why are there no art movements anymore?
Going to museums is one of my main hobbies. I'm not formally trained in any particular form of art or art history; I just enjoy looking at different types of art. Like anyone else, I have my favourite styles and artists, but overall, I'm an "omnivore." The last handful of exhibitions that I went to include an art university graduation show, a contemporary art exhibit, and an exhibition on a 18th - 19th century Lithuanian symbolist painter / composer.
One thing that often comes up when going through exhibitions or reading books on art history is the concept of the art movement. Impressionism, surrealism, cubism, pop art ... it seems like these movements have had a profound influence on art, essentially driving it forward through history. But nowadays, when asked to name a contemporary art movement, most people (including me) draw a blank. It's just not really a thing that people do anymore. And I find myself wondering: Why?
In this post, I want to explore some of my thoughts on this topic: Reasons, circumstances, and developments that have lead to the "art movement" in the traditional sense becoming a relic of history.
01 - There's just more art (and artists) now
The first thing that comes tom mind is that back then, there were just less artists in general (mostly sons from wealthy families). This made it easier for any one group to stand out, just like one red apple in a group of five is more noticeable than one among a hundred. Well, even then, it might be relatively easy to spot if all the other apples are green. Generally speaking, that's how it used to be: For the most part, there was one dominating style (academic art, in the case of Europe between the 17th and 19th century), and new art movements usually positioned themselves in opposition to it in some way (subtly at first, then more confrontational later).
The artists were also concentrated in relatively narrow geographical regions (Paris or Vienna, for example). This made it easier to come into contact with another, and collectively create not only a distinct style, but also a philosophy or set of shared ideas, reinforced through real-world conversations and "hanging out" together. Because of this, a lot of art movements ended up being formed from the "bottom up." While there are examples of the contrary (The Blue Rider, the Vienna Secession etc), most of them were only given the label after the fact, by art historians looking back in time. But despite lacking a "label", close contact between the artists lead to their works clustering around a set of stylistic choices or technique.
Today, on the other hand, everyone can be an artist, and there isn't a clear dominating style anymore. It's not one red apple against nine-nine green ones, but one red apple in a sea of green, greenish-yellow, yellow, yellow-red, orange, and other red apples. Also, the internet allows pretty much anyone1 to showcase their art online; there's no reason to physically be in the same location anymore. Of course, it's also easier than ever to contact people across the world (e-mail, blogs, social media, chatrooms, video calls), but I'd posit that there's an element missing from these digital / virtual means of communication. You can exchange a lot of information back and forth online, but you'll never be able to re-create the experience of an afternoon spent painting together, or discussing your ideas at a cafe.
Don't get me wrong; I think that all these things - the democratisation of art, a greater diversity of styles, the internet - are great things. They do make it more difficult for some kind of art movement to stand out though. Still, a group would have an easier time doing that by virtue of bundling the work of a group of artists under a shared label or name. So there have to be other reasons.
02 - Style as fenced-off intellectual property
This point is related to the diversification of styles and the democratisation of art, with the added component of capitalism. Artists started off as craftspeople, basically no different than potters or carpenters. They simply made what they were asked to make, and what mattered was their skills, not their ideas or inner worlds. "Art" was more or less synonymous with "craft." Over time, this changed. Art was separated from craft (as "the fine arts"), and artists, through association with the concept of the genius, were almost elevated to a god-like standing ("creator").2 Their individuality became more and more pronounced.
Individualisation was already pretty advanced during the golden age of art movements (Romanticism, Impressionism, Expressionism etc); but this tendency continues to this day and has become entangled with the concept of the "personal brand." No one wants to be merely one part of a group anymore. Everyone wants to have "their own style" and have all the attention that style generates to be directed to them and them alone. If you want to make a living as a professional artist, you're pretty much forced to do this - style becomes a tool for differentiation on the market, intellectual property and capital, a business asset that you own and have to defend to the bone.
To a certain extent, this is understandable. Especially recently, with the rise of generative AI, it's not hard to see why artists (including myself here, even though I'm just a hobbyist) have become even more attached to and protective of their personal styles, or even just the idea of it. In the form of the personal brand, style becomes an important weapon for fighting against the tide of mass-produced slop (owned by no one, but controlled by Big Tech).
For the formation of art movements, however, this presents another hurdle. Movements favour a broader sense of ownership: Ideas and style is shared within a group, and while the concept of authorship or copyright might exist, people have to be fine with being only one in a group of many. The internet and platforms commonly used by artists now (Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, ArtStation) aren't very conducive to this. Also, there are no strong rewards in capitalism for artistic activity as part of a collective.3
03 - The end of the spiral?
Another aspect that I thought about was about art (as a whole) losing focus and direction in the 21st century. Now that is a very broad claim (and probably not the best way to put it), but here's what I mean: I already mentioned above that art movements often positioned themselves in opposition to the dominating style of the time. There was always the idea of taking the next step, extending the scope and meaning of "art" even further. Impressionism with its loose style challenged the painstakingly rendered oil paintings of academic art, was then "one-upped" by abstract expressionism and cubism, and so on. Over time, this evolution lead to the "banana taped to the wall" often cited by haters of contemporary modern art.4 Now that there's the sense that almost anything can be art, it sometimes feels like there's no "next frontier" anymore, at least in the realm of drawing and painting. Everything has been tried, everything has been don - has the escalation spiral come to an end?
In a way, the answer to this question might be yes, but this view is flawed in the sense that it assumes a linear progression (maybe a result of the dominating thought patters of the 20th and 21st century). Developments can be cyclical, and the formation of art movements often went hand in hand with societal and philosophical shifts. In that sense, art can still be "on the frontier" of new developments, even though it might look like it's not progressing stylistically or reverting to previous incarnations of itself on the surface.
From this perspective, things like LGBTQ furry art could probably seen as an example of a contemporary art movement, as well as art centering around "fandoms." Artists active in these circles follow certain conventions and also share a set of beliefs or patterns of though and preference, even though it might not be available in the form of a concrete "manifesto."5 I want to say that these circles tend to be organized very loosely though. Ignoring cases where artists work together to create comics or zines, they're mostly just people who happen to have similar interest and sharing their creations online.
04 - Anyway...
This post has gotten longer than I intended it to be, and I didn't start with a clear outline, so I'm going to wrap it up here (for now). While I can see the reasons for why art movements (in the "traditional" sense) aren't really a thing anymore, I keep coming back to the idea that it would be interesting to deliberately go against the grain and have them exist in our current time. I'm pretty sure other artists have thought of this as well, even though a cursory search some time ago didn't yield the kind of results that I were looking for.6
If I'm really that enamored with the concept, there's also always the choice of starting something myself. It seems like it'd be stressful, but it doesn't have to be. It could just be two or three people, including myself, and start out with a vague list of ideas. Considering the societal component of art, I think a movement adjacent to the "solarpunk" genre could be interesting. Adjacent, not identical to solarpunk, because in my experience, most solarpunk art just features tech or architecture "dressed up" with plants (a form of greenwashing) and lacks stylistic, thematic and philosophical depth. Maybe I'll start with mapping out the broad direction on my own for now.
Footnotes
I'm simplifying things a bit here; I recognize that there are regions of the world with bad or no internet access, and I don't want to exclude the artists in those regions.↩
Earlier this year I read a book on this topic, and it was fascinating to see this transformation laid out, even though it was only in the form of a relatively short outline. "Creator" and "Creative" (as in "creative worker") have become tired, cliched terms nowadays, but in the 17th century, calling yourself that would've gotten yourself accused of blasphemy.↩
At least in the field of visual arts. In music, it's a bit different ... collectives like bands or orchestras still play a big role today.↩
Just for the record: I personally find contemporary modern art to be very hit or miss, meaning that it leaves me unimpressed most of the time, but I also I find myself profoundly fascinated by some pieces. However, I'm very much not a hater and am deeply suspicious of all the "make art beautiful again" people you often encounter online. It's usually just a facade for reactionary ideas and thinking.↩
This doesn't have to be limited to the progressive side of things, I could also imagine conservative or reactionary neo/faux-religious Americans having their own "style bubble." It might already be a thing, although I can't say that I'm too enthusiastic about searching for it online. Then again, it could be interesting from a detached analytical viewpoint of sorts...↩
If you know of any "contemporary movements," you can send me an e-mail! My contact info is on the blog's home page.↩