Shock of the New Response

Bryson Hansen
Contemporary Design / Art History

Robert Hughs’ chapter entitled The Future that Was, from his book “Shock of the New”, purports an entire shopping list of ideas and retro-active ideals concerning various artists, movements and general turning pints in fine art history, politics and the people which thereby corresponded to it. Hughs begins by complaining about how the 1970s lacked any original “spark”, that is to say that there were no especially memorable artists who brought forth a creative idea that could bring about a new movement. In his promotion of this idea, he supposes that the avant garde, was totally over at this point and that everything from the 1960s forward is a re-hatching of its existence…an afterthought. To an extent, I can see where this observation comes from, but on the other hand I believe that the avant garde was not being re-done, but rearranged and appropriated by artists in a less literal format. This allowed artists to use a previously supported philosophy as a tool, not just an approach, and arguably gave them more freedom and opportunity within an avant-garde mind-set. To argue that the avant-garde existed uniquely in the 1960s, but not in the 1970s, is broad and not confirmed without very seriously addressing the allegations. One could easily retort by asserting that the 1960s weren't original in their right to avant garde either, despite how absurd it sems to say. Nam June Paik, for instance, was operating in a Duchamp mind set still – and was not necessarily bringing about a new passage of artistic ideals. Paik’s work clearly supported the readymades, when he introduced the television’s white noise as “found art”. However, the video synthesizer stands boldly as an example of a purely original and functional creative work of art.
I found Hughs’ stroll through art history more interesting merely in his ability to draw connections between artists and their political stances that I had not previously thought of before, than his intended point. Hughs mentioned several times that Dada was a cause that was founded primarily for a political purpose, which I was well aware of, but then continued by describing that its downfall came when Dadaists could not fasten themselves as respected political thinkers, despite the success of their movement in the art world. What is especially interesting to me is that Dada, possessed an aesthetic attitude that has become just as important, if not more, as any other form. It occurs to me then that the symptoms of any art movement, in an accidental and subconscious way, are not only meaningful in their vocal ability or attitude, but also as pure aesthetic form.
One other thing I found especially interesting about The Future that Was, is Hughs’ message concerning the change of “worth” of art when money comes into the picture. It seems evident that when specific paintings become more prevalent, or spoken about, in the art world strictly because their monetary worth has increased, they become more novelty and worthless. However, I feel that this has become more of a blessing when it comes to music. Pop music is so washed out, and so much about using a system to create a high tempo cash flow, that there is more room for original art to breathe in the independent bracket. I do not mean “indie music”, but independently made – home made – music. There is no pressure for the creator of home made music to adhere to a formula that is important for its ability to sell. Instead, there is a liberty in knowing how impossible that is, and the contrast between the products of both sides of the spectrum is wild. I feel that sincerity comes easier to the artist that does not need to do anything more than to aspire to create work for his or her self. I suppose the problem comes when the artist goes bankrupt.