Artist Genre Discussion

Then what do we do with urban/street art and contemporary art?

Hm...how about combining low brow/pop surrealism/contemporary into just contemporary. and, leave only two categories?

I think it's useful to have some categories. None of these genres is a very good catch-all for every artist working in it, but categorization helps people who are trying to make sense of the relationships and influences that have shaped this little corner of the art world.



Chris Berens' work is definitely surrealism. You can debate the "pop" part, but you could do that for half of the artists in the genre. Is he elevated out of the category by virtue of the his technical skills or by having shown in "fine art" galleries? I guess you could say the same of Ryden – and anyway that's kind of insulting to a bunch of highly skilled painters that work in this area.

I think the real answer is that Chris Berens is in a genre of one, as he says his style arose independently of the pop surrealism movement – he didn't even know it existed until quite recently. He does deeply admire artists like Joe Sorren, so it's not too much of a stretch to lump him into this group... if he has to be in one at all.

Drop Low Brow and Pop Surrealism, just have Contemporary Art?

Found this article:
arthistory.about.com/od/current_contemporary_art/f/what_is.htm
Question: What is "Contemporary" Art?

Answer:

This is an excellent question, and one that isn't asked often enough. Presumably, this is another one of those art definitions we are all supposed to know - most likely by osmosis, or some other telepathic means, because (heaven forbid) you wouldn't want to ask a "stupid" question at some Art World function. (Well, you might, but I wouldn't. At least, not ever again.)

Anyway, the answer is divinely simple. Contemporary just means "art that has been and continues to be created during our lifetimes". In other words, contemporary to us.

Now, of course, if you are 96-years old and reading this (By the way, congratulations, if this describes you. Way to keep up with the times!), you can expect a certain amount of overlapping between "Contemporary" and "Modern" art in your lifetime. A good rule of thumb is:

* Modern Art: Art from the Impressionists (say, around 1880) up until the 1960's or 70's.

* Contemporary Art: Art from the 1960's or 70's up until this very minute.

Here at About Art History, 1970 is the cut-off point for two reasons. First, because it was around 1970 that the terms "Postmodern" and "Postmodernism" popped up - meaning, we must assume, that the Art World had had its fill of Modern Art starting right then.

Secondly, 1970 seems to be the last bastion of easily classified artistic movements. If you look at the outline of Modern Art, and compare it to the outline of Contemporary Art, you'll quickly notice that there are far more entries on the former page. This, in spite of the fact that Contemporary Art enjoys far more working artists making far more art. (It may be that Contemporary artists are mostly working in "movements" that cannot be classified, due to there being around ten artists in any given "movement", none of which have shot off an email saying that there's a new "movement" and "could you please tell others?")

On a more serious note, while it may be hard to classify emergent movements, Contemporary art - collectively - is much more socially conscious than any previous era has been. A whole lot of art from the last 30 years has been connected with one issue or another: feminism, multiculturalism, globalization, bio-engineering and AIDS awareness all come readily to mind as subject matter.

So, there you have it. Contemporary art runs from (roughly) 1970 until now. We won't have to worry about shifting an arbitrary point on the art timeline for another decade, at least. Go, be of good cheer, and fear not the term "Contemporary Art".

i would agree with this statement as personally i do not visit the urban/street art or the contemporary art forums on this board. i'm drawn to the artists which pop up in the "lowbrow" section and it's much more convenient to not have to wade through sub-genres that i don't care for.

I really never go to any one tread but go directly to "100 Most Recent Post" to look & read everything.

Don't care for most Street/Graffiti/Urban Art (except vinyl) but like to see what's happening in general so I read all the post.

I tend towards artist that are storytellers weaving visual fables.
Pop Surrealist are my favorites.

I'm not the biggest fan of labels, but I think a majority of people, and for reasons of archiving and finding the works easy, labels are a necessary evil. Like with Lowbrow, it think only a small percentage really fit there, then a majority into Pop Surrealism and then contemporary.

I think no matter what due to the time we are in, almost all works will have that Pop influence to them, but there are those that clearly fit into it. Chris Berens, Ian Francis, Keniche Hoshine and so on fit well in contemporary.

I don't know about Ron English being there though, he even has "Popaganda" streamed across his site. No matter what reason he uses pop imagery, it is still it's as clear a defining trait as the pawn shop guitars and goodwill sweaters Kurt Cobain had to lump him in with "Grunge", a label he hated.

I've been doing a good deal of reading about how people make decisions and one thing I have come across is that people label things in part to relate them to other things- that way they can use the labels to help with decision making (from what I have read, we use them to include or exclude information in the decisioning process). Things may take on new labels or be regrouped as new information becomes available.

Maybe that is what is happening here- At first it was something different (i.e. lowbrow, pop surrealism) and now it is more familiar (contemporary or new contemporary).