"Art is not purely sensual, nor does it lack intent or effect. Art is in the trenches, fighting for this viewpoint or that, either overtly or covertly." Ian F. Svenonius, "Censorship Now!!"
Abstact: Hetlandism is used to showcase that all quality art, regardless of aesthetic, showcases evidence of the studio habits of mind. If it does, then the art has value, if not to the viewer, then for the artist who got to experience a Studio Habit of Mind during the process of making the art, bettering them as a human being. From this Hetlandist point of view, Formalist art can be categorized as "Socialist Formalist", as it advocates for artist betterment, and Socialist Realist art is best when made from a Formalist point of view, as these different approaches put emphasis on different Studio Habits of Mind.
******
Back in the 1940s, a debate between Socialist Realists and Formalists emerged. The Marxist F.J. Klingender argued that abstract, formalist art was a symptom of Capitalist decay, attacking its advocates as "Escapist". The formalists retorted in two ways; the Frankfurt school argued that formalism was immune to Capitalist decay due to its inability to produce a viewpoint (which, ironically, is a viewpoint). and Secondly, In contrast, Theordore Adorno (of the Frankfurt school) argued that "accessible" socialist realism actually mimics the mass-production of capitalist culture. For Adorno, it is the difficult, fragmented nature of avant-garde modern art that truly resists capitalist assimilation.
The Socialist Realists said the best art was that which advocated helping understand and master mankind's ultimate destiny, the making of a Communist world, one which is classless, stateless and moneyless. In Marxism and Modern Art, Klingender quotes Lenin at his essay's conclusion:
‘it does not greatly matter what we ourselves think about art. Nor does it matter what art means to some hundreds or even thousands in a nation, like our own, of many millions. Art belongs to the people. Its roots should penetrate deeply into the very thick of the masses of the people. It should be comprehensible to these masses and loved by them. It should unite the emotions, the thoughts and the will of these masses and raise them to a higher level. It should awaken artists in these masses and foster their development’. [54]
While I agree with many individual statements from this passage, in 2026 a lot of art is not comprehensible to the masses and a lot of art is not loved by the masses. Advertisements, for example, are commonplace and predominately ignored by the populace at best. Advertisements are not loved, rather, they impose themselves into culture. They are, increasingly, more and more Surreal and therefore, incomprehensible with reality(talking dogs for law firms, an Emu in sunglasses selling car insurance, a Gecko with an Australian accent selling car insurance, Nude men flying through toilets to sell deodorant, models and actors who are impossibly attractive, etc.).
Further, If one considers online tiktok fads such as "6-7", the point of the meme is to create an illusion of meaning and exclusivity that is befuddling to those not in the know (predominately people not on TikTok). Once you realize there isn't a meaning, you're in on the joke. "6-7" is much like the "Andre the Giant has a Posse" sticker campaign by artist Shepard Fairey in the 1990s. The politicians of American life seem ever present in the minds of the masses due to our visual exposure of them on screens, and they are, statistically, very unpopular people. "6-7" is an example of contemporary visual culture not being accessible, rather, it's popularity is based on its inaccessibility.
Today's aesthetics and crafts don't usually trend towards Social Realism or Formalism, as the art market is post-modern; everything is happening all at once. There are fads and speculation, but the internet has made imagery from all walks of life very available.
Surrealism, art of the unconscious devoid of the rules of reality, does seem to be ever present in AI TikTok reels, Hollywood movies, video games, advertisements (as mentioned prior), art galleries, etc., to the point we no longer even register its oddity. News headlines themselves are up for debate. People change their faces and reverse time with botox and plastic surgery. Photoshop let us cut and paste reality and AI now makes a new one for us. What reality is is up for debate.
It is scary that we are entering a time in which the vast majority of images are no longer made by human hand, rather, the images we are seeing are the result of algorithms. This is now being done by simply prompting a computer, telling it what it is you want to see ... and getting it, albeit a digital version.
The recent movie "The Backrooms" (2026) metaphorically shows how internet algorithms record the historical patterns of our internet searches to regurgitate back AI illustrated advertisements, except the experience is interpreted through the lens of a psychological horror movie. The movie feels "Techno-Surrealist", as the unconscious is not being produced by human means (painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.) but through an algorithm that is surveilling us. In the movie, the backroom is creating a reality from the protagonist's subconscious; internet algorithms work the same way, and they now create images of "techno-surrealism".
In this contemporary context, the cultural critics Klingender and Adoro have much more in common; their opposition to one another's philosophies feel like splitting hairs since the creation of art made by hand by humans is being threatened from a market standpoint. Both formalists and socialist realists are concerned with understanding the human condition through art, be that by discussing beauty or discussing politics.
Having now lived with AI for what seems like a good solid couple of years informs me that AI technology is only changing the world in the most cynical way it can, which is to cut labor costs. Good luck getting paid (let alone royalties) for illustration work from small businesses while the AI is free. One close look at AI useage statistics tells you people stop using AI roughly around when school gets out, suggesting the pervasiveness of using AI for education.
In this climate, the Studio Habits of Mind, developed by Lois Hetland and a group from Harvard, is paramount to making sure hand made art continues. Hetland teaches us that art made by humans is important, if to nobody else, than to the artist, as the experience of making art develops the skills of engagement, persistence, reflection, observation, developed craft imagination, exploration, expression and community interaction. These are skills that are applicable to all life situations and all career paths.
Both Formalist art and art in the tradition of Socialist Realism fall under the umbrella of Hetlandism; a Formalist abstract expressionist painting provides evidence of exploration and expression. Social Realist art demands Reflection and Engagement. It is irrelevant if a viewer values one of these life skills over another. What is more significant is the physical act of making art practices these life skills. The act of making art is beneficial to the artist if to no one else.
Perhaps this is a fancy, long winded way of saying "art for art's sake". But Hetlandism goes deeper, as the art must provide evidence of at least one of the Studio Habits of Mind. There is some art, not to be confused with reflective minimalist art, which provides little to no evidence of the Studio Habits of Mind, an assignment forgotten to be turned in and done in 5 seconds right before deadline for example, or a scribble done momentarily on a post-it note. These chicken scratches show signs of life, but if the art studio is a gym, these pieces show little to no evidence of the hands, eyes, heart and brain working out.
AI does not have a subconscious. Every individual human's hand is unique, therefore everyone holds their pencil slightly differently. To a certain extent, the artist's style, determined by their identity, cannot be escaped. For example, I can only make Jack Turnbull artwork in the style of Jack Turnbull.
Because AI does not have a unique identity, it is the summation of all images produced by all individuals everywhere, it does not have a specific subconscious. Theoretically, perhaps it has a collective subconscious, but from my perspective that is yet to be seen ... and then we're talking SkyLab Terminator territory, which is a story for another time.
In conclusion, Hetlandism forces us to see Socialist Realist art from a Formalist perspective, and Formalist art from a Socialist Realist perspective. The form is political, but the political is also a form. Both sides of the coin must be addressed and cannot be escaped, even if that simply means reflecting upon what art materials you use and their sources. Art educators cannot afford to create a hierarchy of aesthetic, we need all creative hands on deck to fight against the AI Skylab robots. We must learn to register how each individual art piece shows evidence of different life skills and report back to classes.
We used to argue about form vs. content. The new debate is if art will be made by humans with the assistance of machines ... or just machines, creating a "brain drain" of creative thought. Theoretically, if human art stops being made and stops being uploaded to the internet, a "tape loop" of AI art will emerge and the art will be completely devoid of humanity. This theoretical dystopian idea is a new level of Orwellian hell. We must not allow the Surrealist era and the advancements of studying the subconscious turn to Techno Surrealism, where we evaluate only AI slop.
No comments:
Post a Comment