Does great art flourish in periods of wealth and power? Or "wars make good arts?"

[axolotl]

I'm talking about periods, not a 2 o 3 individuals. Like Golden Ages, Renaissances...

[Poetaster]

It does seem to fit European literature pretty well.

[ennison]

Art is like most human activity. It flourishes in security.

[stlukesguild]

[Ishmael]

Art always flourishes. There is no period free from it.

[byquist]

Post #4 beat me to the punch -- leave it to Orson Wells to answer this query.

[Trevor Gower]

A theory: The proper subject of Art is Art

If we remove any consideration of history and social conditions, and begin by looking at art purely as it relates to itself, we may find that the overall state of society is an indifferent matter to the production of art.

Consider Thomas Kuhn's theory of in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one that I thought to be true before discovering his book. He posits that the major occurrence leading to an explosion in new discoveries is a "paradigm shift", which I put in quotes because he coined the term as far as I know. This often consists of breaking some long-held rule or putting some new factor in or what have you, and then a huge explosion follows as this is put into use. Might the same be more true of art than anything else?

Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther" is certainly considered an example of kicking off an entire movement based on a particular work. Walter Kaufmann theorizes that Goethe was the build-up of a certain "classical" type, and by operating at the extreme limits of it, showed a new paradigm that other writers became enamored with. David Foster Wallace talks about something similar in terms of literary style, the effects of Hemingway are often noted in this fashion, Plato's writing fundamentally changed how we view philosophy, and so on.

I'm sure that social energies do play into the build-up for great works of art, but I suspect that the inventions of imagination are far more important. This can occur in times of political tension before a war, in the devastation during and following one, or in times of relative peace and prosperity. The question has, I suspect, relatively little to do with peace and war between armies, and everything to do with war and peace between artists.

(If there is a difference, then I'd suspect that an overall warlike and competitive atmosphere in society might encourage agon between artists - so I'll betray my own post with that)

[Ishmael]

Firstly, Kuhn's theory of "Paradigm Shift" asserted that the fetishization and idealization of the shift was delusional. It unrealistically neglected still relevant past contributors to the "Shift." In other words, the shift "away" from Newtonian Physics never really erased the importance of much of Newtonian physics.

Secondly, the "paradigm" shifts in Art can not even be artificially delegated as they can be in science, since there are no clear changes in measurements and approaches as there are in science. So, to wrongly say Goethe "kicked off" an entire movement is to wrongly deny all the artists and movements comprising the dietrologia behind Goethe's work. In other words, the elements behind Young Werther weren't entirely Goethes. The same applies to the works supposedly part of the movement kicked off. None of those works or writers were entirely influenced by Goethe or his works, so he cannot be responsible for the movement.

[Eiseabhal]

A destructive situation destroys. Very little by way of art comes out of war situations. When tension fear and hatred are the main feelings the creative act is constricted. When people are in danger of dying its not art that is on their minds. A post-war situation might produce a tragic art but art is a creative process and a degree of security helps all artists. The starving poet mainly starves. The fleeing artist loses his paint.

[Trevor Gower]

Firstly, Kuhn's theory of "Paradigm Shift" asserted that the fetishization and idealization of the shift was delusional. It unrealistically neglected still relevant past contributors to the "Shift." In other words, the shift "away" from Newtonian Physics never really erased the importance of much of Newtonian physics.

Secondly, the "paradigm" shifts in Art can not even be artificially delegated as they can be in science, since there are no clear changes in measurements and approaches as there are in science. So, to wrongly say Goethe "kicked off" an entire movement is to wrongly deny all the artists and movements comprising the dietrologia behind Goethe's work. In other words, the elements behind Young Werther weren't entirely Goethes. The same applies to the works supposedly part of the movement kicked off. None of those works or writers were entirely influenced by Goethe or his works, so he cannot be responsible for the movement.

All quite true - my post overstates the focus on individual moments and contributions, which is particularly true in the arts. My goal is to draw a comparison that, as science is viewed in relation to science, art should be viewed first in relation to art. The powers of creation, inspiration, and discovery in and between artists matter the most, and unless we grasp those first and foremost, the societal effects will be white noise. Hazier though the actual development of an artistic style or viewpoint is, there are often figures or works who are pointed to as...let us say emblematic of the movement. Though they are not actually responsible for the build-up or truly the inspiration for a whole movement, they are thought of as representative, again speaking roughly.

I think that, due to the great complexity in the development of art, of artistic movements and periods, this may have developed as a manner of approximating, however crudely, the influences that particular scientific discoveries have on a broader scale. Newton's relevance does not cease with Einstein, nor does Wordsworth or Hemingway or any other stand alone - far from it. It's a crude shorthand, to look at the influences that build up in Wordsworth, to see the imaginative shift he develops, and then to see what that effect has, in turn, on those he influenced, but I think it speaks to the larger character of art. The powers of creation, inspiration, and discovery in and between artists matter the most, and unless we comprehend those first and foremost, however crudely, the societal effects will be white noise.

I hope some of these notions are coming through, as I feel I'm expressing them rather inadequately.

[Ishmael]

I believe in the powers of creation, inspiration, and discovery. However, the Romantic notion they exist outside of cultural and societal effects is delusional. They just don't. All of our thoughts, including our artistic expressions are always already informed by the culture and language we enter and occupy.

As to the lineage of art, it can't parallel the lineage of science. Firstly, as I noted before, there are no clear "direct" developments in Art since there are too many influences and no clear "line." Not even Byron and Shelley had the same influences. Secondly, Art requires an irrational aspect that is necessarily rejected by science. The subconscious and subconscious desires expand and grow in influence in artistic activity but are repressed in scientific activity.

That being said, I am clearly understanding what you are expressing.

[Eiseabhal]

Goodness! Banned ... again. Surely we need a resident sociopath. Ach well our loss is someone else's ... Thingymajig. As for art being better in war - I doubt that. The purpose of war is to destroy.

[stlukesguild]

Artists create in response to whatever experiences are theirs. Beethoven composed the Third Symphony and Goya created any number of his finest paintings and prints in response to the Napoleonic Wars. Monet painted many of his finest paintings in response to the peaceful landscapes of Parisian suburbs and parks. Art has flourished in times of war and times of peace. Perhaps more important... art tends to flourish far more in response to wealth and power. We can surmise a number of reasons for this. Art and wealth go hand in hand. Education in the arts demands the necessary wealth and time. The arts thrive under wealthy and powerful patronage. The major centers of wealth and power sit at the cross-roads of history and culture. Where the rural peaceful backwoods and small towns eventually stagnate culturally, the far more chaotic power centers continually expose the artists to new ideas and achievements and individuals from across the globe... as a result of trade... and war.

[Trevor Gower]

I believe in the powers of creation, inspiration, and discovery. However, the Romantic notion they exist outside of cultural and societal effects is delusional. They just don't. All of our thoughts, including our artistic expressions are always already informed by the culture and language we enter and occupy.

I repeatedly stated that the relation of art to art would be "first" or "most" important, primarily important, but not singularly so, as you have chose to infer

That being said, I am clearly understanding what you are expressing.

My comment was meant to be self-deprecating, and in no way a slight to you. However, given your implication that I believe there is no relationship, it seems you did not catch my meaning. If I were to be charitable, I might say that you misinterpreted my comment about "white noise" to mean an actual lack of relation. However, seeing that this is the second time you misread one of my posts, the other being absolutely clear, and responded in this tone, I'm more inclined to think your particular misreading is your own issue.

As to the lineage of art, it can't parallel the lineage of science. Firstly, as I noted before, there are no clear "direct" developments in Art since there are too many influences and no clear "line." Not even Byron and Shelley had the same influences. Secondly, Art requires an irrational aspect that is necessarily rejected by science. The subconscious and subconscious desires expand and grow in influence in artistic activity but are repressed in scientific activity.

A direct development: Melville had worked on Moby Dick for one or two years without formulating the character of Ahab. After purchasing a copy of Paradise lost, and in the ensuing period of not only reading the work but covering it in notes, he developed Ahab and the Whale. The connection between the epic poem and epic novel has often been drawn, and can be directly inferred from this occurrence.

Influence is known and provable on a small scale. It is theoretically accepted on a larger one. In regards even one work, much less an entire movement, it is highly complex, all of which I previously acknowledged and none of which refutes my particular thought that the "individual" and "art" are so overwhelmingly crucial, that effects of war and peace cannot be measured without attempting to account for these other effects first. If accounting for them can never be managed, then neither can the effects of war and peace.

Edit: Ah...banned.