Ae s t h e t i c E s s ay s Volume I
1 . IS THE I N TE R N ET K ILLI N G THE SCE N E ? 2 . N E W LIMITATIO N S 3 . OL D LIMITATIO N S
1 . IS THE I N TE R N ET K ILLI N G THE SCE N E ? A scene is defined as ‘a sphere of activity’ or ‘the environment for a specific activity’. For example, in a particular environment or sphere such as the London nightclubs of the 1980’s one may observe the unique fashion culture of the New Romantics or in Seattle, a few years later, the Grunge music scene can be identified in its earliest forms. However, scenes such as these have been around well before the 1980’s; with reference to design the Bauhaus movement, born out of a German design school in 1919, fits the dictionary definition of a scene despite its lack of the term during that time period. In all cases the scene is characterised as being a group of geographically close, concurrent individuals that challenge the existing condition. People who are progressive in their approach to art and culture and enjoy to push the boundaries of what is common and accepted within their culture. In creative terms I think this is the general opinion of what a scene is. One clear example of what a scene is and the effect it can have on the world can be found when looking at the Impressionist movement which came in to existence in Paris towards the end of the 19th Century. Influenced by the realist painters that came before them such as Courbet and Corot, artists such as Monet, Renoir, Pissarro and Sisley were preoccupied with presenting true scenes of modern life. They preferred
to create loose visual effects in their work as opposed to the incredibly detailed techniques that were more commonly employed at the time and they came under much scrutiny for doing so. Monet, Renior, Sisley and Frédéric Bazille studied under Charles Gleyre and became close friends, often spending their time discussing politics and art at the Café Guerbois with Édouard Manet who was already an established artist of the time. In 1863 the Salon des Refusés was organised by Napoleon III in which art that had been refused by the Salon (a greatly respected art exhibition held by the Académie des Beaux-Arts) was displayed for the public to judge themselves. This exhibition showed Manet’s infamous ‘Luncheon on the Grass’ as well as some of Pissarro’s early work and it was a success despite many arriving only to laugh. However, over subsequent years, regardless of how many requests that artists of the day made for another Salon des Refusés the government would not allow it to take place again and therefore the Café Guerbois group formed their own organisation in which they could exhibit their own work and this was known as the Société Anonyme. It was here that the name ‘Impressionist’ was given to the movement by a critic mocking Monet’s work and it was here where they began their life long ascent to become a revolutionary tour de force in the artistic domain. This is a textbook illustration of a sphere of activity that has gone on to change the way in which we think about art. However, if the internet had existed would this scene have even begun and if so would it have had led to the same result that it did? This issue is evidently being dealt with in purely hypothetical terms which in certain cases may appear to be somewhat tenuous and cynical, however it does demonstrate the argument in its clearest possible form. We will continue under the assumption that in the mid 1800’s Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Google and all of the websites which we have readily available to us now were also available and in full use by those in Charles Gleyre’s art classes and beyond. (Devices such as iPhones, tablets, laptops and the various apps to go with them were also accessible).
If, for example, Monet had his own Tumblr on which he posted his work from his classes with Gleyre at a time when he was developing his own unique ‘impressionist’ style; we could assume that he was hoping for a little feedback but that he was mostly posting paintings online to show people what he was doing, as one does on social networking sites. The Parisian art critics of the time did not appreciate the sketchy, realist pleine-airsme with which they were so unaccustomed to, however people from around the world that were following his blog who may have been new and therefore less critical artists would have been more likely to enjoy his work and be influenced by it. It is safe to assume that the more people that he exposed his avant-garde style of work to, both in and outside of Paris, the more likely it is that someone would value it. With recognition from across the world alongside emails and comments on Monet’s Tumblr it is inevitable that the group would have grown complacent and over-confident having appeared to affect so many people. This, in turn would lead to a diluting effect that would dissipate the intensity with which the group developed their style and radical ideology. Instead of discussing their work at the Café Guerbois they would have revelled in their internet fame, answering questions from those who possessed nothing like the status and expertise of those who judged at the Salon. In this instance the success perceived by the artists is actually a lot less significant than they themselves may believe and if they had developed their principles and technique deeply as a unit, slowly rising through the ranks which was, in reality, the case, the outcome may have been more meaningful and refined. In this way we can see how the internet would effect Impressionism as a movement however it would have also had a devastating effect on the ‘Impressionist scene’. As soon as these hypothetical, global followers of Monet’s Tumblr attempt to ‘jump on the band wagon’ and recreate this fluid style of his, the geographical sphere of activity in which the classmates operate is shattered. At this point the profound understanding that the group have for what they are creating is meaningless due to the quantity of work in that style being produced elsewhere. The progression can no longer build from a specific hub of individuals who truly understand what they are doing and expand outwards geographically,
it will instead build in shallow pockets across the world. It suffocates the evolution of the idea as the tightly knit sphere of creatives are overshadowed by the excitement of what the followers simply believe to be a new way of painting in the artistic arena. Now it is very easy to be nostalgic and look back to ways of working before my time claiming that they were better than the way the world operates now. I’m sure that if the artists from the 19th Century were offered the internet as a tool for viewing and exhibiting work they would take it every time and argue it’s case profusely. They can be seen as justified in this argument too, firstly, access to the internet with social networking and countless art blogs leads to an abundance of opportunity for artists to present their artwork to vast audiences. Secondly, access to information about other cultures and art forms can lead to diverse work and inspiration within cultures. For example, in London you may find self-taught British people working in traditional Japanese art and minimalist German design that are living across the street from one another. They may also have a relatively good understanding of the craft too, if they have done their homework. Thirdly there is an unprecedented potential for connection and collaboration with other artists that has never been available to any previous generation. However, this third benefit still remains as mere potential due to the culture with which creative people find themselves in on the internet; one of individualism and singular success rather than group progression or innovation. There is no Cyber CafÊ Guerbois, discussions in online forums and on social networking sites are mostly superficial and rarely enlightening; if a good idea does appear the person who has it is more likely to steal away in to reality in order to develop it rather than dissertate online for fear of the idea being taken from them. This again highlights the destruction of a collaborative, scene like environment even online. However, this disappearance of the scene could be viewed as a natural step in the evolution of art culture. In the past, movements such as impressionism, rock music and beat poetry were all possible due to
their ability to be against a grain. In today’s culture however, it could be argued that there does not appear to be a ‘norm’ or fashionable way of doing things. Contemporary artists vary in styles dramatically from the intimate ‘My Bed’ shown by Tracy Emin to the figure paintings created by the late Lucian Freud. These two artists although differing greatly in style can be just as well regarded as one another by the same individual, there appears to be no overarching perspective or artistic taste. This lack of a supposed ‘artistic guideline’ and ‘overall preference’ could lead to the eradication of the scene as a scene-like environment has no place in a culture where everything is accepted. There is no motive for people to express their potentially groundbreaking style and views collaboratively to get them heard, as their art is just as likely to be accepted if presented by themselves due to a reduced shock value. What would be the motive for shared success when one person could achieve it? I would argue that one person alone can not fully develop a new way of thinking or ideology themselves, it must be discussed, developed and worked on collaboratively, but how can we accommodate this in the modern age? There are many people trying to make the internet a more open space for creativity. Sites such as Murally are working on software and web applications that try to “unleash the imagination of teams of visual people.” They say on their site that “software can empower creativity by being visual, collaborative and playful... and especially get out of the way to get the most out of everyone’s creative flow.” Here we can see how organisations are trying to create a more open space for creativity that fits the web and with over 197,000 members it must be working to some degree. However, one of the flaws in this kind of software is that it often limits the written or spoken discussion of ideas. Typing is much harder than talking so the problem of not fully understanding or developing a movement, ideology or just one idea which may be progressing on this platform still remains. Creative socials however, may have a more complete solution as these are events set up on the internet that happen in real life so that people can discuss ideas and network in person. This kind of event is primarily aimed at creative directors, designers and business owners however the principle could be extended out in to the wider creative fields too. On
their site they say “our primary aim is to provide a platform for creativity and talent, albeit through events, publications and just doing interesting things.� Discussing creativity and meeting creative people in this way is, in my opinion, a better road to go down than online collaboration software as it counteracts to some degree the individualistic mindset that has emerged. By meeting face to face people are more likely to trust one another and build up a meaningful rapport which would hopefully mean that they would be less reluctant to share ideas. To summarise, the future of collaboration and innovation has yet to materialise and although this essay may mostly be speculation I think it is important to recognise that the internet, whilst solving many problems, may also cause some too.
2 . N E W LIMITATIO N S People are problem solvers and limitations aid creativity. It has been well established by many designers, artists and creatives that by restricting your medium or method, solutions arise and creative work occurs. However, in a modern age where digital programs are so advanced and there is so much choice at our disposal it can be difficult to see this. More and more we are seeing technology drive art and creativity to new places with all of these features. 3D animation is reaching incredible levels of detail and complexity, books are becoming interactive for immersive storytelling and much more. Programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have countless tools that are incredibly useful to many but whilst this facilitates a creative process it does little to help a user create one. This, in part, is why I believe Vine to be so popular and why programs like it will become more and more influential in the coming years. Vine is an app which allows users to create a short video clip up to seven seconds long while recording through their phones camera. In addition to this the program only records whilst the users finger is pressed against the screen. When relayed, the unusual properties of this app seem to almost gamify the film making process. Like a child in the playground Vine creates arbitary rules that limit what the user can and can’t do with their camera which therefore creates problems for that user.
A simple idea but as a result, hundreds of thousands of people (especially young people) from all over the world have downloaded this app and are coming up with creative solutions to utilize these restrictions. This also means that people who would not normally think of themselves as creative or artistic are involving themselves in a creative process. Hundreds of people for example, are involving themselves in stop-motion animation, film directing, comedy and music in ways that they may not previously have thought of and are also tackling mediums that may not have even crossed their mind. Designing platforms with problems dramatically influences creativity and not just in pre-existing creatives. The extensions of this type of application could be endless. Why not just create 7 second sounds using the microphone? What if you used the motion sensor so that the camera only played whilst moving? By taking instead of giving we could introduce and influence a whole generation in to creative thinking through these game-like, problematic programs. Although this prospect does sound drasitcally ideological, if it is taken further and works even in just some small part it could potentially aid young people who may lack creative teaching or encouragement elsewhere.
3 . OL D LIMITATIO N S Technology for creatives has advanced rapidly from the days of typewriters, film cameras and cutting mats and with these new tools many revolutionary pieces of work have been created. However, is the work better as a result of this progression and is there a case to be made for reviving methods of creation from the past? Take the typewriter as an initial example; albeit cumbersome and unable to erase mistakes, it has a unique quality that, in my opinion, can create a more productive and creative platform than a word processor on a digital device. I believe this to be primarily a result of the aformentioned point, the fact that (on most models at least) you cannot go back and edit mistakes made when writing. This limitation is actually a blessing in disguise as it forces you to stop caring about your inaccuracies and simply write whatever is in your head. It allows you to write as a free train of thought and the meditative noises and actions required by the machine only aid that effect. Personally, when writing on a typewriter I stop to read over what I have written much less often than on a computer and as a result of this the writing is; firstly, more grammatically accurate but also much more true to the core message that I was trying to initially convey. Whether it be a letter, a story or an essay I find this to be almost always true.
Cameras that take film, especially older models are another, more popular creative medium that has been superseded by the digital age. Again here, it is almost the same argument. The fact that you cannot easily go over your mistakes by taking another picture, or even by viewing the picture you just took makes each photograph much more important. Consideration and care must be put in to create a good photograph and these are two concepts that often get lost on a quick-firing digital device. What is similar about both of these examples and links to most non-digital methods of creation is the importance of process. Especially in the case of the camera, the process of creation after the initial image capture features heavily and is not left in the background and out of sight. For film there are darkrooms, various chemicals and enlargers to experiment with and this leads to a heightened awareness of the overall process that goes in to photography which inevitably leads to more considered work. The physical movement and interaction with the equipment plays a part in both examples. When using ‘analogue’ equipment it tends to be the case that people become much more in tune with their craft out of necessity, if only to make up for what the machine cannot do. This is by no-means a new concept however it is important to remind ourselves that with all the convenience and percieved productivity that digital equipment brings; it is not the be all and end all of creative methods and certainly does not inherently result in the most creative or ‘best’ work.