Ever wondered why modern art is typically basic, plain, simple, while older art is typically rich in detail? (Think of a modern picture frame vs a Victorian picture frame) why is that? I find that the shift happened right around the dawn of the industrial age pretty much consistently everywhere in the world.
What happened to trigger such a radical shift in the nature of art right around the time of the industrial revolution? Well, the industrial revolution!
Here is a theory: art appreciation for the masses was never really about art itself (although a select few must appreciate art for art sake of course, but those are the exception, not the rule), rather it has always been about status.
To own art has always been a status symbol. Look at me, I'm so important, I frame my portrait in a lavish wooden frame that must have taken a month of a talented artist's precious time. Getting people to devote their time to your service is the ultimate status symbol. Money is just a token of commodities, while time is truly a precious limited gift that we all own in very sparse amounts. If you're a king, a frame just won't do. You need to get a hundred artists to slave away for months in order to please you. Only a gigantic painting wall-to-wall in excruciating detail and painstaking realism can testify to your greatness (translation: to your ability to get other people to devote their time to your service)
Now with the industrial revolution things started to change quickly. We developed technology that essentially automated the production of large objects en-masse. In other words, it became possible to produce a gigantic object, complete in excruciating detail and painstaking realism without the need to consume people's precious time. This Victorian looking wooden picture frame on my hotel room's wall looks very detailed and "artistic" yet I'm pretty sure it consumed only a few milliseconds of the artists time: a few hours of initial design time divided by thousands of frames subsequently cloned via an automated process. It is still art, to be appreciated as before, but it can no longer serve as a status symbol.
So what could elitist snobs do in order to overcome this disastrous blow to their perceived (and largely inflated) self-worth? Easy, they started worshiping "handmade art".
Which is bullshit, since machines are created specifically to serve as superior hands. Art materialized by a machine is necessarily a better manifestation of the artist's vision than that produced by hand. Handbags made by machines are consistently sturdier, better looking, closer to the artists desired form, and essentially in every way better that their hand made cousins. In every way that is, except one: they can't serve as status symbols
What happened to trigger such a radical shift in the nature of art right around the time of the industrial revolution? Well, the industrial revolution!
Here is a theory: art appreciation for the masses was never really about art itself (although a select few must appreciate art for art sake of course, but those are the exception, not the rule), rather it has always been about status.
To own art has always been a status symbol. Look at me, I'm so important, I frame my portrait in a lavish wooden frame that must have taken a month of a talented artist's precious time. Getting people to devote their time to your service is the ultimate status symbol. Money is just a token of commodities, while time is truly a precious limited gift that we all own in very sparse amounts. If you're a king, a frame just won't do. You need to get a hundred artists to slave away for months in order to please you. Only a gigantic painting wall-to-wall in excruciating detail and painstaking realism can testify to your greatness (translation: to your ability to get other people to devote their time to your service)
Now with the industrial revolution things started to change quickly. We developed technology that essentially automated the production of large objects en-masse. In other words, it became possible to produce a gigantic object, complete in excruciating detail and painstaking realism without the need to consume people's precious time. This Victorian looking wooden picture frame on my hotel room's wall looks very detailed and "artistic" yet I'm pretty sure it consumed only a few milliseconds of the artists time: a few hours of initial design time divided by thousands of frames subsequently cloned via an automated process. It is still art, to be appreciated as before, but it can no longer serve as a status symbol.
So what could elitist snobs do in order to overcome this disastrous blow to their perceived (and largely inflated) self-worth? Easy, they started worshiping "handmade art".
Which is bullshit, since machines are created specifically to serve as superior hands. Art materialized by a machine is necessarily a better manifestation of the artist's vision than that produced by hand. Handbags made by machines are consistently sturdier, better looking, closer to the artists desired form, and essentially in every way better that their hand made cousins. In every way that is, except one: they can't serve as status symbols
Comments
prepackaged frozen one. Handmade art is not as cold blooded as digital art is! Being made with the artist's hands that emitted energy into it, a handmade piece reflects more vitality...I appreciate both though.