WTF is Modern ?
Its still bugging me ... she waltzed right into the studio and said;
"The client wants it to look MODERN"
She said it with such ease.. like that was it and it was as simple and definite as that.
For her, it wasn't anything more than playing messenger girl and telling an art director exactly what the client had said in those very exact words. But what exactly did M O D E R N mean?????? - The messenger didn't know, the artist was confused and perhaps the client had no clue either! Perhaps, he used the word 'modern' lightly with respect to something HE had never seen before? Perhaps, he referred to minimalism? Perhaps he referred to an image of a dead rabbit?
ARRRGH!!! WHO WAS TO KNOW??
I asked the always-wise dictionary.com and it returned with:
#1. Relating to or using ideas/techniques that have only been recently developed or are still considered experimental
#2. Relating to or belonging to the present period in history
HUH???? Big help that was. Question still remains as to how these definitions would translate to design in an era where multiple styles exist and the term experimental is popularly an excuse to 'art before thought'
No! am not in anyway trying to sound like an intellectual here or trying to make any groundbreaking point of any sort whatsoever. Instead, all I am trying to do is present the intense dilemma of the 21st Century artist who is forever stuck in a constant state of conflict and disorder. He has a world of art to explore, a storehouse of hundreds and hundreds of years of art at his command, not to mention the numerous 'how-to-manuals' of ancestral artists ........ BUT!! The problem does not lie in the choice of style. It lies in he absence of a clear-cut goal.
Over the years, since the impressionist rebellion of the Renaissance resulting from the entrenched authority of the French Academy, our artsy ancestors sadly fell victim to a governing school of thought that clearly demarcated art and science. Frustration amongst artists led to social exile and the eventual death of art (art as we knew it then). The picture plane traced its steps back further and further and further ..... and further to a point where it became a barren shell, decorative patterns and shapes emerged. The artist's emotional power and insight in human affairs got lost to conveying personal moments of excitation and despair. Personally, I am of the opinion that 'this' was the beginning where creation of art started becoming subjective and for 'the self'. After all, what were they to do than make art for themselves?
A crack in the system became a gaping hole and today it has come to a point where we i.e. the 21st Century artist instinctively reject science, renounce it as a tool and practice free of any discipline and rules. We do all this and hide behind 'CREATIVE LICENCE'. Our school of thought teaches us to disregard science and its role in art:
After all 'How can Science - a discipline so precise, logical, intellectual and mechanical compare with Art? After all, Art is pure! Feelings are not precise, emotions are not mechanical and inspiration is not logical. SCIENCE AND ART DO NOT MIX!
The very canon of art i.e. the human form (that can probably be still considered as the ideal bridge between art and science) has lost its form too. Leaving behind the much-recognized form, it has taken on numerous diverse forms ranging from biomorphic depictions of two stones placed next to one another to others that are kineomorphic, mechanomorphic and what not ..
The point??
The point is... with so many varied interpretations of a human body, we have essentially reduced 20,000 years or so.. of human anatomy research to an esoteric symbol. Popular art has officially rendered the 'anatomical man' dead. I shouldn't really be complaining because its not that I understand human anatomy perfectly either... and that's great for me because it allows me to get away with murder.
Anyhoo... getting back to my point re: the definition of 'Modern' -
The extreme personalization of the art has now given non-artists the false responsibility to take it upon themselves to use words such as style, taste, feeling, intuition, inspiration, perception, creativity and MODERN irresponsibly in ways that are non-defined. This leaves artists like myself perplexed and confused and lost.
Thucydides had said, "When common everyday words lose their definitions and meanings, there is a general crisis in a given field"
Well!! I would guess we are in crisis then.. because I still don't know what the brief means when it says 'the client wants a MODERN design'
Art terminology has lost its power to convey sense, idea or meaning or art expression. It has become a chaotic wasteland, a lost continent of culture - a continent where art in its entirety is reduced to something amateurish.
The looming questions still hang about like fog...
* Do we make an attempt to reclaim back what we have lost?
* Should we walk back old roads, put down our egos and embrace science once more?
* Will that be easy? Will science accept art?
* Is another manifesto in the writing?
* Will we ever be able to answer the question 'What is Art?'
Sigh... i have noo idea..
Thats my little tribute to 'understanding human anatomy' ... wanted to turn it into an entry for illustration friday last week for the word 'escape' .. but couldnt make it on time 
People! i know its one big ass post ... but if youve read it and left a comment with your opinion, you win double brownie points and an all expense paid coffee trip to Costas ! 
( o cmon .... its not that repelling a thought !! ) 
September 25th, 2005 - 09:02
your frustration is justified
I’ve always had a problem with the genre labelled ‘modern art’. Modern relative to what? Opinions, tastes, ideas all find novel ways of expression everyday, at every scale. That which was ‘modern’ say 10 years ago, is it still modern? If so, why? And if not, why not? What we consider conventional or classical or traditional, must have been modern at some point, to someone. Yeah, its with much ease that people say ‘modern’ and consider the definition to be absolute. And this is perhaps due to the perception that everyone is cognizant and part of a collective paradigm that promotes indisputable, stock ideas about concepts that are actually quite relative and open for interpretation.
Now about the coffee trip, arrange for a tall, skim cafe mocha to be delivered to Ithaca NY. And no need for brownie points. Brownies however, will do nicely.
September 25th, 2005 - 16:05
“What we consider conventional or classical or traditional, must have been modern at some point, to someone”
PRECIIIZZEELY!! well put ish!
so what we are saying is that ‘Modern’ is relative to the sentiments and style of the era that preceeded it and essentially every era of art has been ‘Modern’.
We can’t judge modern quantitatively and scietifically as we can assess size and weight. One can ask ‘How Heavy?’ but not ‘How Modern?’ And as you pointed out, ‘Modern’ is relative and for it to be understood precisely, we either need a point of reference or give all those gulity of its indiscriminate ‘absolute’ use – a spanking on their bottoms
But Ish, there is a distinct difference between ‘Modern’ and ‘Modern Art’ – and they shouldnt be confused for one another, for one is merely an adjective and the other is a name given to a period of art ( more specifically a period that ended in the 1970s ). Ironically enough, Modern Art is a thing of the past
What has come after ‘Modern Art’ was Post Modernism and what we have now in the 21st C is Contemporary Art
The dillema and frustration of the 21st Century artist lies not in the definition of ‘Modern Art’ … but instead it is in the definition of what is considered ‘modern’ within the period of Contemporary Art !
geeesh…. i have no idea if i am getting through here. ARGH!.. why couldnt they call ‘Modern Art’ something else !!!??? it would have been so much easier to explain what i mean !!
I believe that when i was instructed to come up with a modern piece of design – it had more to do with producing design that would be perceived as ‘new and fresh’ by a client who i had never met… and that proves to be an impossibility since i was personally unaware of his exposure to art&design and as you aptly put that — “this is perhaps due to the perception that everyone is cognizant and part of a collective paradigm that promotes indisputable, stock ideas about concepts ”
Just thought id wind this up with a brief definition of Contemporary Art because in no way should it be confused with Modern Art. Although the mechanics of both are similar, the latter is more global and engages with issues that presently affect the world such as Cloning, Politics, Human rights, DEFORESTATION (and perhaps even many other enviroment related problems that you have encountered in Indonesia)
Talk about tangent !! huh ?:P
I went from complaining about an incident at work to the definition of Contemporary Art
Whats more important though — is would you consider soya milk in your cafe mocha ?? and can you not make it to Paris for coffee instead ??
September 25th, 2005 - 18:14
hmmm.. in defining contemporary art there… i think i might have just contradicted myself. I had mentioned earlier in my post that:
The problem does not lie in the choice of style. It lies in the absence of a clear-cut goal.
But, truth is – clear cut goals exists in contemporary art i.e global matters of importance.
Hmm…perhaps the issue here lies in treating commercial art differently from fine art, and understanding the fact that the latter is more personal an art form than the other.
Hence my verdict is .. since commercial art is a non personal artform – it should be more grounded by scientific definitions that are absolute, factual and objective. Until such a glossary of terms and definitions can be devised — this state of flux will persist.
gollee… im dizzy … i really need that mocha now
September 25th, 2005 - 18:56
“…since commercial art is a non personal artform it should be more grounded by scientific definition that are absolute…”
Your point is well taken
Another thought that pinged to mind however is that the term “art”, although seemingly all-encompassing.. is not and instead can be a subjective measuring stick for people’s perceptions. Commercial art, as you put it, might be labelled ‘advertising’ or ‘marketing’ and not percieved as ‘art’ at all. I’m often surprised at the variety of things people consider art and the equally astounding number of things that they don’t. *Insert again comment on collective paradigm*. I feel the dissonance lies in thinking that we all think along the same lines. And this sometimes results in imposing one’s idea of art or even one’s idea of what’s modern, on others. Most often, the ones doing the imposing, are the more powerful, the more moneyed. Colonialism, I say!!!
Oi… soya milk in a mocha? thooey! and go to Paris?? dude.. i want my mocha. What’s happened to the service around here
September 25th, 2005 - 21:01
Speaking of meaningless briefs, I was once asked to design the interior of a house by my then boss. He wouldn’t let me meet the client. So I asked my boss to give me some kind of clue about what the client would like. The reply was ’state of the art’. For fks sake.
September 26th, 2005 - 00:55
Ish !! that is very true .. another great point – COLONIALISM of Art ! Come to think of it – ever since 3000 Bcish … we have witnessed how whatever the powerful comissioned to be crafted – came to be called art…. This pattern was later repeated by the equally narcissistic greeks and romans and then by the all mighty church – whatever they called art .. was ART !
funny thing is .. today its obviously my friggin clients who is obviously the all mighty and most powerful … SO WHEN THEY SAY THEY WANT MODERN !! i obviously have to bend over backwards and figure out what @#$@$#$@! MODERN MEANS !
wtf !!??
September 26th, 2005 - 01:08
yo keefieboy !
thats EXACTLY what im talking about.
‘State of the art ‘ – my ass
whatever did you do after keef ? just curious… did you suck your tummy in and hope to get lucky with the design ? or hunt the client down and pin him down and go ” LISTEN PUNK!! ”
September 27th, 2005 - 11:41
It is not a problem of definition but one of communication. We have been conditioned to think that verbal communication is all that we need in order to function. This described instance is a good example that this is not true. You needed to see the client yourself and you would have understood more of what the word “Modern” means in this particular instance. What IT means is irrelevant to what the client wants to communicate.
Science and “Art” are the same thing. Try it out, it will make you feel better.
Also remember: “Words come AFTER images”. This has always been true.
September 27th, 2005 - 13:27
DIRK !!!! – i am so glad you commented!
Dirk.. the problem may as well be in communication and not in definition of terms … but modern day organizational practices places an overly perverted importance on protocols. Protocols that make the message thinner and thinner as it travels from a source to a designer making even the most clearly communicated ideas dilute. These are the same protocols that say ‘ a designer should never be in front of the client’ – almost written in stone.
I guess summing it all up – my point is that in an organization that deals with creative solutions – commuincation is often replaced by translation and in the process much is lost.
I have also realized over my previous few comments that perhaps it was unfair of me to put both ‘fine art’ and ‘commercial art’ in the same basket – as both are subject to different limitations .. i suppose
sigh.. the eternal battle continues.
WORDS DO COME AFTER IMAGES ! – i infinitely agree and that along with ‘SHOW! DONT TELL’ will be my mantra from now on !
Thanks a lot for that dirk ! really appreciate your comment !
Looking forward to more comments from you in the future