Halley says that having soul was the cure for alienation from society. But, today, it seems, the thinking has changed, so that the soul becomes a "means by which bourgeois culture has consolidated it's position by denying it's historicity," meaning that the working class is not learning about it's past as much as other generations, therefore making sure that being alienated becomes the new "norm," and that when a member of this sector of society does create a work which has "soul", it automatically becomes timeless and universal in character. However, Halley points out that this type of change of opinion should be looked at more closely, examined to see why this change has occurred, saying that intellectually, abandoning the former way of thinking might have been a mistake; that giving accolades to works that have soul such as timelessness and universality might be too much credit to give certain authors, that having soul isn't a ticket to fame and fortune. That by giving so much credit to a work of art, putting it firmly in the category of heroical or having the power to reunite us with nature hasn't proven to be answer to many problems, since many of the worst of the problems are still rampant in society yet today. The prediction that returning to nature would somehow bring us betterment only ended with disappointment: the nuclear bomb.
The hope that abstract expressionism would represent responsibility, good actions, and strong faith, and that putting certain artwork on a pedestal, were basic dreams of many leaders in the world of art. Sadly, this bubble bursted when the first nuclear strike hit Japan, firmly placing the era into one of devastating power, brought about by nature herself (along with science and mankind,) by utilizing the splitting of the atom, the exact nuclear reaction that allows our life giving sun to shine bright, and to emanate so much warmth. It was like bringing the sun to the earth, allowing mankind to harness such enormous power, and use it against his fellow man, denying, in effect, society the ability to need or even want to become one with nature any longer. Nature had become dangerous, frightening. The bourgeois felt that the world was now "codeless," meaning that good manners in world matters no longer applied, since the US had proven that might overpowers nature, and on some basic level, amplifying the frail state of the carbon based life forms that brought about these wars. The basic desire of the world of art, at that time, was to bring about a neutralizing effect on society as a whole; to prove that even the lowliest man had as much validity as the richest King or Prince.
This nuclear age only created a new idea: that those that held such vast power to wipe out cities with just a flip of the wrist were truly in control, with or without a King. Everyone feared the society that created such a devastating vehicle; so much so that the bourgeois suddenly had a new problem to deal with, one that was far more pressing than equalizing the status of all men: the fear of world wide nuclear devastation! The only real hope was that the people who had control over this menacing new means of death was that the they, themselves, would force the world to see that equal rights for all was an enforceable and worthwhile reason to bring about equality. It wasn't long before even this frail dream was put to rest.
The advent of television and radio brought about yet another change: mass media. The effect of TV and radio began to show society that information from a few consolidated sources was not only vitally important to the working man, but that it was important that art itself had to change yet again. Art became an entity that mirrors and reflects mass media, since the media was overwhelming society with images that became iconic, using photography and film to get it's point across. These new ways of communication brought about a new way of looking at things: a more global outlook; a means by which the whole world could see up to the minute tragedies and political machinations anywhere on the globe. We became a society accustomed to "myriad variations [and] repetition."
The 80's brought about the next era, when certain French authors became popular, even though they had written prior to this new decade. Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Baudrillard helped to change culture and it's concept of itself, by ushering in the era titled poststructuralism, or structuralism, marking a change based on the experiences of artists who were born after WWII, and therefore laying to rest the memory of experience created before the War. These younger artists allowed themselves the luxury of deconstructing art which had gone before, and to pick and choose bits and pieces to appropriate into their own work. Individualism AND assimilation became the new norm. Economy of possessions was now important. A transition from the industrial, and post-industrial, eras had begun.
Structural and post structural thought had begun sometime before the 60's, yet it caught on in society as a whole more clearly in the 60's, and held a foothold right up through the 80's. Richard Nixon brought about the end of the American economy, and it's effects were felt the most beginning in the 80's, by taking America off the gold standard, and with oil and gas becoming more expensive, and the Vietnam War ending without the US being the winner, making the mood in America change to a more pessimistic, less hopeful one. Extinction of species started to be a reality, too, being prophesied for decades, but in the late 70's and early 80's, began to be proven by science, making the mood of the US even less than positive.
Science helped to bring about the concept that the world around us was changing, making for a new, heightened sense of urgency to protect it against the ravages of humankind, although, sadly, we don't seem to be having much success, what with certain political ways of thinking rejecting the idea of global warming and environmental change. Bourgeois society was now seeing nature and beauty in a different way. Instead of wanting to become one with nature, which may always be an underlying desire, mankind now wanted to be the overseer of nature, to manage wildlife, protect endangered species, and allowing law and rules to be extended deep into the wilderness. The so called 'back-to-nature' movement penetrated everything, from marketing and advertising, and changing the idea of being INSIDE of nature into one in which nature is brought into the home via mass media and marketing firms. Society was no longer a part of nature, but rather nature was a cause which to defend from within our own homes. Even if our city dwellers never had any contact with nature, they all were aware of our dependence on it for life giving air, water, and soil. In many ways, this integration artificially creating a sense of life within a home now seemed, for some, the only way of experiencing it, even if it was nothing more than a facade.
Nature and art seem to now be a simulation for many urban dwellers. Society has become desensitized, our tactile senses were being stimulated by the artificial representation of the artificial. As time goes by, we may see even more "artificiality" in our world, especially if global warming makes it too hot to be outside. In such a case, we may be forced to experience nature through virtual reality or the internet, as we watch our natural world slowly die, thanks to the actions of humankind and the devastating effects they are having on this planet.
____________________________
Response to "Portraits Can Get Your Pulse Pounding"
Science and art often work together to discover unique and unusual discoveries about ourselves. Psychological and marketing studies have helped bring to the fore new methods of testing the reactions of viewers to visual stimuli. I myself have participated in several marketing research studies that use sensitive electronic monitoring systems to record eye movement, heart rate, and sweat detection. It is refreshing to see that such technology can be used to scientifically record data of the experience of viewing art. Marketing obviously takes visual stimuli very seriously, in order to improve sales and product awareness. It's about time we applied these scientific tools to examine what stimuli exist when we view art, because art needs marketing tools, too, as much as does any other sellable item. I feel that more marketing research can be done to pinpoint certain traits, such as a comparison of one piece to another, or even alter the context of viewing art by altering the environment that one views art in, or even take EKG scans utilizing brain, heart, and endocrine systems to measure reactions to both visual and physical sensations to research concepts such as color effect within a work of art, or to test composition, placement, or light, etc.
As an aesthetic-emotional assessment of viewers can be recorded, so can more in-depth research be pursued by postgraduates or doctoral candidates at research universities around the world. This may, perhaps, bring about changes in the way we do art. In fact, it could be an art unto itself, such as performance art or video. Science has always had an affect on art, and I think maybe it's time to see just how much art CAN be affected by scientific research. Of course, we have to be steeled against any controversial findings the results might show. After all, artists are a sensitive bunch! Yet, at times, it's the negative data that helps bring about the most change.
