Art has been around for a long time. Its appearance may very well have been one of the things that signaled our having become 'human.'
Art has been put to a lot of uses, over the centuries. In those beginning times, it was probably used exclusively by those of socially powerful rank; the healer, the seer, the leader. Eventually, someone got the bright idea to have a craftsman take over the actual making of art, someone a little 'handier' than the healer, or seer, etc. A better-looking icon would, hopefully, influence the gods more favourably. Thus began the struggle for artistic freedom. It is the nature of the arts, especially the non-verbal arts, to be subliminal. The shaman might not have noticed that the craftsman who was building the sacred instrument was employing artistic license, in fact, the artist himself might not have even been aware of it... at first. There are more parts of the brain involved in making painting, sculpture, dance or poem than the conscious portion, and as we are now aware, the human brain can be a very subversive instrument.
So art began as a tool of Church, and State, which are, when closely examined, pretty much the head and tail of the same beast... one that seeks power and control. (you can decide for yourself, which is the head, and which is the tail; they have changed positions many times in the course of history)
With the advent of world class sailing vessels, there arose a middle class that vied with Church and State for the wares of the artist, and in the process, a measure of freedom was gained by the artist; in addition to the commissioned works they were sought to produce, painters were also freed to paint some uncommissioned work as well, that satisfied only their own criteria, and a market for these paintings grew up, where before there had been none. (Yes, I shifted the focus from all artists, to painters...it had to happen sooner or later, and this was as good a place as any.)
Once artists were allowed to 'think for themselves,' they began to develop the art form in directions that pleased them, instead of their masters, and many '..ist's' and ..ism's' sprung up; some good, some not-so-good, but all there, to be purchased or ignored, as the case may be. At the same time, a class of merchants sprung up, who specialised in the selling of artist's works, known (appropriately) as Art Dealers.
This was good and not-so-good for the artist, simultaneously. On the one hand, the painter could stick to his (or very rarely, her) easel, get more work done, (not have to mess with customers as much) and make more money. On the other hand, it was the beginning of the commercialization of art. The artist had to put up with the dealer telling him what to paint, based on what was selling, which was not necessarily what was good art, or part of the artist's vision. Dealers also told their clients whatever lies they chose to tell them, in order to get them to buy what they were selling, and gradually, there rose up a new system of control, to replace the old one, this time composed of dealers, curators, critics, the usual riff-raff, all deriving a living one way or another, from the difference between what the artist was paid, and the patron was charged. The schools suffered as well; they were in the hands of the artist elite, those artists who were on good terms with the people who had enough spare cash to build and staff a school, and hence, who were inclined toward the wishes of their financial and social 'betters.'
The Impressionists began the process in the late 19th century, of upsetting this apple cart. They were aided and abetted by a new breed of dealers; those who saw that painting had become stagnant, and at the same time saw an opportunity to enrich themselves by betting on the winning side in a battle between the new and the old. They must have loved art as well, to have risked everything on a bunch of young, upstart, rebels. In any event, they were in the end rewarded for their risk, and became the first generation of the 'New Art Establishment.'
The twentieth century began with the visual arts reveling in their newfound freedom of expression. Art literally exploded with '..ism's' and '..ist's', the new freedom of modern art even reshaped the educational process... it was a very exciting time. Modern Art grew up into its teen years, middle years, and finally its old age, but when it had outlived itself, refused to die.
What went wrong was, Modern art became a victim of its own success. The art dealers, critics, curators, schools, and established artists all had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, the same as their counterparts 100 years ago had done.
The very nature of Modern Art exacerbated the problem. Since Modern Art is a much less structured form of work, and much less accessible to the general public, it fell prey to a twofold illness. First, it became elitist, in that its sometimes truly impressive technical accomplishments were more intellectual than emotive of the human condition. Their appreciation required a certain amount of education in the painterly quarter. While some of the concepts derived during the Modern period did much to further the technical and conceptual facets of the discipline, they did little for the average viewer, who was more adept at connecting to the very emotional and human, accessible forms of representational art, than this new 'modern stuff.'
Second, Modern art required less technical virtuosity. It was possible for almost anyone to claim that what they were doing had some esoteric, opaque value. It was equally possible for dealers, curators, and critics to be equally ignorant, or downright dishonest about the new work. Schools gradually became lax in the teaching of technical skills, and began to focus more on 'inspiration,' which, unfortunately, cannot be taught. They began graduating generations of students without any real technical skills, and without the ability to think beyond what they had been taught... in other words, without a clue, as to the real potential of the fine visual arts, to shape human thought, and the society that thought created. Those who did have a clue, being in the distinct minority, were easily shouted down and marginalised by the majority. Not having a clue as to the actual potential that art was capable of, 'Art World' instead wound up creating concepts like 'the artist's mystique,' wherein the artist, and anyone vaguely related to art, was 'special' and 'gifted' and other such nonsense, and the 'cult of novelty,' wherein 'new,' and 'different' and 'cutting edge' wound up replacing all previous values, that art had in past centuries addressed. Finally, there seemed to be nothing left but 'shock art' and 'problematic' art, and nothing left to do but continually raise the voltage, as the shock wore off from the last assault on reason.
Of course, this had nothing to do with what was actually happening to art, but only what was happening to 'Art,' that little tiny tip of the iceberg, that the public was shown, by those inept graduates of art schools that neglected to teach them how to think for themselves, who had come to control the 'Art World.'
Then, in the last decade of the 20th century, something happened that was to once again start a revolution in the world of visual arts, and offer artists undreamed of freedom; from dealers, critics, curators, and other VARPS (various art related persons) who were acting as an interface between artist and public, in other words, deciding 'who would be seen' (and extracting a hefty fee for the privilege, while they were at it).
This was not to be a 'revolution from within,' by the artists themselves, as had been the case 100 years ago. This time, it was a technological revolution, from without, and had nothing to do directly with the fine visual arts.
This revolution began with the computer, and the software that allowed the computer to function, and the monitors, that became more and more capable of reproducing more colours and better definition, and ever faster modems, allowing those computers to connect, and exchange information between one another across the internet, that finally culminated in the creation of HTML, and the World Wide Web.
Ask any art dealer, or other VARP, and they will smile, and look down at their shoes, and then explain to you why this just isn't true, and why the visual arts will never move onto the Web, and how the swamp will never dry up...
It is already a done deal, though, and there is nothing that can stop the transformation. Especially where the two dimensional visual arts are concerned, the Web is a natural environment, and the situation will only improve in the coming years, as technology continues to advance. This movement of the visual arts onto the Web will change everything. Not only will it transform (read 'eliminate') 'Art World', but also it will eventually transform society globally. This is not the 'mere speculation' of an over-enthusiastic or perhaps slightly wacky painter... it is reasoned logic.
First, art is not dead. This entire fiction was created by people who looked at the tiny, incestuous world of the gallery scene, and 'Art World,' as if it was all of art, when in fact, it never was. The 'other' ninety percent of what was going on in terms of artistic production, has been operating just under the surface all along, quietly, and without much notice. These are the visual artists who are now populating the Web, for the most part.
For every one painter who was able to find gallery representation, nine or more were not. Although one's first thought might be that the small percentage of painters who gain gallery representation are those most worthy of that representation, in reality this is not always the case. Gallery representation is awarded for as many different reasons as there are dealers, and as often as not, has as much to do with money, emotional investment, friendship and other self-serving motives as it does a genuine concern with the development of art. Much of what is best in art production stood no chance of ever being presented to the public, given the small size, and prevailing attitude of 'Art World.'
So now we come to the beginning of the new century, and the new millennium, and we arrive at the question: What role will art play in this Brave New Century?
Simply put, art is the resonance between intellect and emotion. A few hundred years ago, our emotions and our intellects were about equally developed. We didn't have the technology to overcome disease or the natural environment to any great degree, and we were emotionally developed to the point where we could understand Shakespeare, Rembrandt, and Beethoven. We now have developed intellectually and technologically to the point where we have the means to either usher in a golden age for mankind, of destroy ourselves, and we still are emotionally developed to the point where we can understand Shakespeare, Rembrandt, and Beethoven. At the level of species, we have the intellectual capacity of adulthood, bound to the emotional capacity of a twelve-year-old. Emotionally, we need all the help we can get, from any source that can offer it, in order that we might mature sufficiently that we will not continue any further down the path toward self-destruction.
This, in my opinion, is the work that art is capable of addressing in the present century; helping to reconcile our emotions and intellect. This may not be the last step in the maze of human development, but it is certainly the next step. Technology has taken us as far as it can, until we become more emotionally mature at the level of species.
The real value of fine art never lied in its 'cash value.' The real value of art has always been, that it can touch and heal us in a place that we cannot even see, or properly describe, in the world of consciousness and intellect.
The world is often a shitty place, and our fellow human beings, a shitty, selfish lot... no help at all. We, all of us, (even those too stupid or numb to notice) receive over the course of a lifetime, enough of an invisible emotional beating to drive us mad or kill us, many times over. Most of it we learn to keep to ourselves; we hug our miserable bag of private hurt to our souls, and cannot share it even with those closest to us, because (in spite of all the modern 'feel good' psychology that is so popular now) they are the ones who hurt us the worst. We are all among the walking wounded, emotionally.
When I go to the Art Institute, I prefer to go alone. There are many people there, but I am alone among them, completely alone, with my thoughts and feelings. I wander the halls and galleries, looking at the work of people, most of them long dead. I would not want to meet these people, these other artists, who created this work. I suspect that they would not be as I imagine them, seeing only their work. It is their work that resonates within me, not the painters themselves. If we were to somehow meet, through some twist in time and space, we probably wouldn't think much of one another.
Sometimes a painting will move me, resonate within me, in a way that is so satisfactory, that it can make all the emotional beatings that I have endured and will continue to experience, just because I am human, and can feel such things... worthwhile.
Whatever it is, that art provides for mankind, however it is named... we need more of it.