-Avant-Garde aims to shock, challeneg and re-assess conventions, often with social and political motivations.-
Objectives:
- Understand the term 'avant-garde'.
-Question the way art/design education relies upont the concept of avant-garde.
-Understand the related concept of 'art for art's sake'.
-Question the notion of 'genius'.
-Consider the political persepectives relating to avant-gardism.
-Question the validity of the concept 'avant-garde' today.
-Can we be avant-garde graphic designers?
Dictionaires link term- 'avant-garde' with terms like:
innovation in the arts or pioneers...
-idea of doing art/design work that is progressive- innovative.
-but also, it refers to the idea of there being a group of people being innovative.
1. being avant-garde in the work you do- challenging, innovating etc.
2. being a part of a group-being a member of the avant-garde.
*deeply aligned to modernist practices and characteristics*
-nowadays, the term has reached a level of meaninglessness, neutralised to a state where it can be applied to anything- florists, estate agents, wedding dresses...-
Marcel Duchamp is a fantastic example of the birth of the avant-garde practice- his 1917 'Fountain' urinal, and his re-imaging of the Mona Lisa (complete with moustache) mocked the elitism of art, making people question "what is art?".
His work, along with the other artists in the birth of avant-garde was anti-conventional, anti-elitist, and non-conformist- new, innovative, and re-defining the rules of art.
The Fauvist's (or 'Wild Beasts, when translated) were true avant-garde artists, self-taught with new, creative methods and techniques- expressive with colour and brush strokes- which re-defined the ideas of techniques in art, when people were used to classical renaissance portraits the style of the Fauves was deemed as outrageous and "wild" (hence their less than complimentary namesake).
In the seminar, we discussed perceptions and elitism within art and design- reflecting on a subject close to home- the removal of the word 'design' from the 'Leeds College of Art and Design' institute title last year to simply be named 'Leeds College of Art'. As Graphic-Designers-in-training, of course, it may have seemed a bias discussion, yet elitism in the institute seemed clear- with two schools in the building 'The School of Fine Art, etc', and 'The School of Media and Communications, etc' there are just as many design courses as art- yet, as history shows, there is a social favouring within fine art- a snobbery for this historically established practice, yet, what relevance does it hold? Why is it valued above design?
We reviewed the history of fine art...
-In the 16th and 17th century, pupils would copy their masters- almost an "apprentice training" in art to emuliate their style, as oppossed to nourishing their own practice.
-Art has never appeared to be about individuality, even in art and design education today we are taught to develop the styles of others, and to learn from artists and designers before us.
Tutor Richard showed us a wonderful painting 'The death of Chatterton' by Henry Wallis.
The picture shows a "beautiful poet genius" as he starves, distressed as he fails another attempt to write his eternal poem. In a fit of rage and the feeling that "the world won't understand him" (clearly a teenager), he poisons himself.
Wallis' work was a reflection of society at the time- the elitism of the arts, that if everyday society understands their work, then they're clearly doing it wrong.
-Art only exsists on sales- fine art is, in reality, just as commercial as graphic design, as the practice was originally only intended to meet the needs of heirarchy, such as the monarchy for high financial gain.-
Art for Art's Sake
Whistler's 'Nocture in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (1875).
Autonomous art is independent and "above the world"- aesthetically pure, this approach dominating much of the 20th century.
Whereas avant-garde is political, aiming to make a change, the autonomous artists viewed the "orignial" avant-garde styles as propaganda.
End of the 19th/Early 20th century
Two approaches to avant-garde art:
1. Art that is socially committed (artists being the 'avant-garde' of society, pushing forward political objectives).
2. Art that seeks only to expand/progress what art is (in itself and for itself)/art for art's sake.
-Significant Form-
The relations and combinations of lines and colours, which when organised give the power to move someone aesthetically (which all 'great' works of art posess)- critics tell us why this work is important, with an institutional importance within fine art- we are not "allowed" to establish an opinion of our own.
critics, such as Clive Bell told us that if you didn't recognise the classic styles of artists such as (his personal favourite) Cezanne, then you are wrong.
The 'Art for Art's Sake' approach dominated much of the thinking and practice of art in the 20th century. Behind it, there was no political meaning or reasoning, it was purely abstract and aesthetic.
Jackson Pollock's 'Lavender Mist' (1950) was art critic, Clement Greenberg's personal "pinacle" of fine art, whereupon he "felt the emotion of the painting"- displaying the high level of elitism in Western culture, as oppossed to the Eastern perceptions of art, under Stalin's Communist rule, where the only art allowed to be produced were images of political propaganda.
A problem for the avant-garde is that it seems to necessitate elitism.
So for those members of 'left wing' (interested in social change) there was a tendancy to have to rely upon academic techniques in order to appeal to 'the public'.
Graphic Design, in comparison, will always be invisible (how, in practice it should be- great design should never be noticed), or 'art for art's sake' designers.
Avant-garde graphic design has no respect or consideration for communication, but purely about being experimental- potentially running the risk of not being understood (loosing it's understandibility).
Kitsch: The "oddball cousin" of avant-garde doesn't adhere to usual conventions of design.
Kitsch is a poor imitation of something else- giving the "standard" that people should adhere to.
What is kitsch?
-The idea of inferior, lower-quality, bad taste, "tacky".
-Something that aims to be taken seriously, but fails to do so.
-Failing to meet tastes of a culture that is superior, or above it- anything can be labelled as kitsch- it is defined by the levels of "snobbery".
Kitsch takes cultural standards, not personal taste into account.
The Elitists believe that art belongs in galleries, not in homes, as kitsch provides them with.
Anything that crosses media can be named as kitsch. Something it's not supposed to be- but who states what is in important, or what has hierarchy is art?
Anything sentimental can be viwed as kitsch. When people are becoming "moved" by inanimate objects...such as royal wedding mug and plate memrobillia...
However, kitsch can cross the line into fine art with name association...
Jeff Koons' life-size scultpure, 'Michael Jackson & Bubbles the Monkey' (1988) would, without the name association, truly be the epitome of kitsch. However, the insitituions once again tell us what is kitsch- and this, as aforementioned, because of Koons' name, escapes that category.
This can be seen with many artist's work today- somehow escaping this term to blurr the lines between taste and distasteful.
As fine art, progressively, becomes more elitist, design becomes more popular- seen by all in printed and web-based media, it is democratic, and by no means elitist, many styles of graphic design now influenced by messages of propaganda, with hints of the avant-garde- yet, as we have learnt, as graphic designers, can we ever truly be original?
AWKWARD QUESTIONS TO ASK YOUR TUTORS...
(this must be done!)
1. Why does our work have to be 'original'?
2. Is it possible to be 'avant-garde' and/or original?
3. If I make my work socially comitted so that people can understand it, can it still be avant-garde innovative?
No comments:
Post a Comment