We are at a point in history where we constantly hear that "everything has been done." The artists of today's world are much different than in the past, since we are not expected to adhere to a cultural art trend as was done previously. Since there is not a specific focus presented, there is a layer of confusion that plagues the art world considering what will collectively be approached next. There is a movement toward the reference of the past in modern times, regarding art among other things such as: music, and fashion.
In the music industry, the biggest resurfacing has been involved with the sudden popularity of
vinyl records, which were widely used in the 1960s and 70s. Perhaps this borrowing from the past provides some comfort in the uncertainty for the future. Furthermore,
fashion presents to us a disoriented sense of culture that does not allow for people of modern times to have a collective identity for the time period (know as zeitgeist). This has been associated with the trendiness of our era, which is driven by advertising and over-consumption. The demoralization and high expectancies that follows individuals today has even brought upon a trend unique to our culture called
Hipsterdom. This borrows fashion from all past counter cultures, throws them into a blender and regurgitates them on society. Check out
this site to get an understanding of what this sub-culture is. There's even a handbook you can buy
here, if you're so inclined. Anyway, that's enough of that...
Now, let's get back to art. Similar to the melting-pot of fashion, art has taken on a similar identity as there is not a well-defined cultural expectation of art as there had been in the past. To illustrate, during the time of the Italian Renaissance many artists were expected to create work limited mostly to religious folklore, perspective and light. Today, artists are not not given such rigid guidelines, and the term "art" has expanded exponentially. Could you imagine one of Piet Mondrian's compositions slapped over Michaelangelo's mural in the Sistine Chapel?
I didn't think so... These works are so specific to their time that they cannot be interchanged. Artist's now have the license to create whatever they want, and this confuses the general art population. This seems to be a characteristic of what we now call "Modernity," in that the gestalt of our era cannot yet be determined until the time has passed, and becomes a part of art history that we can look back on.
The resurgence of street art in particular has been quite interesting, and even though the practice never completely died out, it has had its peaks and valleys. In an interview with the street artist Dan Witz, he is asked
:
What do you think about this resurgence of street art in recent years? Is it really a resurgence or just a re-commercialization? It’s not like street art was ever gone, it just seems like the galleries ignored it for a while and now Shepard Fairey and Banksy are taking over museums. Witz: It’s always been puzzling to me that it ever went away at all. I mean it’s so obviously a fertile medium in so many ways. You don’t need a studio and you don’t have to be good looking or charming or know the right people to get your work out. And it’s a total blast to do.
I’m embarassed to admit it, I mean I know I’m supposed to be some kind of wise veteran of the ups and downs etc., but I’ve pretty much survived psychically by keeping a heavy filter on the above questions. I’ve found that too much of that kind of information can be seriously undermining to my optimism—which is something I badly need to keep on with my work. I usually answer these kind of things by saying that I’m not a spokesman for street art.