My chat with Amber probably highlighted the idea of stagnancy pretty well. When Hugo and I travelled to Germany, we had arrived at an eye opening circumstance of sorts. We went to the Munich School of Arts Graduate Show and were perplexed by the homely, strangely too familiar "art scene". Was it the tiny beanies? With the tiny fringes?
Was it the high waisted jeans and baggy vint-AH-ge t-shirts? Was it the doc marten parade of smoke?
On first attempt to figure this "familiar" climate, we pointed at these obvious patterns. Towards the end of the night, Hugo and I knew roughly what it was. It was the art school. Or rather the "art school". They were us. Their art, their style, their contextual statement layouts, were all the bi-product of the homogenised "art school" function. This is what made "art" so accessible. If you knew the layout, if you knew the "speak", it was your licence to this supposedly niche world.
Mind you, I did enjoy it my time there. It would be very harsh and omniscient to say aaalll the art was the same. No. I'm not making such a judgement. There were most definitely beautiful, genuine artworks that surprised me and have a special place in my heart.
I'm annotating a very specific flavour that was in the air... And that some of the art works that had similarities to AUT artists and Elam artists. It was the fact that we had flown 26 hours, to the other side of the world, to find an extension of our scene. I don't know if this circumstance is a negative thing nor a positive one, if it is just reality.
I am interested in the idea of universality vs relativity. Same, same but different?
Is this it?
Are human experiences different but part of some essence? Many would argue against it.
But I want to know the truth. Even if there is no such thing as one.
Ironically, the counter post modern statement, "there is no truth" answer's just that.
Comments