Arts in stagnation?

Adam muses that perhaps... "Artists (including musicians, visual artists, writers, filmmakers, and us theatre folks) are just playing out the work of our predecessors from 1945 to 1980.... I could be totally wrong. But I'd like to get your input." Very well; rant mode commence.

My main objection is that no one can know what's going on in an art form without -- you know -- paying attention. In Adam's case, I might believe that he has some link to the theater world. But I also happen to know that he doesn't listen to music or read fiction. This is a poor basis for judging that nothing new is sprouting under those particular suns. So the theory would have to be re-stated as "Headline News, talk radio, and idle chatter have not recently penetrated my conciousness with the conclusion that a particular artistic trend, in any field, is actually a revolution."

Specifically, what is new? Well, I can make a few suggestions thru the filter of my own limited knowledge. In video (movies and TV) there have been some experiments with non-linear time, multiple points of view, and the unreliable narrator -- e.g., "Memento", "The Usual Suspects", the Pinter episode of "Seinfeld". Of course, video is an inherently conservative art form. Video takes direct control of sight, hearing, and pace, tending to bypass judgement, and it works best when it appeals to the worst in us. Maybe that makes an experimental film more painful than an experimental book. Anyway, most of video's progress has been in effects and animation -- technical advances, but those too have an element of artistry, as any lighting designer can tell you.

Popular music? Hip-hop has been lively, and it's not the same as rap, I know that much... There are good things coming out that I do listen to. Music I like tends to cherry-pick elements from multiple influences, with an emphasis on musicianship, and come up with sounds that move your feet and your mind at the same time. But writing about music is like boinking about architectiure.

Speaking of which, architecture has changed a lot, and mostly for the better, since the 1980's. Remember all that faux-Deco shit in mauve and jewel tones? But I think that Frank Gehry's building are starting to all look the same. I like this Santiago Calatrava guy better.

Writing? I don't read much that's brand-new. But there does seem to be a trend toward meticulously researched historical backgrounds. This could be a healthy change from the well-criticized tendency of fiction writers to make other places, peoples, and times into whatever the author's personal preferences desire. Several such scholarly novels focus on a secondary but historically real character who was close to an interesting moment, movement, or personality. I think we got there from "Wide Sargasso Sea".

I have to say it, there is some brilliant stuff in comix. It's OK, I don't expect you to believe me. But this is one art form that has changed drastically in the last twenty years. You don't have to read Ben Katchor or Spiegelman's "Little Lit" or even Neil Gaiman or Frank Miller or crazy Dave Sim. But you really should read Chris Ware. He's just so brilliant. A 24-page Chris Ware comic can knock you on your ass in a way that countless 300-page novels have failed to do. I'm serious. You've been warned. End of topic.

I'm greatly ignorant of what's current in painting, photography, and sculpture. All I see is what's in the New Yorker. But I do have hopes for the return of beauty.

Overall, I want art of that presents small, fleeting pleasures on a harshly-lit background. Half a peppermint patty on a bed of dirty arugula. I could go on about that, too, but I have chattered more than enough and have to go to bed. Someone else comment now, and if possible, do it with a regular post, not that weird blog-back thing that puts your words in some other window. Thanks to Adam for providing this forum for rambling.

Maybe the best theory we can come up with is "It takes 20 years to know what's a revolution".

-- Mr Joel