Is Art Cyclical?

[DarkRange55]

I don't think so. I think it works like history, it doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

With the advancement of technology and society and so forth, I think people draw a lot of inspiration from what has come before (i.e. technique, motifs, messages, events, etc.) and juxtapose it against a modern backdrop which creates an entirely new piece of art. It may have familiar components, but it has never been done before, and so therefore it is new.

What say you, SS?

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Since no one is chiming in...

How can it be thought of as cyclical? Every new movement, new piece created, new anything and everything deepens the well of inspiration from which to draw but drawing inspiration doesn't amount to a cycle. I'm not familiar with contemporary art but there were certainly not any full-on repeats throughout art history, always something new building on all that was. Even if something is similar it cannot be the same just like the ebb and flow of species in the natural world. So if it is a principle that art is cyclical, it hasn't ever manifested.

 

[DarkRange55]

Somewhat. What hasn't been mainstream for a while can become "leading edge" again, and then even mainstream again.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Zeir Anpin 729]

I binged watched the entire "Mandela Catalogue" today. The archangel Gabriel (villain for most of the series) acts a lot like the Djinn of Islamic description. And not at all like an angel in the Bible would. I do think art has a way of mirroring the archetypes present in reality and communicating back to the collective unconscious (audience), the subconscious currents (sigils), in the active mind of the creator.