Hanging Artwork is Not a Thrilling Experience/A Discussion on Newness

But then again, life cannot consist solely of thrilling experiences. Last week, I had the opportunity to help set up a travelling art show at a cultural/recreation center in Drumheller. Because it was just the two of us (myself and my grandpa), it was pretty much an all-day task (it takes about 2 hours to drive there and 2 hours back). First we had to transport all of the artwork from the car to the room, and then we spent a couple hours unpacking the artwork and trying to figure out how we wanted to arrange the art in the room. My grandpa did most of the arranging and hanging while I wrote down the name of each piece in the order they were hung. I guess one thing I learned about this is that it takes a lot of work to set up a show. More importantly, however, was the artwork itself. The theme for the show was "Bridges", but you couldn't really tell that by looking at some of the pieces, which took a more conceptual approach to the topic. A few of the pieces were paintings, or in other words, traditional pieces, while most of the others were non-traditional. Among the non-traditional were collages, cross-stitchings/textile art, photographs, mixed media, etc. In this instance, I would say that traditional art was in the minority. One of the artist statements captured an idea I have about contemporary art almost perfectly:

"Within contemporary art, the mediums and materials have expanded [...] The bridge between the two discourses [art and craft] has opened. Whether art or craft, the lines are blurred."

While the idea of craft vs. art isn't the main thing I wanted to focus on for my project, it is an important topic being discussed today. Contemporary artists are taking traditional crafts (quilting, embroidery, ceramics, etc.) and using them to create pieces of art that don't have a functional use. This is one of the places where the line between traditional and non-traditional art becomes blurred. The type of art I described is less traditional and more non-traditional to me simply because the mediums (despite the duration of their existence) are being used in a drastically new way. 

I suppose that's how I would describe non-traditional art: New. The older the medium/style, the more traditional it is; the newer, less traditional. For example, oil paint is over 600 years old, while photography as an art form is about 150 years old, and digital photography is less than 20 years old. Style also plays an important role: artwork before the Modern Era was almost strictly representational, even during the Paleolithic Age with cave drawings. Abstract art and even impressionistic art is about a century old. While abstract art isn't very new today, it is still on the more non-traditional side. 

The most unconventional or non-traditional you can get would probably be installations (such as the "Fireflies" exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum) or digital paintings, or most of all: virtual reality painting. Yes, it's a thing now:

So basically what I mean is, does art have to be "new" to be appreciated? Or can it recall the antiquated materials and styles of the old classics and still have a place in today's art world?