In an interview with Bill Hare, Ken Curie stated that “art’s radicalism has gone.”
He continued on the topic with a sort of nostalgia, lamenting that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 led to the end of politics. This, in turn, led the political intents of art to be replaced by “decadence,” a useless, mindless intention of ‘art for the sake of art’ that fulfills the needs of a consumerist capitalist society.
We are in an era of artistic gluttony.
This reflection on the good old days rings the doomsday bell, signaling the end of art. But I would suggest that its just the end of an era. The older generation will always compare their past to the present with a sense of dread, igniting a sort of mass hysteria that the morals are gone or attention spans are lessening or that art has lost its purpose.
But there’s also some wisdom in what Hare says.
What does he mean by decadent?
A century before the 1990s, this word “decadence” was being bounded around. The fin de siècle era bought new artistic traditions which embraced, even constructed, gender roles for the upcoming century. The New Woman, the ‘feminized’ man: these shocked the more conservative generation. Henry James’ character of Mr Ransom summarizes this mentality well in ‘The Bostonians’ : “The whole generation is womanized; the masculine tone is passing out of the world.”
The conservative ethics of the Victorian era were rebelled against by the new generation. A newfound Aestheticism was embraced. Ideas of gender and sexuality were turned upside down, as were art’s so-called natural purpose. Aestheticism did not concern itself with that which prior artistic focuses of scientific discovery or moralizing narratives.
On one hand this new art could be seen as purely visual eye-candy with its emphasis on decoration. Seen in Art Nouveau’s posters and graphic arts, the new genre was commercial, adapting itself to an equally commercial world. This was critiqued as selling out the just intentions of art for a market of decaying morals.
On the other hand, the movement can be seen as inherently political. Those who critiqued it were really just aghast at the looser morals that it depicted, headed by controversial figures such Oscar Wilde.
Curie’s reference to art as “decadent” refers to the art of the 1990s and beyond as another period of decadence. Is this true? If so, is it bad? And, more importantly, does this make art any less radical or even political?
Is contemporary art decadent?
Certain things are only visible with foresight. Such as that decadent art was very much political, despite the accusations against it. In fact, the art opened up an area of political debate in and of itself.
It could also be that the contemporary period of art just isn’t focused on the political. Just as fashion swings between minimalism and maximalism, art’s focus could swing between the political and apolitical. But I find this view quite generalized. To say a whole period of art to be completely devoid political intent or even substance is accusatory and rather vague.
Curie appears to say that the fall of the Berlin wall bought on a period of peace and this was bad for art as now there was no struggle to talk about. I disagree, as whilst this was a turning point in European relations, it was not the final answer to all the world’s issues, or even to the raging political issues in Europe at the time. People were still struggling, there were still debates about morality and groups still felt threatened. A period of world peace is relative to the time that came before it. But no matter what there will always be more political issues to explore in art. Politics, against what Curie says, does not just stop.
But Curie’s ideas can be read another way: not that a period of relative peace meant that art stopped being political, but that art’s politicism stopped holding any power.
I return to the opening statement: “Art’s radicalism has gone. It has surrendered, capitulated, become part of the spectacle.” It is now, as he continues, “too readily absorbed and neutralized, to easily robbed of its momentary subversive power to have any actual political impact, which is surely its point.” Here he expresses that it is not the artist’s fault, but the audience in which they project into. Rather than creating conversation and maybe even affecting people’s opinions and decisions, we passively look, then move on.
Why would art no longer hold any power?
I would suggest several reasons why this may be the case:
1) We are far more exposed to political issues, opinions and distressing images, leading to a sort of apathetic numbness.
2) We have gone through a “moral and ideological collapse” since the fall of the Wall, as Curie suggests, therefore we lack the morals to connect to the artistic messages presented.
3) We feel powerless to do anything. Leaving the political prompts given by specific pieces of art, or donating or emailing your local MP or even caring, unmet.
There should be a degree of caution when attempting to agree with any of these possible reasons as they suggest a universal scale of apathy and I don’t see how such generalizations can be plausible.
But what about the artist?
For Curie, “ the artist meshes seamlessly with pop, advertising, celebrity, sensationalism, money, power, status.” The picture painted is one of a modern decadence, one based on commercial capitalism. Rather than be any sort of freedom fighters or activists, artists are part of the social elite that instead perpetuate the issues that artists once fought against.
Once again he nostalgically reflects on “Europe in the 1930s” when “to be an avant-garde artist usually meant that you were on a death list. Today in Britain, to be an avant-garde artist usually means that you’re either on the short list or the guest list.” In return for artists acceptance in society they have supposedly lost their original intentions. The cost for not living under threat due to an upright moral conscience is that artists have lost them entirely.
Once again Curie lapses into generalizations. Even then, all artists don’t need to be political or even comment on the current social landscape. Art is about expression of the individual creator, whether that is of their political views or not.
How does the political landscape shape art?
However, art, as previously discussed, is inherently political in many ways. It is shaped by the political and social landscape in which it resides, leaving traces in the settings used and how the artist’s life has shaped the piece.
It’s the current commercial landscape of art with the Etsy shops and focus on individual narratives that reminds me of the arts and crafts movement, suggesting that we’re in a second wave.
I disagree with Chadwick’s suggestion in ‘Women, Art, and Society’ that the movement was “more stylistic than ideological.”
Between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first of the 1900s, there was war against the industrialization of the arts and crafts. Whilst the quilts, furniture and pottery that embodied this movement can be seen as commercially driven, there was this underlying political stance against the growth of modern capitalism that had taken away individuality, domestic values and profit from those who needed it.
Another battle being fought was against the idea that these crafts were ‘feminine’ and therefore less worthy of the title of ‘high art,’ which was instead given to the ‘masculine’ pursuits of painting and sculpture. The divisions between the domestic of the former and the public of the latter were blurred in this movement, rendering it political but also commercial in nature.
We appear to be in a period where the personal political and the commercial are meshed. Each individual artist (as they always have) has their own aim and their own story to tell, these are then shaped by the world around them, a political and social landscape molded by the pressures of capitalism. Whilst it may not yet be entirely clear what this period of art wants to achieve or even is, its clear that the artistic landscape has changed, just as the political and social one has. I can assure you that the questions will be answered in the future, when we look back on our contemporary period, perhaps with this same sense of nostalgia that Curie has.
If you have any other recommendation or have read any of these books, please feel free to share!
Here, are some questions to consider:
What is the role of the contemporary artist?
Do you think all art is political?
And,
What ways do you think contemporary art is different? Is it only different in the social and political landscape it reflects?
Further reading and a few sources used:
Currently reading: ‘The Bostonians’ by Henry James, ‘Women, Art, And Society’ by Whitney Chadwick, ‘The Oxford Book of Short Stories’ by Theodore W. Goossen
Random Recommendation: the AI art of Luke Nugent
Have a good day! (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ)