She is creeping through the windows of galleries and seducing the art world -- a shift in artistic philosophy has been solidified and we, the generation with more voice than thought, besieged by troubles too great for digestion, for comprehension and for action, retreat back to the indulgence of the Romantics and Surrealists, to the imagination, to the beautiful, to whimsy. The imagination reigns as the only necessary muse for artists of this day. And yet, within the rule-less artistic expansion of modern imaginative and innovative forms there emerges some order and rhythm. A motif and a collection of iconography has taken form and while this genre is growing exponentially, it appears as though it’s own imagination is beginning to choke itself out—the wolves are now starting to sniff out who is genuine and who is posing. The swollen eyed, fecund cherub-fatale seems to hold the fancy of these art makers.
WHY?
What is she whispering behind her plastic eyes?
Is she the effigy of a culture's boredom? Her depictions are as varying and monotonous as trading cards and yet her reverence is evident in the strictly modern galleries. She is the Mary of the contemporary art world, but instead of Annunciations and Crucifixions she is placed in rococo palaces with glistening carnage in her lap or floating in seascape voids, nursing space creatures with from their pink, prepubescent nipples.
Is she the effigy of a culture's boredom? Her depictions are as varying and monotonous as trading cards and yet her reverence is evident in the strictly modern galleries. She is the Mary of the contemporary art world, but instead of Annunciations and Crucifixions she is placed in rococo palaces with glistening carnage in her lap or floating in seascape voids, nursing space creatures with from their pink, prepubescent nipples.
What are the chances that the expression of so many artists in the most publicized branch of “counter-culture” happens to take the form of staring, exaggerated little girls doing weird shit? Not that trends are not useful or natural, but when a dozen sheep cry wolf, appearing as innocent as murderous pubescent alien-children can, one has to wonder if this trick has become over used.
The artistry, however, is undeniable. Inherent in most great art is the mastery of the material, which, thankfully, these Low-Brow artists, mostly, have in spades. The cheeks of the plastic girls glow with a similar believable light that the Proto-Renaissance artists mastered with their glazing. The blood is warm beneath that plastic coating, and we can tell. If Caravaggio, Heiryonomous Bosch, Salvador Dali, and Lady Gaga a sort of laboratory love creature, multi-headed and a sprinkle of almost ambiguous pedophilia, it would produce the veins of work of the Low Brow. This is meant to be a compliment. Despite the content, the skill stands impressive enough to earn gallery time. This Low Brow aesthetic is inspiring popular culture-- whether this is unfortunate or not is for audience to decide-- Lady Gaga's style team has already awarded her stamp of approval, and if extraterrestrial fame mongers can find the value in these figures, then certainly pubescent girls around the good ole United States will certainly follow suit and get hip to the style. Carnage is in. Masochism is in. Anything grotesque and unexpected is in.
It seems as though all it takes to convince audiences of valuable originality is do something extremely ugly and uncomfortable, call them unsophisticated for the not understanding it, beat them with pretentious smirks from some collective intelligentsia circle and insert ambiguous iconography that stands for some ineffable introspection or worldly or spiritual cause. Overstated? Perhaps, but it appears that we are lost in a sea of Postmodern relativity in which no order is needed, and ever rebelled against.It is said that "Postmodernists are fated to become pleasure-seeking narcissists lacking any strong identity, purpose, or attachments. Cynical and amoral, they live for the moment, without any concern for larger issues, which are imponderables in the first place."
Has our environment produced us in this fashion? Has the world gotten so big and the weight of man and God shrunk so small that the retreat to imagination is the only source of inspiration to draw from? Are there no brave souls reaching to express something beyond themselves-- someone who isn't running away from the world or rendered a useless "Postmodernist", attempting to say something meaningful and helpful for the world in which we play? An understanding of the iconography of Low Brow would help. But these questions are for another essay.
Escapism is what I see.
It is a thing to be appreciated for it's own value and perhaps this is the redeeming quality about this art: it allows us to escape. It is "pretty", if one chooses to use that word. But is it unfair to apply a scale of standard to what we accept for our escapism? Does belligerent escapism not get old? Tasteful surrealism should be a more commonly used term.
It is a thing to be appreciated for it's own value and perhaps this is the redeeming quality about this art: it allows us to escape. It is "pretty", if one chooses to use that word. But is it unfair to apply a scale of standard to what we accept for our escapism? Does belligerent escapism not get old? Tasteful surrealism should be a more commonly used term.
The weirdness, the sultry macabre, the fucking eyes: the genre of Tim Burton inspired sadists—the kind of art that museums should be purchasing but don’t surely want to, this is a movement to be called an unleashing of the seductive, at times innocent, at times, sinister, subconscious of the 21th century. It is unfair to deny the genius that has arrived in this wave. However self-indulgent, some of the work is undeniably sublime—some of it makes you want to follow these Alice-s down their rabbit holes, where ever they may lead.
If there is one thing that must be commended it is the fearlessness to imagine, to create, to explore the realms of ineffable subconscious that may only be uttered in the expression within the eyes of the icons. If creativity was ever an envelope in need of pushing in the art world (which is an endeavor seemingly inherent in modern art) then these artists are not afraid to do it.It is advised to jump in, get saturated in the tales these girls are telling—it may be found that they hold the secrets of a culture laughing at the world and amusing it—they may be saying “Fuck it, why not?”
This seems to be an age in which purpose needn’t any other purpose than itself (Sartre would be proud), a time in which pure, unabridged, entertainment is not feared but revered—videogame dreamscapes meet classical precision—art made from no other place but the creative ego and collective unconscious of a generation that stands as individuals and yet united. This is existential surrealism, existing for its own sake, to sequester and express the boredom of an ambiguous culture.
Artists in order of appearance:
Lori Earley/ http://www.loriearley.com/
Tara McPherson/ http://www.taramcpherson.com/
Michael Hussar/ http://www.michaelhussar.biz/
Mark Ryden/ http://www.markryden.com/
Ray Ceaser / http://www.raycaesar.com/
Truth be told, I love this stuff! I think find it mysterious and beautiful.
An interesting and diverse essay - congratulations on your 1st post!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone ignorant to Low Brow,is the breadth of genre as formulaic as you suggest? Being fair to the genre and it's artists, are the themes and iconography you present centrally representative? Assuming that it is a young movement (< 20 years?) I'm curious if there are substantive variations within the genre that for whatever reason receive less exposure.
Your last paragraph also posits a more profound question I think which has do with how do artists and other intellectuals respond to "...an existential surrealism, existing for its own sake, to sequester and express the boredom of an ambiguous culture".
Purpose (through art) existing for and needing no other purpose than for itself seems I think too safe. It is a convenient and insular closed system that escapes the possibility of criticism because it doesn't posit a greater purpose and suggest an active role for itself in modern life. Existential surrealism is symptomatic of an ambiguous culture and boredom is its side effect because perhaps it denies that it's central purpose is to avoid any and all risk.(Satre would be bemused).
This posture seems inherently tautological without possibility of transcendence. One has no frame of reference if one only knows the goings-on of the rabbit hole. Life is to be lived actively and with boldness, not experienced in reflective passivity. One might argue that art serves a more noble and transcendental purpose when it is both reflective of the culture and asserts new answers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo sir. Low Brow is incredibly rich and diverse in it's imagery, techniques, objectives, and scale. The subject matter in Low Brow is as vast as the imagination can imagine, from Mexican folk art inspired ghost women, to Pop Art inspired dreamscapes, to photo-realistic floating still-lifes. "Low Brow" even extends in and showcases toys and sculpture and photography.
ReplyDeleteFormulaic? Not entirely. Is it developing a shared iconography, style, and motif? Certainly. I am discussing one symbol from it's repertoire.
Perhaps I will make another post on it's other symbols.
"Existential surrealism is symptomatic of an ambiguous culture and boredom is its side effect because perhaps it denies that it's central purpose is to avoid any and all risk.(Satre would be bemused)."
Oh precisely! This form of art is seemingly for the egotist. Perhaps even for the selfish. At some point art became strictly about the artist's whim and still valued by the public. [I will research and identify when and how.] Now, an artist can become a SUPERSTAR by doing what he/she would do therapeutically anyway. Is that bad? It raises the question "What is art for?" doesn't it...? I don't think there is an ultimate answer (although I certainly have my own!).
"One might argue that art serves a more noble and transcendental purpose when it is both reflective of the culture and asserts new answers." It seems like you already have one too.