Can a new art Movement be Started?

In the past there have been the surrealist, cubist, impressionist, color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to make a contribution to art itself?

Should it be realist, abstract, or expressionist? should it be a return to classical values? Is there a new path art can take now?

Or is the idea of schools and movements passe?

Yes. Expensivism.

Jiri Borsky

IMO There're many 'schools', all happening at the same time. Some more dominant than others in a certain period. I believe the -isms just to be an invention of art historians. Surely artists follow a 'school' or 'movement' but I think only because they're exposed to it and want to give it a shot themselves (it's all about style/technique).

I don't think movements get started as part of some grand scheme. Something (some style/technique) just gets popular for some reason and because of this it's quickly innovated. That 'manga' stuff is quite popular nowadays (in the West and Far East at least) and I'm sure I can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.

Yes.

It's called DrSlickism:
http://www.drslick.org/

[Some were; others, like Surrealism and Furturism, were started by artists. They issued manifestos, had meetings, and debated whether a certain artist should be kept in or kicked out. (I think Salvador Dali was expelled from the Surrealist movement for failing to comply with its prevalent socialistic mindset.). But others, like Minimalism and Conceptualism, were invented after the fact, either as marketing tools or academic referents.

If you were to look at the art of the 1990s, now coming into focus in hindsight, can you identify any art movements as emerging from that period, (which saw the first flowering of the Internet, among other paradigm shifts)? ]

Surely artists follow a 'school' or

[Or perhaps because that's what they feel they have to do to be perceived as artists of their time, as opposed to reactionaries clinging to obsolete artistic modes?]

[Yech...]

and I'm sure I

[Would you say that's primarily a retreat to the safety of the artistic past, or do you see anything new going on in this direction? ]

Andrew Werby

According to post-modernism all movements were an aspect of modernism and are therefore something to be ridiculed through 'ironic' use or 'subversion' of the modernist aesthetics.

Personally however I think that post-modernism is just a little insular club. Every post-modern painting is really a test to see if you are a member of the club or not. For example, a picture of caucasians on a third world beach could be interpreted as just a pretty picture, but expressing that opinion would mark you out as a non-member. The correct interpretation is that it is about 'capitalist colonisation' etc ad nauseum. Or if a picture is deliberately ugly then you had better not say that it is ugly or the members will giggle and ridicule you for failing to give the secret handshake by saying that it is an ironic attack on modernist aesthetics.

So, in answer to your question, I think that the next art movement has to be post-post-modernism - Or an attack on the exclusiveness and snootery of post-modernists. To use the wanky language of the post-modernist:

The post-post-modernist subverts the post-modernist notion of the artist/viewer duality by appropriating the Modernist icon arts practice of the readymade and thus deconstruct the gallery/op-shop distinction and authorship hedgemonies.

Or in plain english. All you have to do to be a post-post-modernist is to follow in Duchamp's footsteps and make lots of readymades whenever you go into an art gallery. Do you like a particular painting? Hey presto! It's a readymade artwork that you created by selecting the painitng. If Duchamp can choose a hat rack and call it his work simply because he chose it then every time you visit a post-modernist exhibition you can create any art work you want simply by choosing one. So if any post-modernist snickers at you for not giving the secret handshake then you can snicker at him for not recognising that you created the said readymade and therefore the interpretation you gave is in fact correct.

That doesn't matter. Adbusters is only a sign of the 'anti consumerism' movement. The movement is still there, with or without

Perhaps, but IMO the only good thing about being up in the sky is that it gives you a better view of the earth below you. If you look up then there's nothing

Not me. 'Artful' perhaps. Propaganda certainly. Sort of propaganda in opposition to propaganda.

There is art out there that delightfully spoofs advertising art. I've seen it but can't say where or when or how one might put their finger on it. Certainly 'The Warhol' was one of the best at the spoofing of commercialism. But I've seen others over the years who were more imaginative. It's all very passe nowadays.

says...

You're joking, right? If not, I suggest you invest in both a good telescope and do a bit of browsing on those web sites devoted to such topics as big-bang theory, black holes and etc. But watch out that you don't let astronomy go to your head - which is no place to see stars!

Sounds good. I'll join if it means artists would target clients who want expensive art, and so pay commensurately.

What would be the aesthetic, as opposed to marketing, principles of the movement?