (or how) you see. In fact, the very reason I give myself time for art to let myself see and to show (in all senses).

Creativity is only enhanced by the addition of minds to a collective and every individual imagination is the seed of a potential collective. Especially in an inviting, accepting, recognizing (and redeeming), distributed community such as this one, if you cannot digest, integrate, conflate or otherwise resolve another's creative spirit (imagination) with your own, then you should at least learn to ignore it. Most of us are aware that others are not really trying to limit us with their interpretations, but giving us chances to open their eyes to more depth in the universe.

Would you be offended if somebody took your song, "remixed" it and got your original a ton of notice - even if their sampling was low in fidelity? If somebody professionally repainted your car your own personal favorite color without your permission - even if you prefer to show up in black, white or silver for your workplace? What if you just said a few words meaning something different about an image that obviously took form only because a 1000 words weren't enough?