Different?

Artists become typical when they stop exploring new ideas and experiences and fall into predictable patterns and genres.
This phenomenon certainly may reflect their experience and world view.

I do think there is an evolution in photography of a subject from the informative to the artistic to the abstract on a given subject. Because those unfamiliar with the subject a want a textbook illustration to show exactly what it is. This is the typical stock or editorial photo. It informs and satisfies curiosity about the subject. Once the observer is familiar with the subject they may appreciate a more artistic take on it. A unique angle, a dramatic background, a colorful or saturated image. This touches the emotions and may be suitable for framing, or a magazine feature, but may in time become cliche. We already know what it is and don't need it to be so informative or editorial. The next level is more abstract. In this the subject may or may not be recognizable and that would partly depend on the viewer. Here the photo becomes about shape and color and maybe ambiguity. These will be anything but typical. There may be a smaller audience for these images, but they are more likely to be called art and not likely to be considered illustrative or used in that way.

Hard to talk about this without getting political obviously. But if I had to define it in today's crazy world -

dem - would be like overly politically correct to the point of obsession
rep - the wording I would use would probably get me banned because of different reasons. But it would be the opposite.

I didn't think art in general would fall under one thing or another. I guess if it had a lot of rainbows in it, it would offend some GOP

as far as male/female, cat/dog, poor/rich - there is a difference. People paint what they know and if standing in line waiting for food at the soup kitchen is what your familiar with then its poor art. But if standing in line to toss papers in the air at the stock exchange is more familiar the its rich art.


----Mike Savad

Interesting concept to pursue. I have some ill-defined categories that float about in the recesses of my mind and ring bells when I see some sorts of things. An example would be the banana taped to the wall which I would stick (possibly quite unjustly, never having been anywhere near an art school!) in the 'typical art school' category, thinking that the graduates are so hung up about finding some 'new' angle that they forget about aesthetics and stimulating anything positive. Another might be a soft, dull, scratched, dirty image of either a naked woman or a boring landscape (and taken with either a pinhole camera or by some technique like Daguerrotype) which I'd put in my 'over enthusiastic photo-historian' category; or an over-processed, over-saturated, over-sharp, over-pretty famous view sitting in my 'chocolate box cum gilded lily' category (a lot of AI sits comfortably here too).

Yes, no, and...maybe?

I think that we can all agree that art is a form of expression and communication, so obviously social standing, sex, race, political beliefs, education and lots of other things are going to color any artists work.

I think that "typical" is only going to come into play if the artist's "WHY" is to express their difference. I would say that there most definitely is "typical" art expressing particular ideas, values, etc.

Oh wow, I would hate to be labeled as a "typical" anything. When asked what my style is the only answer I can honestly give is "eclectic" which is a nice way of saying "all over the map"

When I think of poor art I think of the tangible art I used to make when I would paint on flower pots with left over model car enamel paints I bought for 10 cents at a rummage sale using toothpicks for paint brushes. or the Bic ink pen drawings on napkins from the fast food joint or pencil on school paper borrowed from my kids. I was poor... so I made poor art.

I was female (still am) so I painted butterfly art for other females but I drew biker art for bikers and animal art for kids... but I was still poor so was all that poor art? I dunno...

I am not very political or party affiliated so I hope that none of my art comes off as political.

Adding: the one thing I can say for sure is that I am different... Mama always said so too.

I don't know that there is any difference necessarily between art by members of the 2 monopoly parties in the US. Except maybe artists doing abortion or Supreme Court related artwork which is two of the few areas of difference this long time poverty wage worker can see a difference.....without trying to be political......not even saying my position here.

I'm not sure you could look at every individual and tell but I'm sure there are differences between college educated and not college educated and working poor and wealthy

Will edit more soon .....have to answer text from work.

Back again. I'm sure there's 1st just a difference in available materials......Shelli giving good example above. Poor people simply do not have opportunity to purchase art supplies higher income people purchase without a 2nd thought.

Work again....

This has already gotten too close to being a political discussion.

This is an election year. The closer we get to November, the temptation to get political by some may be overwhelming. We have seen it every year where some can't stop themselves from taking cheap shots on one side or the other.

I hope Abbie and David put the kibosh on anything that even slightly hints at politics, as this thread does.

I was trying not to be political. Maybe you can't talk about differences.

Without being political one obvious difference is photography.......if you don't have the money for expensive equipment you won't have those perfect midair shots of flying eagles etc.

Now that I've decided to try to make income on POD this recent winter I would have loved to have got some good midair or diving for fish or roosting in trees photos of bald eagles here at the locks and damns on the mississippi especially when it's below zero degrees Fahrenheit. Maybe next year.

Purely because of equipment available I wrote down the name of an animal rescue I hope to latter go and photograph. These would be close up photos of Eagles that can't currently and may never fly again. Not in wild but close up and personal. About an hour and a half drive away I think. There was a story about the bald eagles they are trying to save from lead poisoning from eating lead pellets left in animal remains by hunters. One eagle had just died and others may or may not live...time will tell. Lead pellets vrs steel pellets...one kills them the other goes thru.

So with right equipment I could drive less then 2 miles and get dramatic midair photos. As workaround maybe in July or August I can arrange to go to rehab center. I'd be happy to have both but will be lucky to have either.

Really trying not to be "political"!

Curious....was that whole "Degenerate Art" exhibit and declaration of "Degenerate Artists" thing in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe somehow related to this conversation? Would discussioning that go too far.

I positively will not explain here why it is that I have proudly claimed the title of "Degenerate Artist" for myself........I'm sure that would probably be seen as "political".

What is "typical" for one, is not "typical" for another

Typical this group or typical that group is all in the imagination . Remember the old 60s phrase "Ever met a normal person? Did you like it"? That phrase is still valid today

Having said that, it seems "typical" for some to put people in boxes, but that doesn't work either

Keep in mind though that I am a Virgo and my observations are typical for a Virgo! LOL

Let's not upset the gate keepers......lol!

I have artist friends that did the type of art that fit in with their stronger held beliefs. I shared gallery space with ten or more artists that were adherent devotees to opposite belief structures and STILL tended to paint the very same types of work.

That said, activist art may be the most sold art...just saying.

Everyone is a gatekeeper. No point in denying that. There were many more gatekeepers here once upon a time.

I think artists migrate by economic status. That could be seen as selling out by the jealous. People should ignore some things. The mind can be a bad neighborhood for people who have axes to grind.

The aesthetics come and go. The time to create is stratified.

If you look at a chart of the global population who makes a dollar per day viruses who makes $10,000 per day things get interesting. There is no loyalty in that to any creed.

And what is a gatekeeper, is it moderators?

Lisa see Rudy's video below.

My friend to whom the comment was made, does not do political art. The comment was made simply because the art is progressive in its appearance. Once again make sure you avoid politics since the thread is not about that but rather about how art changes or perhaps does not within different groups.

Think of it this way, could you take 100 art works by female artists and mix it with 100 by male artists mix them up and identify who did what, at least to a fairly high degree? Or same applies to other groups you could make? How about nationalities?

Depends if you know the subcultures. But yes that is something I agree with. People proudly add themselves to their art. However, that is not 100% across the board.

Particularly with objects as art, you need to know the artist's bio or background to assign the subculture.

Gatekeepers are people who claim "ownership" of the forum. The protectors of "their" Holy Grail

here is a pretty good YouTube video about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIbuGZpO-dw

Rudy,

I see it here with AI.

It is not that simple with AI.

My take AI can do some damage but should not be locked out. Any new art has some risks.

There is also a difference in how AI is addressed which offers a lot of mixed feelings I think for all of us.

BTW the old "Modern Art Theory" or whatever it is called is gatekeeping.

deleted

David,

I guess Gatekeeper come in different shapes and forms, but whatever gate they try to keep so to speak, they all have in common that they are very protective and not very open minded. Probably scared that if they don't bark, a little bit of happiness might be able to penetrate into their world and who in the right mind would want that?

Dem or rep art? No, but many famous artists made political art. Many more than You may think in the first moment. Like in satire it goes more in one direction than to the other.

I like Mike's definition of rich art. lol

Sometimes there must be something that allows experts on a free tv show rerun where an expert says ..oh that thing you think is Japanese is really Chinese and was made between 1750 and 1800 or whatever.

I'd be curious. 100 contemporary paintings from Brazil 100 from Vietnam 100 from Mexico 100 from Angola 100 from Iceland 100 from Australia 100 from Haiti 100 from USA.....all in large exhibit????? Could people guess where each painting was from? Try to pick 100 for each country in columns on paper.

Then for fun in this pretend experiment we'll pretend either that all artists are either 50% male and 50 % female........or 45 % male 45% female and 10% everyone else however they identify. Then you divide your 100 choices/guesses for each country and make your guesses/choices for each gender group. Can we do this in real life?

(Would photographs in similar exhibit be similarly the same or different in ability to guess?)

I had my first contest entry as far as I know from Vietnam (Hanoi City) and his painting struck me as unusual...rounder and softer with fewer hard edges and I wondered if that was him or more common in Vietnam. His name is "Hiep Nguyen The" and he says he is a professional painter with works in collections around the world and graduated from a Vietnamese Art College. I don't know links but I believe the "motion dogs wolves coyotes contest" can still be found if you first go to my profile page and click contests. I recently found they stay there a little longer than main contest site.


Anyone wanting to see his work can look up his name or find the dogs wolves coyotes in motion contest. . His entry was titled "Love In The Wild". I have went to his page and looked at lot of his work and like I said already there is to me at least an unusual smoothness or roundness that I like. I'm positive much of that is his personal choices and preferences but I wondered before this conversation how much was local/cultural influence????

Rudy,

Historically as art developed there were rationalizations pro and con. Artists can be very sharp in that way. It can intimidate a weekend warrior who just wants to sell some prints. Those days in here are long gone. We are a peaceful lot.

AI rationalizations are truly different. Sentences like, "My AI art....." get a mixed review.

I would not like to hear that my work is predictable, but it may very well be. A very small portion is political. My more recent political images are message driven, either for someone, or against someone else. Pro someone is much more enjoyable to me. I would not say it is typical. I hope people find it as high quality and clever, even though they may disagree with the expression. Years ago, I did a few political portraits of former American Presidents (these are not posted on this site), whose party had no influence in my decision to draw them. I simply wanted to draw an interesting face.

How art changes or perhaps does not within different groups.

This makes me think of the history of art in general, what was acceptable or popular throughout the various movements, and what equipment/mediums/training/etc. was available to the artist. When someone refers to Egyptian Art, Greek Art, Renaissance Art, and so on, this conjures specific images, the majority of which were produced within the trend of the time. One movement makes room for the next. Even thinking of the Modern Art period, which can have drastically different works of art. These can be collectively categorized as, yes, that is definitely a "Modern Art" piece. Today, we make room for AI, the next movement, most of which to me has a very similar look and feel.

Generally, I believe the individual artist chooses to produce something which may incorporate any combination of the various movements they have studied, or been exposed to. The rare exceptions are those who are unafraid to break current trend and create their own form of expression.

If an individual identifies with an ideology and said individual creates art then that individual will not contradict their ideology with their creations: the greater the identification, the greater the reflection of ideology within the creation.

Dogma influences genre. The hegemony influences social dogma.

There are neither inherent gender nor racial creative tendencies. Creative preference are all environmentally induced.

  

Re: art produced from individuals in various walks of life.
 

Atypical is my go-to.




 

Pigeon-holing art is perhaps the path to laziness and being sloppy.
I think we can categorise art using broad sweeps - like Cubism,
Impressionism, Contemporary etc etc

Once we typify art as Republican/Democrat etc then perhaps we are
into an impossible categorising of art in ever-smaller niches; or even
"you cannot be called an artist because what you call art does not
reflect nor serve our definition of art!"

It becomes art-as-dispute - and as history has taught us - a mimetic tension
arises; one group has its hand firmly grasped on the definition of art, and will
in no way relinquish that grasp "come hell or high water" to an opposing
group. It becomes gang-warfare.

Tighter and tighter as the grip becomes, each competing group loses ground
ever so gradually to the other side; until the patch of ground they defend becomes
so small that they continuously have their backs to the wall!

The fear of a future full of possibilty passes each protagonist by, as they eagerly
defend an ever-decreasing realm!

I forsee here the death of irony; and that should be enough to prevent the eventuality.

Another possible category might be young vs old artist. Drew made the point that environment plays the biggest role and I would agree. Seems as if most artist freak out about the possibility of being pigeon holed into some category and I can understand that. However if the category was say 15th century art vs contemporary art most people would simply accept the fact that times and motivations for the creation of art may be different and the art created reflects that. Many of the categories I tossed out would most certainly have far more subtitle differences than that but the question remains, are there differences and if so what might they be?

Ron,

In one way you pigeon-holed my work by calling it Post Modern. I did not mind. It was interesting feedback.

It reflected the times when I was in a college classroom. It showed a very strange timeline where postmodernism was more philosophy than art movement. Where galleries around our times began to use Post Modern as a sales tool for older art. Where the political landscape shifted and post-modern was new.

More importantly digital post-modern was a better set of tools for creating post-modern. I felt myself on top of the heap even if unrecognized.

If an artist is not on top of the heap what do they do about that within their categorization? Does it matter more than the money? I think in the longer run it does. If only for the quality of the work.

Being an older person, and after years and years of "conditioning" for scenarios that are way less stringent than they used to be, I stumble on some photographic art here that I immediately think must be the work of a male, like gorgeous images of muscle cars (which I like very much but am no way an expert by any stretch of the imagination), only to pleasantly find out it's the work of a woman. I wonder if other people in my age group look at my freighters and initially think it must be the work of a man. That thinking is probably conditioning according to one's age. This is an interesting discussion. I think I may just look at some stuff at random here and try not to look at names to see if I can see the work as "feminine" or "masculine". Are much younger people less susceptible to some of this conditioning? Are they being "conditioned" in new and different ways so that they see all these categories differently? Hmmm...

Here's something to think about.

We are an artistic community united by Fine Art America.
The implication of this association by the very name of this Institution is that we are fine artists representing American culture; to include American liberties; unfettered expression; innovations: which are all jealously guarded by internationally recognizable foundational intellectual respect and responsibility. Is this perspective and dogma dentifiable within a group of like minded artists?

Click on the following image to watch an excellent PBS documentary about an American Institution of art and ask yourself, does regional influences converge to induce style and genre.

Click to enjoy learning about the Santa Fe Art Colony

@ Mary: I think I may just look at some stuff at random here and try not to look at names to see if I can see the work as "feminine" or "masculine". Are much younger people less susceptible to some of this conditioning? Are they being "conditioned" in new and different ways so that they see all these categories differently? Hmmm...

Mary, that's an interesting question - -

Thanks, L A. I suppose some of my attitudes and even my taste are determined partly by my age. I do know there are still way too many men out there who think women are inferior in every way. There's a sculpture by Louise Nevelson in the Chicago Art Museum that was praised by one critic who, upon finding out she was a woman, actually retracted his article. I suppose because he figured it was a fluke some "woman" sculptor could approach the level of a man's work. I'm betting that's why I'm sometimes surprised by the subject matter that some women embrace, but in my case, it obviously delights me no end.

As for "leaning right" or "leaning left", I think only a blatantly politically motivated work would give that away for me, since I'm not looking for that specifically. I may be able to peg a style or a work that pays homage to an artist from the past, but I'm not sure I would be able to classify it in the categories Ronald mentions in the OP. Like "rich art" vs "poor art" - that gets a bit too vague for me.