PDA

View Full Version : On Futurism


Darth InSidious
10-28-2008, 11:57 AM
The futurist is a sensational and sentimental mixture of the aesthete of 1890 and the realist of 1870.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Sabretooth
10-28-2008, 12:16 PM
I partly agree with the statement, but only partly. For one, I support the futurist movement and the ideals it encompasses of beauty in progression, movement and the perennial march of technology.

Where does the aesthete of 1890 fit in, I ask? Can it be said that finding beauty in everyday motion is excessive and fit for an aesthete? What then, is art? Take away life, the tedious life of the common man, and you have no art: you have a blank canvas on which naught can be painted, lest it paint again the abandoned man.

No, Futurism is as progressive as the elements it describes. It is ever-changing, ever-evolving and even evergreen. It is not confined to the 1890s or the 1870s or any other decade or century: it may not even be considered truly an art form so much as an art philosophy, a theory of art.

I agree in saying that realism is an integral component of futurism. It is a necessary element, crucial to the existence and plausibility of futurism. The realist is human, and humanity always looks towards the future. As much as the futurist would like to keep his eyes ahead, his feet remain on the ground; his soul in Earth and his words in air.

But of them all, I find Vorticism truly notable; an evolved form of futurism almost. Cheers, fellow Vorticist!

Tyrion
10-29-2008, 12:56 AM
To what extent do you agree with this statement?

I think you'd have to update the concept of "futurist" a bit: something from 1914 commenting on the attitudes of the 19th century is mostly likely a mite outdated.

Sabretooth
10-29-2008, 01:01 AM
I think you'd have to update the concept of "futurist" a bit: something from 1914 commenting on the attitudes of the 19th century is mostly likely a mite outdated.
Nay, he is not commenting on attitudes of the 19th century. Mr. Lewis here suggests that the futurist movement is composed of, or at least heavily influenced by the aesthete of 1890 and the realist of 1870.

Tyrion
10-29-2008, 01:03 AM
Nay, he is not commenting on attitudes of the 19th century. Mr. Lewis here suggests that the futurist movement is composed of, or at least heavily influenced by the aesthete of 1890 and the realist of 1870.

I'm just saying that such an outlook fails to account for the last 80 years of progress. Futurism might have had its origin from the 19th century, but its modern incarnation is a far different beast.

Sabretooth
10-29-2008, 07:27 AM
I'm just saying that such an outlook fails to account for the last 80 years of progress. Futurism might have had its origin from the 19th century, but its modern incarnation is a far different beast.
Yes well, the question DI is asking requires us to think of the era and their notion of the futurist, and whether we agree with what they had said; as opposed to what futurist may be defined as today.

vanir
11-29-2008, 02:25 AM
I agree with it only to the degree that Nazism was a meeting of the old and the new. If you believe in Hindenburg, you should vote National Socialist.

It is 19th century in that arguing about it was very 20th century.

Sorry Sabretooth, I think you're off on this one (a rare thing certainly).

Darth Insidious, I do believe the statement was wholly an intentional political treatise. It may very well be contemporary, however one would have to provide a context. Otherwise there is only that given originally.

Sabretooth
11-29-2008, 02:44 AM
Darth Insidious, I do believe the statement was wholly an intentional political treatise. It may very well be contemporary, however one would have to provide a context. Otherwise there is only that given originally.
Lewis speaking of politics is something I have never seen before.

vanir
11-29-2008, 03:25 AM
Long Live the Vortex !

Long live the great art vortex sprung up in the centre of this town!
We stand for the Reality of the Present—not for the sentimental Future, or the
sacripant Past.
We want to leave Nature and Men alone.

To make the rich of the community shed their education skin, to destroy politeness,
standardization and academic, that is civilized, vision, is the task we have set
ourselves.
We want to make in England not a popular art, not a revival of lost folk art,
or a romantic fostering of such unactual conditions, but to make individuals,
wherever found.
We will convert the King if possible.

The futurist is a sensational and sentimental mixture of the aesthete of 1890
and the realist of 1870.
The “Poor” are detestable animals! They are only picturesque and amusing
for the sentimentalist or the romantic! The “Rich” are bores without a single
exception, en tant que riches!
We want those simple and great people found everywhere.
Blast presents an art of Individuals.
You're kidding, right?


(edit to add)
Buy GM. If you believe in the war against terrorism it only makes sense to buy GM.
That I am the only person who sells proper GM is an aside

Sabretooth
11-29-2008, 06:52 AM
What is so political about that?

vanir
11-29-2008, 05:09 PM
Okay I'll come clean. Before I checked it right out I saw a blatant political treatise. What I then found was that it is a marketing strategy made to appear like a blatant political treatise, as I know full well was the fashion of the day.

There isn't the slightest piece of sincerity about a single word. The words are however entirely political in structure, designed to manipulate the consumer for profit and market leadership.

Allow me to reword it:

Long live the revolution.
Long live the revolution of the People.
We represent now.
We are independent.

We will undo civilisation and remake it as we see fit.
We wish to see all other followings eradicated.
We want to overthrow the monarchy.

We are the new fashion.
We hate everybody.
We do not discriminate.
We are the politics of the individual.

Only 76p at your newstand now.


/so you see what looked like a political treatise, indeed was nothing more than a molehill. One might consider it tongue in cheek as much of capitalism may be intended, but it is definitely not serious art without very loose interpretation of art and no small amount of elitism. It's plain old capitalist marketing like a washing machine commercial, at best designed to look like artistic meloncholy.

Here's a piece of meloncholy for you, in fifty years Crazy John's Mobile Sales will be art.