Defining the Identity of Remodernism

20^th October 2007

Before I say anything on the matter of Remodernist identity, let me make it understood that I don’t regard myself as any authority on the subject, merely a person trying to figure it out. So basically this text will be me talking to myself. Come on in and enjoy.

In my understanding, what makes Remodernism different from a lot of artistic movements is the fact that it is not defined so much by the art created as by the mindset of the creator. Should I be wrong on this, please feel free to correct me. However, I think I got that one down pretty well.

This implies that you can be a Remodernist no matter what your artistic style is, abstract, realistic, dark, impressionist, etc. It also means the media used can be anything. It can be digital art, sculpture, film, music, anything.

For those who only see the good side of this, I suggest you think about the risk. The risk is that such a vast disposition may loosen the identity of the movement. You can’t quite recognise a Remodernist painting from non-Remodernistic art, can you? I think not. You can recognise Cubist art because Cubism is based on elements that have to do directly with the art in question, whereas Remodernism – in my understanding – focuses more on the mind of the artist, regardless of what the artist does. Naturally, however, the ideas and beliefs and opinions of an artist do have an influence on his or her work, but it is a much less conspicuous influence than Cubism would be, for instance.

And the question is, is that enough to form a solid identity? I tend to think that yes, that is enough. It certainly is general and on a higher scale than Cubism, in that it’s not on the same level, I’m not suggesting it’s better or worse, just on a different scale, and because of its loftier nature (still scale-wise), it encompasses more, but less directly and less obviously.