I am half expecting this question to go belly up, but it is something I have been thinking about, so I have posted it in the two forums I belong to, to be mulled over by analytical minds. Mind you, there is no correct answers, because the answer to this question is for history to decide, and one does not live to see true history in ones own time.

My question is this:

What is the art form of our time?

I can see the expressions on your faces. Let me explain.

Art, in its broadest sense, is simply the act of creating. In every age, there exists creators that historically, everyone knows. People who put forth ideas that for all time, with a reasonable degree of certainty, other ideas will be EITHER based upon or set to refute.

Examples: Dates listed are the center of the age, spelling of names not for the timid. Most of this is done from a Western perspective, for Xenophobia (the fear of anything different than us) has had its grips on us. Though the Internet may be melting that away, more quickly in Europe than the US, I am saddened to say.

400 BC Philosophy: Centered roughly in the middle of the 4th Century BC, with Socrates and Plato, Confucius, and many more (large numbers were one of the hallmarks of the Art taking its higher form; I will list not the most important, but the ones everyone is likely to know).

!5th Century- Sculpture and Painting, and the rudiments of Science. In the Renaissance,the Artists/ Creators worked in code, causing what we call Art proper to flourish. Fear of reprisal by the Church caused Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Galileo and the great Michaelangelo's ideas into hiding.

16th Century- Theatre and Architecture. The break of the hold of the Catholic Church, brought out new ideas, Johann Gutenberg (the creator of the printing press), without which Martin Luther would not be a household name, the Baird (William Shakespeare), advances in Ship building and Architecture (though the Egyptians were centuries and millennium ahead of the West), free thinkers fled to the Americas

Art speeds up now, as previously isolated cultures meet.

18th Century: Art forms: Music and Literature, as the printing press comes onto its own.

19th Century, early: The Industrial Revolution, Art form- Applied Science

Mid 19th Century- Reversed, as history usually is, pure science, what our science today is based upon. Einstein, Edison, Etc.

I won't go any further; history hasn't written that book yet. But for the past, music, painting and sculpture, architecture and pure science, each had their age of ultimate groundsetting. Each Art form is growing still, but there will not be another Baird, another Michaelangelo, another Einstein.

The measure of the height of the Art is that it had to be provable on its own merits, in other words, it simply exists without grounds (or need) for debate. The reasons it exists, and its important practitioners, will be debated for all time.

So what will it be? What is the Art Form of Our Time? When they write the history of the Naught's (early new millennium), what will it be?

What a "deep" and "philosophical" type question!

I think that this will be known as the Age of Technology and "Progressive" art forms.

The advances we have made in the last few years as far as "technology" is concerned is staggering. Computer advances, PC and otherwise, were never imagined by the general populace, even 5-10 years ago. Then, there's the advancements in cell phones and service. I mean, who thought there would ever be cameras in cell phones or that you could access the internet through your cell phone. For that matter, who among the general public ever foresaw the internet becoming as much a part of everyday life as it has become?!?

This growth in technology has helped to shape our "Art" into forms and subject matter not imagined before. And who decides what "Art" is?!?

Today, we have beautiful pictures of stars, galaxys, and the universe, for example, that were not previously thought possible and all due to technoligical advancements. We can produce brighter colors than before, examine things closer than before so that we are able to "see" the existence of things not previously seen, and use "computer technology" to create things not possible before.

We don't think much about it, because WE are living it. But, years from now, how many of our children, grandchildren, etc. will look back on this time through different eyes and credit this time for "breaking ground" in the technologies and artforms that exist in THEIR world?

I entertained that answer too, the reason I did not say it is that one of the foundations of this question, taken roughly from a thesis, is that Art stands on its own merit while our current, earth shattering technological boon stands on the work from the Cold War and the Space program.

One can argue that all learning has done so; that all inventions come from the wheel and the understanding of the "round" concept, that all science comes from understanding the concept of fire, that religion comes from the human sacrifices of the early Neanderthal. I don't think so.... and think there are jumps in history, and that Art has a beginning, which occur at different points in history. The "Art" in this paragraph was precipitated by the need for ancient man to not be afraid, to understand and ultimately try (notice "try") to control his environment.

Yet what you say is very important. I think that this set of advances that you refer to are going to be the most sociologically pervasive in human history. It changes the class structure (we are now the haves/have nots of technology), and ultimately that is going to have massive economical ramifications, as the education field tries (and ultimately fails) to bring the have nots up to snuff.

The technology will bring about the death of money; my cheap little fax/copy/scan machine can reproduce a check that none of us could identify as fake. If a bank has to fight off that type of invasion and defend every transaction, they will fall. The silver thread and watermarks will only save paper money for a time. And we know how vulnerable plastic is as information fraud flourishes.

In a world where paranoia and superstition still has a tight hold around the necks of men, the solution to these problems may be resisted until the damage to our society is too bad to fix. Europe, again, is way ahead of us in assimilating the technologies, especially France; if there are any Europeans amongst us, I would love to hear about the ways they are integrating the web and replacing money there.

Well, my friend, I have used my time reflecting your idea and have not yet told you my nominee; well that for another post. Fascinating answer, nwaz.

Beth

What you say is very true, but (isn't there ALWAYS a "but"), what is deemed to be "art" is greatly influenced by the socio-economic conditions of the time...Monarchs, music, social mores, economic depression or abundance, war and now, space exploration. "Art" is merely an "expression" of the time in which it is "created", times gone by or "visions" of the future.

True that all inventions can be traced back to some common beginning or idea, but (again with the "but"), I think each "invention" can also "stand on it's own" because the previous ideas provide a "foundation" on which to build...much as WE are a "unique" person even after centuries of ancestors came before us. We may posess some similar traits, but we are still unique in ourself.

I agree that money, as we know it, will ultimately "die". We already see the beginning with debit/credit cards, electronic funds transfers, automatic account debits, etc. It WOULD be nice to get a glimpse of how other countries or civilizations are "handling" the change.

I would like to share with you what I think the art form of our generation is, and that is film.

There is a fine line between theatrical film and television, between news and tabloid. No, I don't think the Simpsons is art, yet it is parody and may yet qualify as the fart jokes are overcome by the social statements. I think it will age quickly.

Film, well done film (not the B Scifi movies I love on Saturday night, laugh) can change a generations perception of a thing. Phrases weave into our lexicon (who among us cannot identify, "Do you feel lucky?", "I'll be back." "let the Force be with you,." leaves an indelible imprint on society. And quotes from a movie that wasn't a hit,where a particular phrase is remembered after the film is long forgotten ("He who loves gives hostages to fate," a deliciously evil Louie Jordan in a movie called Swamp Thing, with Adrianne Barbeau).

Film expresses a mood in society, the philosophers of our time may be Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg and Gene Roddenberry (the US government thought so too, making Gene one of the first men to be buried in space). Why do three films on the same topic come out in one year? We as shoppers understand, as we participate in the minor intrigues of corporate espionage ourselves (for the innocent among us, do you think the company you are shopping is the one who commissioned the study? Think again, sports fans.)

Film expresses a society's willingness to finally address an issue (the large number of "gay" films in the last ten years, where straight actors like Nathan Lane, Robin Williams, Patrick Swayze, John Lithgow, Wesley Snipes and Robert Preston, to name a few) play gays, when there was a time when gay actors like Rock Hudson couldn't touch it. Woody Harrelson, in a bit part in Anger Management was a hoot! Film expresses a society's reluctance to look an issue straight on, as is evidenced by the poor showing of the 9/11 genre, superficial movies at best.

We are only now dealing with Vietnam (now meaning in this century, though the boys I knew are long in their graves). Apocalypse Now was meant for its shock value, while Saving Private Ryan (though I have yet to watch the first 15 minutes) dealt with the feelings of men of good conscience having to do contrary things. Perhaps we have dealt with this issue in stages (Born on the Fourth of July).

Harry Potter has something like three of the top ten spots of greatest moneymakers of all time, and unless they foul up, having read the books, the next two movies will be even better. Yet it divided society in some ways, as did the Da Vinci Code and The Passion of the Christ, bringing religion into debate (though I will not do so).

Star Trek was not great cinematography, though I am an avid fan. But the ideas behind it changed society, saved the Space Program, and left lasting impressions even in the nonfans. Phasers look undeniably like cell phones (Gene would have loved that), and many people are waiting for transporters, which will probably never be (a plot device to move characters quickly, anyone see The Fly?) I believe that we will ultimately find a way around Einstein's Laws, but not in our time, or even our children's. Or the aliens will come for us (Taken).

So film qualifies as an Art form; there was nothing like it, before greats like Frank Capra and MGM took it away. If Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made, as is widely believed by the film historians, I don't see it; I like the underlying messages in the films of my time. Early film was mostly escapism. So I knew the beauty of wildlife through the eyes of Out of Africa, and the horror of the Holocost through Sophie's Choice. I experienced Europe through a chick flick, Chasing Liberty, with its wonderful photography (a minor film otherwise). If Americans are Xenophobes, then film is our gateway to the world, bringing us closer to a global community.

And American film may be the last viable export.

While it's true that films may be a MEDIUM used to express or reflect on the times, it is still the TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES that make them what they are. The development of digital imagery and sound, the enhancement of colors (both used in remastering the "classics"), computer generated special effects, etc. all contribute to making films what they are today (I'm NOT saying it was or wasn't "good" art, but compare the original "King Kong" of the 30's to the one of a few years ago).

The "means" to make films has been around since late 1800, but it is the TECHNOLOGY that has advanced them over the years (Heaven knows, the story lines haven't!) and will be remembered and "built on" as our "legacy" for the years to come.

Only generations to come will actually provide an answer to this question. And, even then, scholars will debate this question.

I liked the Jessica Lange King Kong best, myself. I have sat in the hand and the facial expressions on the monkey were priceless. The villian was sleazier and the hunk hunkier (Jeff Bridges, at his peak). Sigh.

Without technology, our movies would not be what they are today, that is certainly true. But in the last scene of "Braveheart", there was no technology used, and it will give me nightmares for years. If one can infer that they were demonstratimg the total barbarism of the age, and the dedication of the man for whom the movie is named, they got us, they got us all, or you will did not see the same movie as I.

They tell a story about the theatre attendants, and the movie "Carrie". In the last few minutes of the film, the attendants would line up in the back of the theatre, to watch the audience rise up out of their seats in shock, only to fall back as one group, over and over, no matter how long it showed. I would bet that Stephen King got the same enjoyment watching it.

What does that say to you about us as a society?

"I want the truth." "You can't HANDLE the truth."

Great question, Food is an art form...the sculptures they make today, using ice sculptures are truly beautiful and a form of art. Music will always be an art form, (not rap)...graphics on cyberspace, maybe, maybe not. Architcture is always a form of art as it is created by the mind, thought hands and creativity. movies, Always the great form of expressing art, as are books, paintings.