On the stagnant nature of modern art

Hey Readers!

 All has been quiet on the Gwendolen blogging front... And for that I apologise, just a rather entertaining music festival got in the way.. Sorry bout dat.

 ANYHOO, I was planning to do a response to a statistic that I read in the paper in relation to plain cigarette packaging, but then I thought Meh, that's a bit depressing; why not do something on art instead? Conveniently, my family and I (minus my brother, he was taking his first driving lesson and surprisingly no deaths have been caused) went off the to Jerwood Gallery in Hastings. 

Botticelli: beautiful but standard

 As one should always do on entering a gallery, we headed straight to the restaurant and had a rather enjoyable lunch (I had roasted Mediterranean vegetables and humus), and we began to discuss the role of the Tate, as it is now one of the biggest art 'brands' in England. I personally have very few problems with having a 'brand' of art galleries, as surely giving more people access to art is a good thing? Of course this only works if people want to go to and actually see the art, but when they turn up they may only see one type of art if it is only being provided by the Tate. And, most likely, this will be conceptual modern art.

 Lack of variety immediately strikes as a bad thing, yes? But when you think back at all the
celebrated eras of art, such as the Renaissance, there doesn't appear to be much variety either (although time does act as a filter); it's just a continuous supply of beautifully realistic paintings of religion, mythology and the rich people who actually commissioned the art. So maybe it is just natural that there isn't that much range within art.

 But why do we seem to have such a stagnant state of affairs in art? You just have to take a day trip to Florence (because we can all do that) to see the continuing popularity of this form of art, and equally just going to Tate Modern shows that modern art is equally appreciated. So surely it's not just giving the mob what they want?

Mission Drift: just part of the varied and accessible puzzle of modern theatre

 When compared to drama, the story seems quite the opposite. Considering the range of forms that drama can take – theatre, film, television and now even video games – it should come as no surprise Eastenders, Travelling Light, The Birds, Singin' In The Rain, Glee, The Princess and The Warrior, Mission Drift, Harry Potter, Downtown Abby, Saw and so so so many more; all of which are
that we can have
different. It doesn't take an insider to see and understand the range of drama that we continue to have.
 

Bog standard modern art

 The key difference, however, between drama and fine art: money. I'm no expert, but I would be very surprised to find out that fine art makes anywhere near as much money as drama. So how can an artist make money? Large interest and collectable status. How does the artist gain these? How does the artist gain these? Usually controversy. How does the artist do something controversal? 'Push the boundries'. We now have the problem that every artist has decided to push the boundaries in the same direction, resulting in this stagnant art. Maybe it's time the artists stop pushing boundaries, and wander back in the original world of beauty.

Gwendolen