Philosophy Now Forum

The art that stands within (accepted) established order promotes that order. If I want to be 'successful' I must be accepted by an order that is confined in its historical outlook. Can I forgo the mainframe and be relevant. In doing so can I make the mainframe irrelevant. Why help promote a system of doom. To maintain the vitlality of a system.

Questions rather than answers.
How did other art and art movements emerge outwith the established order e.g. cubism? Were they of 'their time' - growing from aspirations, fears, technology? Is there a formula for the success or failure in this field you could apply? Will it only promote doom if you wish it or prove to enhance and expand the established order?

Lynn wrote:Questions rather than answers.
How did other art and art movements emerge outwith the established order e.g. cubism? Were they of 'their time' - growing from aspirations, fears, technology? Is there a formula for the success or failure in this field you could apply? Will it only promote doom if you wish it or prove to enhance and expand the established order?

I guess cubism and possibly all art movements emerge in accordance with their time. Art movements usually react to the movement before. I guess the formula for success as I see it is the way my work looks and perhaps what specifically it does as art. It won't necessarilly promote doom by being incorporated within the art system, it might do the opposite, which is more interesting. I was just aware that art and the artist's who make it currently promote the system as it stands even if their work is a critique of that system. It's very difficult.