...with woodchip on the wall

[Anon.]

My tastes lean rather towards the rococo in heraldry but in anything else it would be simply too elaborate. Nowadays there is no driving force in anything, so everything has to be neo-something - but what? Ay, there's the rub. Modern design is absolutely insufferable, so what should we ape, and in so doing what would be least affected? The first thing that springs to mind as a solution is Art Deco - what do others think?

Excuse the stream-of-consciousness-ness - blame the Cognac.

[Anon.]

Of course, neo-everything is a substitute for actual originality - but as the latter is non-existent today, we have to make do. But if originality were to arrive - would the modern generation be too disillusioned to accept it? The Great Question. Will anything ever happen?

[Keynes]

[s]Anon. wrote on 05:29, 2nd Sep 2003:
Of course, neo-everything is a substitute for actual originality - but as the latter is non-existent today, we have to make do. But if originality were to arrive - would the modern generation be too disillusioned to accept it? The Great Question. Will anything ever happen?


I just posted something fairly extensive on this, but didn't realise that I wasn't logged in... Hopefully it will be posted soon, as I love discussing art and architecture!



[hr]
Challenge is pleasure.
http://hindidiamond.livejournal.com

[Guided By Vices]

Hmm, and I thought this thread was going to be about Pulp songs. My favourite's 'Babies' by the way.

[Keynes]

[s]Anon. wrote on 05:23, 2nd Sep 2003:
My tastes lean rather towards the rococo in heraldry but in anything else it would be simply too elaborate. Nowadays there is no driving force in anything, so everything has to be neo-something - but what? Ay, there's the rub. Modern design is absolutely insufferable, so what should we ape, and in so doing what would be least affected? The first thing that springs to mind as a solution is Art Deco - what do others think?

Excuse the stream-of-consciousness-ness - blame the Cognac.


As an art major and budding architect, I have to jump into this discussion. I would like to quickly point out though, that "Modern Art" generally refers to art produced in the first half of the 20th century, and perhaps the following few decades. Art and architecture produced recently is just called "contemporary." I don't mean to come across as condescending at all!
It's just less confusing, I think, to recognize the different periods.

Everything was neo-something several centuries ago, too. Rococo was neo-mannerist. Neo-classical art, which came into fasion during the time of rococo, was, well, a rehash of the classical style. In fact, some art historians (ie Posner, Panofsky) believe that art tends to follow a "grandfather law." Basically, influences of the current period draw from works two periods before it.

I'm not sure that I agree with that theory, but I would like to point out two things:

1) There can be a be a benefit to creating "neo" genres in art. Often, the older forms and iconography are actually more suitable for modern/contemporary work, or can enhance their meaning. For example, Warhol created many of his images of Marilyn Monroe on diptychs, which were used for centuries to display scenes of Christ's Passion. In an interview, Warhol described how its form compared her modern celebrity to the popularity and importance of religious figures in preceding centuries.

2) There are certain mathematical patterns that have always been used to create art and architecture that looks particularly appealing (ie Fibonacci's "Golden Rectangle" in the works of Seurat, Mondrian, and Le Corbusier). Additionally, there are theories that cetain colors look particularly appealing together (pioeneered by Seurat and the fauvists). I think it would be interesting to explore the use of colors and lines. Such research might produce interesting aesthetic results for contemporary art.

[Buzzboy]

Just to pick you up on a point.

The "Golden Rectangle or proportion" is actually a classical construction, not Fibonacci's, he merely reinstated the idea. Many renaissance artists (such as Da Vinci) were known to use the aforesaid proportion as well.

[hr]On the Seventh Day God said to Adam:

"Can I leave it with you?"

[Keynes]

[s]Buzzboy wrote on 11:04, 2nd Sep 2003:
Just to pick you up on a point.

The "Golden Rectangle or proportion" is actually a classical construction, not Fibonacci's, he merely reinstated the idea. Many renaissance artists (such as Da Vinci) were known to use the aforesaid proportion as well.

[hr]On the Seventh Day God said to Adam:

"Can I leave it with you?"


You are right--the Golden Rectangle was supposedly discovered by Pythagoras, and is considered to have originated in Ancient Greece. However, Fibonacci discovered the sequence that corresponded with the ratio, extending the older idea a bit.



[hr]
Challenge is pleasure.
http://hindidiamond.livejournal.com