[KLB SC #2780] The Flexican

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 juni 2010 00:23 schreef Maisnon het volgende:
Innovation. In today’s world, the this? word can often be found in advertising or slogans. Innovative design, innovative thinking, innovative business strategies; The marketing appeal of the word seems to have outgrown its true meaning. But how far ahead are these self proclaimed innovative thinkers?

The word innovation is derived directly from the Latin word ‘innovatio’, meaning ‘to renew’. The true innovator uses new ideas, works in a different direction, opens up new perspectives and finds a new mindset to work in. In modern times, this new mindset is often a profitable one, both in the field of art and in the field of? (of alleen of) design. Freedom of speech is one of the highest priorities in today’s society, and more and more restrictions seem to dissapear. Both as a designer and as an artists, we have a lot of freedom to express ourselves.

But is true innovation still happening? Are there still artists and designers working on something so different, that it is able to shock a society,(misschien hier een punt en dan het stukje hierna als nieuwe zin, anders is het wel heel lang) to shake an entire world and make way for a new era? Throughout history, such innovation has been displayed/oid maar happened is raar hier vind ikhappened. Somewhere along the road, the focus on innovation seems to have shifted towards a more marketing based innovation. (Ik snap niet wat je bedoelt, die zin loopt niet) What happened to innovation in the shape of subject, creativity, and invention? Already we find innovation to be hard to define, and that might have to do with the many ways innovation is found throughout history up until this very moment. In this essay, I hope to explore the boundaries of what true innovation is, in both the field of art as well as in the field of (ipv and) design.

Likely, the two fields have a different way of approaching innovation, because of the different rules they set for creation. Some works of art might (ik vind dat might zo kut staan, misschien kun je het veranderen in may ofzo?) be less bound to rules than products are. What caused innovation to happen throughout the history of design and art, and what are the similarities between the events in both of these fields?

Some of the innovative artworks and designs I know feel like they were created in a moment of brilliancy: a sudden insight that helped spawn something entirely new. Or was it something different, and if so, can it be used in future designs?
“Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.”

Vincent van Gogh

If innovation throughout the history of art can be considered as breaths of fresh air, the 20th century is a true tornado. The rapid succesion of new movements and styles came to a peak in the first half of the twentieth century, with the face of art to come changed forever. How sudden did this change happen, and what events led to the start of modern art?

In the nineteenth century already, two events occured that, in my opinion, sparked one of the first signs of a new era. One had to do with a technological breakthrough, and the other one with a nude woman having a picnic.

‘Le dejeuner sur l’herbe’ by Édouard Manet depicts a naked woman sitting amongst two clothed men, with a woman bathing in the background. While nude women were generally accepted in historical and mythological works of art, the simple display of nudity without such a context, and the way it was painted with rough strokes in a way not flattering, caused a shock among the public.

Indeed, the piece was not even meant to be shown to public at first. Manet submitted it to the anual art show, Salon de Paris, where it was rejected. Current artists were still painting in a realist way, using a modest palette of colours. The rejection caused a riot among Manet and his fellow befriended artists. Napoleon eventually granted the rejected works to be displayed by the public themselves, and so the Salon des Refusés came to be.

The general public seemed to come to this exhibition for laughs; but a large group of artists seem to come because they were interested in this stir in the art concensus. A growing group of likeminded artists, decided to take matters into their own hands, and from then on, expose their works themselves.

At the same time, photography was becoming more and more of an accesible technique. Photography allowed the perfect capture of scenes: in an instance, the most realistic portrayal of any person or landscape could be made.

This stimulated artists to further stray away from the realistic standard, and find a new way to express themselves. Metal tubes for oil paints allowed painters to work in the open air, outside, more easily.

These new paintings did not capture what the world looked like, but how the world was seen. Monet painted “Impression, soleil levant” and through a mocking review by critic Louis Leroy, the impressionist movement recieved its label and became a defined new art style.

Art was stuck in repeat. There were rules to follow, there was a public and even political opinion to what it should look like, and how it should be made. Suddenly, a lot of events came together that sparked the creation of something entirely new.

And while hints of impressionism and its qualities were apparent before Monet’s famous paintings, never did they all came together at the right time and the right place. Through a few small steps, room was made for innovation to happen: the rejection of Manet’s work, the reaction of other artists, and the invention of technology that not only made innovation possible (the metal tubes of paint for example) but also forced and almost worked as a catalyst for innovation (photography). Innovation apparently, needed space to happen, and under the right conditions, was able to occur.

Impressionism was only one of the first steps. Perhaps, the next big step, has a comparable context? Was the next big step in the way to modern art a cataclysm of events as well, or a decision out of the blue?

“Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.”
Picasso

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, Picasso was a rather realistic painter in an academy trained way. And although he started experimenting with symbolism and a more modern style of painting, influenced by the likes of Munch and El Greco many centuries before him, Picasso still painted in a rather conservative style.

After going through a period of a rather depressed series of paintings in sombre and blue colors, Picasso turned towards a more cheerful approach in what is considered his Rose period. Using more vibrant colors like orange and reds, Picasso still used recognisable figures, like harlequins, portraying the scenes and people in his own style of modern painting.

Ask anyone about Picasso, and they are likely to mention the distorted faces, the cubist forms and the jagged figures. How did Picasso transition from his Rose Period to the well-known cubist painter he came to be? Was it a decision Picasso made out of the blue?
It was during the year of 1907, that everything changed. Not just for Picasso, but in retrospect, for generations of artists to come. During the time, Picasso had made quite a name for himself, but the most reknown artist of Paris was the fauvist Henri Matisse.

The academically Matisse painted from reality, but had a unique use of color; the Fauves in general disregarded the subjects natural color palette, and instead used different colors as a way to express emotions. Facing harsh criticism at first, Matisse responded by diving even deeper into his fauvist way of painting, and eventually displayed ‘Le bonheur de vivre’ in an exhibition he partially organised, called Salon d’Automne. Like the impressionist movement did before them, Salon d’Automne started as a response to the conservative Salon de Paris.

Reactions were divided still, but most undoubtedly invoked joy and laughter. Le bonheur de vivre expressed itself through vivid complementary colors, while still having a realistic structure underneath.

At this point, competition between Picasso and Matisse was still going strong. Even though the two were friends, Picasso had to accept the older Matisse as the through master of his time. His own paintings could even be considered rather boring, when compared to the wild expressive paintings Matisse made.

Realising he couldn’t beat Matisse at his own game, Picasso knew he had to create something drastic to set himself apart as the better artist. Something that was not seen before, something that would cause a shock and forever change the way Picasso painted.

At the time, a lot of artwork from Africa was imported into France, often ending up in stacks in tribal musea throughout Paris. Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro was one of them, and during Picasso’s studies for his groundbreaking work, it was here he found his most important inspiration. The masks and statues displayed, added up to the influence of Spanish and Iberian art, and together with influences of Cezanne and El Greco, collided together in Picasso’s mind.


It was from those studies, ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ was given life. A painting so strange and ungraspable, with such disregard for what were considered common rules in art, that it blew everyone away and caused a huge uprising. Suddenly, Matisse was not that innovative anymore. All the time, Matisse was still working on a foundation of what Post Impressionist painters had done.

Picasso totally steered away from this. And even though he borrowed an enormous amount of details, techniques, colors and compositions from artists before him, it was the way these were all brought together that was never before seen.

I feel like this is where Picasso set himself apart from other ‘innovators’. He managed to partially reinvent the way artwork was looked at, like the impressionists did when the camera had risen to popularity. One can step away from what is currently being done and improve on it, but to take a step beyond that and almost travel in completely uncharted territory, is a true path to renewal.