Blog Giveaway | Day 4 May 3, 2010

Wow... I'd never heard of Fluxus before but then I read the opening and the compulsive researcher in me did the rest. Honestly, based on what I found here (http://www.artmovements.co.uk/fluxus.htm) I'd say we're still firmly ensconced and exploring the edges of Fluxus. Especially with the burlesque. :)

Beyond that? I'm thinking we'll tumble into MoCa art before long.

Motion Capture. Not just from the increasingly cheap and available technology, but for the aesthetic of creating motion (visual, aural, tactile, emotional), capturing it (on stage, digital archive, static media), and then redisplaying that motion in a new medium (hologram, plant dna, trajectory vectors of flaming teddy bears catapulted into levitating banana cream pies over pre-schoolers).

Besides, the marketing options (Mochas for MoCa!) just makes me happy.

post-con pre-po-po-mo practice based art

"Fluidart," to reflect the difficulty of reigning new art into familiar shapes or forms.

Or we could just start calling it "schmart."

Doesn't it make sense to wait and see what this new art really does before naming it? It's easy enough to say it's moving into a new era, but how? Is it really, or has postmodernity been around so long we'd just expect to have something new in terms of a movement by now? Imagine an appropriate name might come out of observing the true changes.

Pop Retro Deco

I don't know, but this questions has prompted a lengthy discussion about art movements between me and my husband. Here are some of the thoughts:

eras in art don't get names, there are movements, and many occur simultaneously.

we don't get to use contemporary? Maybe we just come up with another synonym, like Current Art. Present Era Art.

All (?) of the things we think of as part of what is currently happening in art are present in past art movements, we're always recycling ideas. Recyclism. Remixism. Mashupism. These are all terrible.

i think we should number them. so what comes up in this century should be called Art 2.1 and what comes next should be called Art 2.2 - and so on.

iArt

Art 2.0
Yes it's terriblely cliche, but consider what 2.0 implied to the web, interactivity. A movment from passive consumption to interaction. To dynamic rephrasing based on context. You don't get context colapse like on the web but you also don't 'preserve for the ages' in the way still arts tried to in previous eras.

Yeah - what's wrong with Contemporary?

Or NuArt - was the name of an art house/re-run movie theatre in L.A. years ago...