Sta.sh
Jul 26, 2012 by $techgnoticJust when you thought there couldn’t possibly be another “ism” on the art world horizon, what with the growing accessibility of all
art technique and technology rendering all the “schools of art” equally available and doable and therefore making impossible the dominance
or even existence of any current art “movement” … comes “suggestivism,” the “ism” best summing up what art is in our lives today, defined
more by what it is not, rather than what it is.
"Suggestivist" art is not slave to any one particular type of current art, from pencils to oils to photo-manipulation. It’s not about technology or technique.
It’s largely apolitical and need not promote any particular “message.” Whether defined by Sadakichi Hartmann (circa. 1900; the first to coin
the term) as simply being a reaction to overly cerebral and insufficiently poetic art in all its forms, from canvases to literature, or by Nathan
Spoor, a current artist and advocate, as a “process” by which the artist lets go of constrictive didactic narratives and dogmatic theories and lets
the will of his or her muse take over so that truly poetic art can be created, whether that art “makes sense” or not. The artist allows the soul of
his deepest artistic intuitions “suggest” what to create, without all the over-thinking. The artist can ponder the “meaning” of the vision produced
later, along with everyone else. The one thing that “suggestivist” artworks have in common is that the viewer is encouraged (compelled!) to imagine
his or her own interpretation of the piece. These artworks generally always have recognizable elements, but the real world ends there, as these
elements are usually then twisted into the impossible conjunctures of mad dream logic. Suggestivist art can sometimes suggest the frightening and
haunting, but usually the emphasis is on the playful and wildly unapologetically creative.
“Suggestivism” is as apolitical as our largely apolitical times, though usually informed with ambiguous political memes and imagery. It is an art
for our times that does not ask to be analyzed and understood, but presents itself as a cipher or puzzle with no correct answer that commands attention
none the less. Or it could be just the latest petulant reaction to a public perception of arts experts talking over our heads in their own secret language about what we should and should not like.
Time will tell.
Perhaps the greatest thing about “suggestivist” art is the very fact that it is so... “suggestive.” It’s the ultimate resource for artists (pop & fine),
musicians, writers, dancers or just dedicated daydreamers who feel a bit blocked. Re-charging the creative batteries only requires you spend a little time
creating your own stories to fit the magical creations and constructions of these works, and one’s own inner engines of fantasy and whimsy will soon be
sweetly humming again.
QuestionsFor the Reader
- Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
- Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
- Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
- In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
Yes, some art has limited meaning - focusing on technical and aesthetic achievement. Nothing wrong with that. I can appreciate that type of art.
But I find that the art that moves me emotionally and makes an indelible impression on my memory is the art which has some special meaning to me (whether or not that meaning aligns with the artist's actual intentions). And the more relevant an artwork is, the more I will feed into it, analyse it, and I'll get even more out of it.
Finally I think that you almost always get the most meaning out of pieces that don't ostensibly TRY to create that meaning. Art that tries to create meaning just comes off as pretentious. You have to be subtle about it, not scream it in your face.
I hope this made sense. I'm rather sleep deprived at the moment.
2) I don't sense anything.
3) I usually just figure out if I like it or not, and if I'm having trouble I do try to see the artist's meaning.
4) The (very, very, very little) art I've made is just colors put into fun shapes.
3. when i first see the piece i usually just think whether i like it or not, but if i look at it for a bit then i usually start analyzing it.
4. when i create something, often i am telling a story in my head, or the picture represents something - whether it's something that weighs heavily on my mind or something i just recognized when i first started and decided to run with is just what comes out of it. sometimes i do draw something that just was an idea floating in my head to do.
(yes, i skipped 1. on purpose.)
1) There is definitely room for both political and apolitical art, that is the beauty of it. Art has the power to be in so many different categories and take on so many different meanings.
2) I do believe there is a movement in the arts world today in terms of technology. Electronic art tablets are replacing paper and canvasses. A lot of artists now paint and draw using computers. This is good for the fact that it is less messy and easier to store artwork but at the same I find making artwork without the computer more intimate.
3) I first decide whether or not I like an artwork and then I focus on how well the artist executed a technique in the work such as the use of brushstrokes. I rarely think about the artist's intent or message.
4) In a lot of my art I tend to focus on technique but when I feel strongly about something I do create art to send a message.
2. Like fashion and most forms of expression, there are many venues for all types of art due to technology. This is a good thing for art, no more do we have to cow to societies trends and whims. There is less fear and shame in creating now than ever before. It is a wonderful state of things that there is no real current "movement" in the arts world today but rather hundreds of them.
3. Sometimes I try to figure it out and sometimes I just love it for what it is. Most of this "Suggestivism" art is forgettable because there is no point to it and it is confusing to try and figure out. For those that like to figure out stuff, a suggestivism painting is about a 30 second affair. For those that don't like to figure out stuff, well I think that's kind of depressing and sad really. I do see a ton of humor in suggestivism, but then that would mean there was a purpose and a plan. So maybe the joke is on the artist and this hilarious movement that makes me laugh and go WTF and move on?
4. I try to make art that pleases me, so yes and yes. Sometimes I just paint to create something aesthetically pleasing, other times to tell a story or illustrate my interpretation of a historical event or idea. This question is for those artists who have assigned themselves to a niche of art. If you create from your soul, because you just plain have to, then the "why" or "what" question really doesn't matter, does it. For those that like to corner themselves into niches, the "for whom" suddenly becomes very important.
4.