Le Billard Géant Giant Billiard 1970
Musée Vienne Mumok (MUseum MOderner Kunst)
UNDERSTAND CONTEMPORARY ART (3)
Today we conceive of no other art than of contestation, it is one of the signs of our decomposition. After all there was great art on command, there was even only art on command : Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Byzantium, Maya, Chinese Art, India, our Christian West, Renaissance, Baroque and even classic. It was beautiful, it was ordered, but the artists believed in him.
Jean DUCHE. The Shield of Athena.
"You can make to people swallow anything," says one expert: MARCEL DUCHAMP (interview on the express 23 July 1964) Under the name of art, for more than a hundred years now, people have been made to swallow anything. We are in the midst of unreality, what is officially considered to be the art of the 20th century and the beginning of the current century has no connection with art, it is anti-art, non-art, hoax.
JEAN LOUIS HARROUEL Contemporary Art, Great Falsification Jean Cyrille Godefroy 2009
Art is what you believe in. And art makes you believe in what you believe. Art also makes you believe in what you wouldn’t believe if you were free to believe. What if you don’t believe in anything anymore? Not even in man? Only in yourself, in defiance of all others? That’s official contemporary art.
The ugliness and absurdity of Official Contemporary Art are deadly viruses, destroying collective cultures and persons. It’is Covid-Art. It is self-confined in magnificent buildings where no public goes, except for a few vaccinated, constrained, adventurous or naive people.
Official contemporary art is an anti-art, commissioned, globalist, state and supra-state, public and private, which combines seven constants found in almost all European museums:
He is ugly, absurd, provocative, botched, sad, uprooted, obsessional, and as a result of all this, totally artificial.
1° The Ugly Art
This is what art historian Ernst Gombrich notes: "Western art has become an adventure on the edge of the impossible, and the art of the ugly".
The ugly Art is a major invention of the West in the second half of the 20th century. Ancient Fine Arts (Belle Arti, Schönen Künste, Fine Arts) and Modern Art, which goes from 1830 to 1950, have occasionally paint the ugliness of life and death. The ugliness of the Passion of Christ, the Devil, the Underworld, War, disease and epidemics, madness, death etc….. But the ugly was never a goal in itself, it was only a way to express the ugliness of certain realities.
In official contemporary art, this imperative of the ugly concerns both abstract and figurative art.
When the Ugly becomes a criterion of official art, a goal of the painter, and a necessary condition for entering a museum of painting, or sculpture, then the era of Contemporary Art undoubtedly begins.
The ideological, doctrinal, systematic adherence of Contemporary Art to ugliness is a very banal observation, which has been made many times, and which has been fully claimed by its theorists and practitioners.
The art critic Michel Tapié (1909-1987) noted in the 1950s and 1960s that "Modern Art – understand Contemporary Art – was born the day the idea of Art and Beauty were separated". Michel Tapié does not criticize this disjunction, on the contrary he notes it and justifies it. "we have changed our values". Indeed, ugliness has become a positive value in aesthetics!
It is very significant that Europe and the West of Museums distinguish, the Museums of "Fine Arts" (Belle Arti, Schönen Künste, Fine Art), from the "Museums of Contemporary Art". It is the officialization of the divorce of Art and Beauty. This institutionalization, this systematization of the anti-esthetic is a first in the history of civilizations.
It is imperative not to confuse Modern Art (1830–1950) with the Contemporary Art, that prevails in the West in official circles from the 1950s onwards. The essential difference, but very simple to understand, is this: Modern Art is an aesthetic, Contemporary Art is, and proclaims to be, an anti-aesthetic.
A few questions are in order:
Should man be proud of having renounced beauty in his official art?
Is it mandatory to consider that this is a necessary and inevitable evolution? A Progress even?
What if ugly art was, on the contrary, a degrading art, a regression? An Involution?
2° The Absurd Art.
During the whole period of the Ancient Fine Arts (Belle Arti, Schönen Künste, Fine Arts) art was never absurd. He always had a meaning, he was the bearer of a teaching very clearly perceptible by the greatest number, even by the illiterate, especially in religious art. From the Renaissance onwards, an art inspired by Greco-Roman antiquity appeared, the meaning of which was only accessible to a cultivated elite of European society. But art continues until the contemporary era to be meaningful, to hold a clear discourse designed to convince and bring peoples together.
In modern times, around 1900, with non-figurative, abstract art, a novelty appeared: the art of non-sense. The non-sense, understood as the lack of meaning, the absence of an intelligible discourse, carrying a precise message, easily identifiable by the populations or by the elites. This is when works "without title" or with meaningless titles appear: "Composition N°…"
But it is only with official contemporary art, after the Second World War, that nonsense, the absence of significant discourse, evolves, is exacerbated, and becomes synonymous with absurdity.
Abstract modern art is a blue triangle and a red dot on a white background.
Official contemporary art is a pair of shoes wearing glasses, a pile of stones, a bed suspended from the museum ceiling, or a mop…
This characteristic of absurdity, unlike that of ugliness, is not explicitly claimed by the dogmatics of the Anti-Art. On the contrary, the theorists of Official Contemporary Art absolutely want to make believe that Anti-Aesthetics is superiorly intelligent, carrying a highly subtle counter-discourse, superlatively "conceptual", that only a visitor initiated to the mysteries of contemporary thought could understand. Hence the importance in contemporary art museums of the Discourse on Art, which is sometimes displayed in a larger format than "works of art". In reality, the truly informed public, not the falsely enlightened public, must understand that there is nothing to understand about each of these "works of art". The discourse on art is there to deceive the public, to amaze them, to intimidate them, to prohibit them from contesting. On the other hand, it is necessary to understand the why this "art", which one, at the same time, displays its absurdity and hides it behind a whole justification discourse. It is also necessary to understand the global, political, ideological and social significance of this totally sophistic aesthetic and ethical deconstruction. We are in the presence of a Sophist art, to which we must firmly oppose the wisdom of Socrates. At the risk of having to drink hemlock, after condemnation by a misguided "Republic".
3° The Provocative Art.
Throughout the period of the Ancient Fine Arts (Belle Arti, Schönen Künste, Fine Arts) art was never provocative. Art’s function and aim was to transmit a clear educational message, understandable by the majority, and its means were to seduce populations as a whole, or more specific clienteles, by carrying a consensual discourse, which brings the recipients together around a collective culture, and a common ideal. Art was a sharing between the members of the whole society conceived as a centripetal community. Art was inter-social, that is, it had to be suitable for all classes of society, to be accepted by them as a common good and to foster communication within the community.
With the official Contemporary Non-Art appears a systematic reverse doctrine, of a total intolerance: the dogma of art that must disturb the peoples. Art is no longer made to induce the adherence of the populations, but to disturb them, to provoke negative reactions of opposition, of rejection. The official discourse on art constantly proclaims the alleged need to "question" all traditions. Thus the "initiate" will distinguish himself by spreading praise on this so-called catharsis, and the uninformed, the zombie, will be stigmatized when he dares to criticize the absurdity of dogmatic violence made to beauty and meaning.
This dogma of "the art that must disturb" has all the characteristics of the intolerant language of certain religious doctrines of which fanatics are unable to admit and understand that a faith in a true God can pass through paths other than their own, and expose truths other than those in which they believe.
There is no longer any question of faith in a revealed God for the supporters of the "Enlightenment", but this doctrine of art, which has the duty to disturb peoples, is in reality the expression of a faith in a higher and revealed Human Reason, requiring a secret initiation. This doctrine is the translation in the field of aesthetics of an elitist, sectarian and dogmatic ideology. Fanaticism has desacralized itself in the West, but it remains identical to itself, and it is still as dangerous to freedom
Provocation is one of the founding principles characteristic of official contemporary art. If we want to understand official contemporary art and even a certain street art (that of vandal tags) we must think on the same ground as him. Oppose provocation and explicit contempt to the provocation and implicit contempt for peoples that is characteristic of official contemporary art. This is why official contemporary art, state art and even supra-state art, globalist, an art characteristic of our current Western civilization, reveals a worrying state of mind of the elites, an obvious overestimation of themselves, and poses a very real social and politic problem.
4° The Botched Art.
The botched Art starts from the sketch, it is born from its abusive systematization.
The Sketch was essentially a preparatory study in the history of painting, which allowed the artist to ensure the coherence and balance of his finished painting. In this case, most often, the approximation of the drawing, the blur of the representation is only a draft, a project, an incomplete art that needs to be completed.
Many artists, over the past centuries, have fully understood that the sketch could, sometimes, exceptionally, be a finished work. In other words, a work about which a large majority of spectators, experts or not, felt compellingly that NOTHING should be added to it. It is not a mathematical definition, not even philosophical, but it is the best, as in the case of beauty: the common feeling, the majority, enlightened by the opinion of the elites, but widely shared within a society.
The sketch is a finished work only when it creates a singular atmosphere, particularly suggestive, carrying a poetry of its own, unique. When it becomes clear that more precision in drawing would close the doors to the imagination, to mystery, and would destroy a subtle balance between dream and reality.
But it is an alchemy whose secret can only be penetrated by great artists.
It is true that the sketch can release a certain expressive power, have an evocative power, a poetry of the unfinished. An expressive force that the painting, well finished, well drawn and well painted, well finished, can indeed lose. But the poetic magic of the art of the blur cannot be systematic and loses all its seduction when it becomes a habit of doing and a conformity of the gaze.
Since the Impressionists, how many artists have blurred sketchs and paint stains, without art and for ease?
The aesthetics of our time has focused far too much on the sketch. The blur, the sketch, the stain have become a fashion, an obligatory culture. Always the same observation: good ideas, innovative and creative practices, become bad and sterile when they become systematized
In reality, artists are not the only ones responsible for this situation. In the 19th century Western society entered a culture that made of the material and economic success , and of the money, its main values. Since then, sketches, which would not have come out of the artist’s personal files in previous centuries, have become commodities for profit. These goods are even found in museums.
Picasso, a painter in transition between modern and contemporary art, had a very good understanding of this economic mechanism.
Of course this evolution is dressed in Great Principles: It is not about Money, but about the Artist, the Freedom of Creation, the Progress of the Arts, a "new sensitivity", "living with the times" etc….
This omnipresence of the sketch, the blur and the tachism reflects not only habits of the gaze but also ethical and cultural values. The Art of sketching, blurring and symbolic and poetic suggestion has become, by spirit of both system and provocation, and also much by convenience and conformity to fashion, the easy Art, and the botched Art. The art of making a reputation and money as quickly as possible. We are at the opposite of the painting of previous centuries, at a time when art was a profession. A profession that could be learned at length, with difficulty, and that required infinite meticulousness.
5° The Sad Art
For centuries, European painting, European art in general, was designed to make peoples dream, or of an important part of a population: aristocracy, bourgeoisie or popular classes. When European painting painted monsters, diseases or war, it was only what was necessary to formulate a reminder to the realities of the world.
Apollo skinned Marsyas alive, Prometheus had his liver eaten on Zeus’ orders, Adonis died, Orpheus failed to bring Eurydice back from the underworld. But Europe was not unhappy to be kidnapped, Aphrodite (Venus) was born and have loved, and spring regularly came back, like Persephone from the Underworld.
The Crucifixions, Burials, and Pietas were always accompanied by an Annunciation, a Nativity and a Resurrection. And after the Death of the Virgin come her Assumption and Coronation.
17th century Dutch art, secular and secular, untiringly proclaims the simple joys of family life, the seascape, the changing skies, village festivals, wedding dances and material abundances: meat, vegetables, cheese and flowers in abundance. A profusion that the skulls could not hide. Even without their teeth, farmers sang, certainly by drinking a little too much.
All the neoclassical, romantic and impressionist art of the 19th century has made you dream with landscapes from Italy or Europe: meadows dotted with poppies, fresh and friendly rivers, forests full of favourable shadows, mysterious castles, herds of sheep and cattle, shepherds musicians…… And apart from a few shipwrecks in a rough sea, on the whole, European painting was joyful and inspiring the peoples.
Dream of God, dream of spiritual or sensual Love, dream of eternal life, dream of goodness, purity and beauty, dream of motherhood, dream of paradise, on earth or in the air, dream of idyllic landscape, dream of successful hunting, dream of abundance. The Dream is not lacking in European painting during centuries, which are much more than a thousand years old. And this dream is still perceived today, even when it no longer corresponds to beliefs that are currently alive and shared. It is when ideologues and politicians, who impose on artists what art must be, have decided to paint a world that does not make peoples dream, that contemporary art has started: The Urinal of Marcel Duchamp is one of the archetypes of this "revolution".
The "Enlightened" have indeed invented the sad art. They are entirely wrong, once again despite their conviction that they are the Eye that illuminates the entire social pyramid from above: Art is what makes peoples dream. Not what gives them nightmares.
There is no doubt that during the 20th century in Europe, then in the West, a pessimistic, tragic and absurd view of life became widespread in the field of painting and sculpture
Are contemporary artists happy to have to produce this New Mandatory Art?
We do not see in the Contemporary Art rooms an art that breathes the Joy of Living and the Blossoming of Self.
Fra Angélico’s works testify that this painter was happy to paint as he did. All in all, he was free! The same goes for the works of Pierre Paul Rubens or the Impressionists.
Looking at Van Gogh’s works, one thing is certain: this tormented painter had the joy of freeing himself through his art from his difficulties in living.
What is the purpose of Art, if not to make people happy, or at least help them to live?
What is an Art that is not an enchantment?
Why a disenchanted Art? Systematically and ostensibly disenchanted?
The Hell of Enguerrand Quarton or Hieronymus Bosch was full of flames and horrible demons.
The Hell of our contemporary world has rationally evacuated all the obscurantist horrors of religion: it is as smooth, sad and absurd as white, yellow or black squares, plywood boxes, coal piles, cement beams, papier-mâché, piled up or suspended clothes and dirty cardboard.
It is the art of a globalist elite who refuse to communicate with their fellow human beings, and who are also unable to feel and make positive emotions feel. No beauty, no joy, no good. The art of making people dream has become the art of making them nightmares. It’s more than sad, it’s alarming. Would Democritus himself still be able to laugh about it?
6° The Rootless Art
The attendance at the Museums of Contemporary Art reveals a phenomenon that quickly becomes obvious and haunting, from the moment the visitor becomes aware of it: the past of mankind and the history of civilizations are totally absent. It is once again the same observation: it is the opposite of Fine Arts (Belle Arti, Schönen Künste, Fine Arts). An atemporal Anti-Art, where all memory of the past is absent, is displayed in the Museums of Contemporary Art.
Official Contemporary Art is a cluster of diverse "things" that constitute a display case of present, an omnipresent present, totally cut off from any spatial or temporal environment:
Plain canvases, coloured or not, lines, dots, strokes and circles, squares or rectangles of various colours, and of course stains, especially stains. Rubble, pipes, broomsticks, mops, ladders, beds, chairs and wobbly tables, piles of various things: coal, stone, cardboard, paper, plastics. Rusty, twisted, broken, bent, broken beams, assembled cardboard boxes, stacked clothes and rags, open or closed boxes, broken or crushed machinery, pipes, cement beams, rubble, cinder blocks, tiles, whole or pulverized bricks, neon tubes, empty bags or full bags (it seems that conceptually it is very different), all kinds of pipes (iron, cement, plastic), rubber, buckets, jugs, pots; fences, telephones, typewriters, packaged or not, sinks, urinals, bicycles, fruit and vegetables, a whole variety of flea markets, but absurd where they are exposed: in the art museums.
A multitude of art schools claim to be inspired by contemporary society, especially its sciences and techniques: Conceptual art, video art, computer art, digital art, bio art, there is no shortage of names, but the resulting installations, apart from their systematic ugliness, far removed from the reality of today’s laboratories or factories, are totally devoid of any meaning actually related to the human sciences and techniques as they are practiced. In the same way that these installations are in no way related to the actual urban life of a large part of the Western population. Fortunately, our cities do not resemble our museums of contemporary art.
Objects without a real identity, without "personality", without empathetic capacity, because they do not fit into any credible context.
Contemporary art museums are a accumulation of objects without a real identity, without "personality", without empathetic capacity, because they do not fit into any credible context.
nor the context of utility, because the objects presented are totally out of their real use.
nor the geographical context, as they are not representative of any culture characteristic of a region of the planet.
nor the historical approach, because these objects have no connection with the history and past of human societies.
There is nothing in these museums that can root the visitor in the history of his or her community or a particular community.
By observing Institutional Contemporary Art, by studying its discourse, it is clear that Western man is not either on the path of rapprochement with Nature. Nature, animals, and humanity – except when it is ugly and absurd – have almost totally disappeared from Western institutional art. The rapprochement with Nature is however a theme that all Western media aimed at the general public regularly develop. The theme of the animal has not disappeared from street art or from local, regional or national private commercial art either. It is omnipresent in photography.
Why this divorce between the Official Globalist Art, art reserved for the enlightened elite, totally artificial and counter nature, and the arts or media aimed at the general public?
Why is this Institutional Art uprooted not only from the different human cultures, but also from Nature?
The spectator is locked in a constant, haunting, terrifying present by his anonymity and his absence of any identity reference point. Contemporary art is Alzheimer’s disease on the scale of the whole society: each moment follows one another without being connected to the moment before, and even less to a distant past. An anthill art in which generations succeed one another without any memorable link, only the chain of instinct remains active.
The official contemporary art is obviously designed to erase the memory of men and be better able to guide the remains of intelligence that will survive this treatment. It is easy to understand why the main audience of these contemporary art museums are students from schools, colleges and high schools.
This situation is indeed not the result of chance but of a political will based on a perfectly identifiable ideology: The "Enlightenment" ideology contained some important, timely, creative and living truths. But these truths have been interpreted in paroxysm of their extremism, and settled in absolute, systematic, unique and universal Truth, denying all the values and experiences of past civilizations. This new totalitarianism carries, like all totalitarianisms, tragic Shadows, and finally Death. When man claims himself to be the "Lights"", the lights of his only reason, it is quite consistent that he ends up in the deep shadow of error, of ignorance, ugly and absurd. What official contemporary art demonstrate.
Official contemporary art, that of the museums that bear this name, puts into practice, in the field of aesthetics, a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment ideology: "La Table Rase" (the clean slate). The European past and that of all civilizations is retrograde and obscurantist, it is the time of the Shadows. He must disappear completely so that the new Humanity can flourish in the Modernity, that the "Lights" alone represent. In the USSR, in Maoist China, this ideology of the "Table Rase" was imposed by an explicitly violent democratic totalitarianism, a single party claimant as legitimate "the dictatorship of the proletariat". In the capitalist countries the methods are different: totalitarianism is hidden behind the appearances of the supposedly plural liberal democracy. His methods are those of a disguised violence, underlying, inspired and organized by organizations hidden from the eyes of the general public: those of the manipulation of the opinions and the spirits.
The roots of peoples, the links of nations with their past must be totally severed in order to allow only the true and only doctrine to remain, that to the glory of universality. According to the High Priests of Globalism, this would be the price to pay to guarantee, through the disappearance of nations, ethnic and cultural groups and the creation of a single government on a global scale, a bright future, peace and paradise on earth. The disappearance of human roots is indeed the same project as the disappearance of nations. From the forgetting of the roots to the destruction of the roots, the distance is minute: this is what the officially involuntary fire of Notre Dame de Paris shows. The centuries-old oaks frame of Notre Dame de Paris can burn, as accidentally, it is not at all a disaster, it is even an interesting opportunity. She will be rebuilt in a few years. She will even be better: it will be made of concrete, and brand new. She can always be kept on the World Heritage List. What are the retrograde spirits complaining about who are obscurely attached to the past?
Official contemporary art is an art specially designed for uprooted, emigrated, immigrant, mixed peoples: Nothing reminds of their origins, their specific cultures, their former territories. Their symbols, even the most expensive ones, will be destroyed, intentionnaly burned down. It is the globalist project whose ideology and politics are reflected in the official contemporary anti-aesthetics.
7° The Obsessional Art.
The obsession we are talking about here is that of Modernity, the New, Change, Revolution, Progress. It is mandatory to paint, sculpt, install, everything and anything, on the sole condition that it has never been done before! Toilet paper rolls on the floor? That’s a great idea! On one condition: you have to be sure that this has not already been done! And if this has been done, it is possible to do the same thing, but with real or artificial soiling, in addition. It will be even more novel and a real improvement!
This obsession with novelty here too is in line with the dogma of the "Table Rase" and is inspired by the doctrine of the denial of the Past, which is a fundamental point of the catechism of the extremist Enlightenment. The direct consequence of this monomania is obviously the over-valuing of the present and the future: a permanent agitation, a feverish irritation, without any real purpose, without prudence, without good sense, a sterile effervescence and even destructive of the major balances needed. It is "le Bougisme" (The Febrile Agitation), by Pierre André Taguieff (Résister au Bougisme. Fayard 2001). In inventing this neologism, Pierre André Taguieff rightly denounced the morbid cult of change for change. This absurd ideology of mandatory novelty, at any price, obviously causes its devastation in art, as elsewhere in Western society.
Even if the beginning of the 21st century is beginning to raise alarm bells about human nuisance, the obsession with Change and Progress through human action remains a constant in all official speeches and one of the first commandments of ideological and "artistic" catechism.
Conclusion: The Artificial Art. The Dead Art.
The seven-point specifications that are imposed on contemporary artists determined to build a reputation in official art have an obvious consequence: Official Contemporary Art is a totally no sincere art, a summit of artifice and conformity. European art as well as universal art has always been commissioned art for thousands of years. In the entire history of civilizations, indeed, art has only existed on commission. It is always the ideological and political elites who have inspired, guided and financed the art of different civilizations. With one notable exception, in Europe, during the Modern Art period. We have said why in other texts: in a word, ideological diversity. But art on commission, in ancient times, even when a single ideology dominated, did not exclude that artists could create with sincerity, and therefore freely, an art that was commissioned, but authentic and shared. The entire history of European painting since medieval times is proof of this
This is what has obviously changed with official contemporary art since the second half of the 20th century. To be forced to create the ugly, the absurd, the sad, to be forced to provoke and disturb the peoples at the base of the pyramid, is obviously very overwhelming for the official artists themselves. Even when honors and profits are at the end of the road. Their art is artificial, it does not carry any living truth. An art on command, but a dead art.
The sincerity, the good faith, of the artist is a condition, certainly not sufficient, but absolutely necessary for art. We see well in the ancient arts, when the painter, even talented, no longer believes in what he paints. This feeling is very clearly found in religious art, at certain times, in some artists even of great talent. In ancient art, it is an individual or cyclical phenomenon.
On the other hand, in official contemporary art museums, the lack of sincerity, inauthenticity, falsity, duplicity is general and structural: the spectator is immersed in an atmosphere of constant lies, constrained artifice, hypocritical affectation, deadly boring complacency. This is exactly the meaning of the title of Aude de Kerros’ book "L’Imposture de l’art contemporain" Eyrolles 2017.
Official Contemporary Art is an Imposture because it is an imposed posture, an obligatory behaviour, a deadly constraint for the freedom of creation.
A Beautiful art that is understandable by peoples, the sharing of a living and positive emotion with the public, this is not the problem of the "artists" of official contemporary art. Their only interest, obvious to the visitor, is their social success. These artists paint, sculpt or "install" to enter the museums. All sincerity is dismissed as dangerous for the success of this company. It is necessary to meet the conditions to be accepted by decision-makers : to do at all costs, the new one and ugly, and to achieve the most absolute provocation.
It is clear that authenticity, sincerity, remain alongside of this road imposed on artistic creation. Some opportunists are perfectly comfortable with these constraints , because it is a demanding set of specifications, but it does not require any strictly artistic talent. Others many artists are constraining themselves, in order to obtain public recognition. Still others refuse to play this game and do not enter the great museums. These constraints and refusals certainly have an aesthetic cost at the level of the global society.
Sincerity was a criterion of the European aesthetic of the past. It did not matter whether the belief was false or true, or more or less true, not in conformity with rationality as we understand it today. It is a historical fact that all the great religions have been, for millennia, at the origin of authentic, sincere, beautiful, significant arts, shared with peoples and recognized by time. The evidence is that with Official Contemporary Art, authenticity is dead, and the sharing it with it of course. The attendance of contemporary art museums shows that there is no current between artists, their official patrons and the majority of the public, who can freely decide on its activities.
"The majority of opponents of contemporary art are totally invisible and voiceless. Artists and amateurs who compose it act as if Contemporary Art does not exist. They consider it so void that it is not necessary to pay any attention to it, nor to make any critical effort."
Aude de Kerros L’Art Caché. Eyrolles 2013.
These opponents are right about the aesthetic nullity of official contemporary art. But they are wrong to remain speechless, because this art is a revelation of the state of mind of the ruling elites. The governed must pay very close attention to the visions of art, and therefore of the world, of their rulers, because they concern them directly. The "Massacre of the Innocents" is a current situation, not just an anecdote from the New Testament. An ideological and political elite that has made a profession of faith to massacre beauty, meaning, sincerity, art in general, and proclaims its right to disturb peoples, is suspect. The massacre of painting, the massacre of art is the announcement, the prefiguration of the massacre of peoples (the "Yellow Vests") by their ideological and political elites. Recent history has shown that explicitly totalitarian, Nazi and communist, genocidal societies have been unable to create an authentic and sincere art. The vast majority of artists have fled them.
The liberal capitalist society, triumphant in our time, has acted in a much more politically subtle way by creating an Official Mandatory Anti-Art. Is it an effective and sufficient antidote against totalitarianism, that this society has allowed reserves for beauty, meaning, sincerity in other fields such as photography or street art, or in a private art not accredited, adventitious? It would be wise to seriously doubt this.
IMG_4620C UNDERSTAND CONTEMPORARY ART (3)
Contemporary art is a constantly evolving field that challenges traditional notions of art and creativity. In today’s fast-paced world, contemporary artists are using a wide range of techniques and mediums to express their unique visions, from painting and sculpture to digital art and performance. Understanding contemporary art can be daunting, but it is crucial for anyone working in the art world or simply seeking to appreciate and engage with modern culture.
Artificial intelligence (AI) plays a significant role in understanding contemporary art by providing new ways to analyze, interpret, and create art. With its ability to process vast amounts of data and recognize patterns, AI can offer deeper insights into the world of contemporary art. In this digital age, the intersection of AI and art has opened doors to new possibilities and expanded the boundaries of artistic expression.
One of the most important aspects of understanding contemporary art is being able to interpret and appreciate the messages and themes that artists convey through their work. AI can assist in this process by analyzing and identifying recurring motifs, symbols, and themes in contemporary art. By utilizing natural language processing and image recognition algorithms, AI can help art enthusiasts and professionals gain a deeper understanding of the cultural and social contexts that influence contemporary art.
Artificial intelligence also plays a role in the creation of contemporary art. With the rise of digital art and new technologies, artists are experimenting with AI-generated art and using advanced algorithms to produce innovative and thought-provoking pieces. AI tools can generate unique visual and textual content, providing artists with new ways to express themselves and engage with their audiences.
Furthermore, AI can assist in the curation and management of contemporary art collections. By analyzing and organizing vast amounts of art-related data, AI can help art institutions and collectors make informed decisions about acquisitions, exhibitions, and preservation. AI’s ability to categorize and classify artworks based on their style, genre, and historical significance can streamline the process of managing contemporary art collections.
In addition to understanding and creating contemporary art, AI has business use cases across various industries. One such use case is data normalization in the context of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Data normalization is the process of organizing and standardizing data to ensure consistency and accuracy. AI can be used to automatically normalize data from different sources, enabling organizations to efficiently analyze and utilize their data for decision-making and problem-solving.
Synthetic data generation is another business use case for AI, particularly in industries where collecting real-world data is challenging or costly. AI algorithms can generate synthetic data that mimics the characteristics and patterns of real data, allowing organizations to train and test their AI models without compromising privacy or security.
Content generation is a key application of AI in the business world, particularly in marketing and customer engagement. AI-powered tools can generate personalized and relevant content for websites, social media, and other digital platforms, enabling businesses to connect with their target audience more effectively.
AI also plays a crucial role in mobile app development, particularly with the use of frameworks such as Flutter. By integrating AI capabilities into mobile apps, developers can create intelligent and responsive applications that provide enhanced user experiences.
Additionally, AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants, such as those built on platforms like Dialogflow and Firebase, are increasingly being used by businesses to automate customer support, sales, and other services. These AI-driven tools can understand and respond to natural language queries, helping businesses improve efficiency and customer satisfaction.
OpenAI’s stable diffusion LLM (Large Language Models) is another example of AI’s business application. These advanced language models can be used to analyze and generate human-like text, facilitating tasks such as content creation, translation, and data analysis.
In conclusion, the intersection of AI and contemporary art offers new ways to understand, create, and engage with artistic expression. As AI continues to advance, it will play an increasingly important role in the art world and across various industries, providing valuable insights, efficiencies, and innovative solutions.
Tagged: , Peintres , Peintures , Painting , Musée , Museum , Museo , Österreich , Autriche , Austria , Vienne , Wien , MuMok , MUseum MOderner Kunst