Maximalism: The Decadence of More is More

As an aesthetic style that has fascinated me for a good time now, I’ve recently had a keen desire to delve further into the entanglement of the art movement known as Maximalism.

Maximalism, a term claimed to be popularized by the German artist Daryush Shokof in 1990, is - from what I can see - a reactionary art movement to the reductive and minimal works found in Minimalism. Maximalism is everything and anything, a chaotic mess of botanicals, filigree, silhouetted forms of the figure, it can be erotic, ironic, humorous, politically aware in it’s narrative, or it can be completely void of narrative. It can be surrealistic, realistic, symbolic, or purely decorative in its decadent visual jungle of stuff. In her book Maximalism: The Graphic Design of Decadence and Excess (2008), Charlotte Rivers describes how “maximalism celebrates richness and excess,” characterized by decoration, sensuality, luxury, and fantasy. In his Maximalist Manifesto (1991), Shokof explains that the movement is “open to wide views and visionary dimensions that can be fantastic, but not deformed.” Personally, I see the movement as one of visual delight that appeals to the senses – a complex state of work that demands the attention and interaction from the viewer.

Noted, though, should be the movement’s lack of opposition to Minimalism. Whereas Minimalism simply states “less is more”, Maximalism boisterously asks why more can’t be more – without really pointing fingers of damnation at its predecessor. It’s this “more is more” attitude though, that gives Maximalism its distinct and vibrant maximal aesthetic. Shokof also wrote in his Manifesto: “Unbalancing the chaos = Balance = Life = Maximalism.” I wish I could deduce what this means exactly, and other than just thinking it sounds cool, I really do think it holds some key to understanding Maximalism a little bit more.

Though Maximalism can currently be found most in recent graphic designs and illustrations, I wanted to find examples of the movement specifically within the fine art realm of painting. Rachel Thornton, for The Florida State University Museum of Fine Art, wrote in Maximalist Painting: “More is More” that

Maximalist painting is not always an overload of stuff on the canvas but it should always create a sense of complexity. Whether the narrative or conceptual in design, Maximalist painting should involve a complex image that results in a complex response to the painting.

In looking for artists that represent this aesthetic to me, I’ve stumbled upon a few that are especially and perfectly exemplary (all are contemporary artists as well).

First up is Julie Heffernan. Her pieces are a profusion of Rococo and Baroque imagery, filled with fruits and luxurious fabrics and crystal chandeliers and chateaus, and rugs and baubles, and birds, and figures and botanicals and flowers – it really goes on forever, as does my little hoard of imagery on file. Her work is delicious and abundant in every sense, and what I love about Maximalism. More is more is more is more is forever more with her work.

Which brings me to an up and coming artist who simply goes by Mia – this actually becomes ironically simple, once having a look at her work, which is completely filled with narrative and symbolism. At the same time, all this is wrapped up in a decadent aesthetic that screams of sophistication and design.

Daniel Merriam is another artist that I greatly admire for the Maximalist qualities in his work. His fantasy worlds and dreamscapes are opalescent and brilliant all at once. There is always a million things going on in his pieces, and are literally dripping with jewel tones and symbolism.

--

Wikipedia: Maximalism, Daryush Shokof #Maximalism-Yekishim

Thornton, Rachel. Maximalist Painting: “More is More”, The Flordia State University Museum of Fine Arts

Rivers, Charlotte. Maximalism: The Graphic Design of Decadence & Excess

Gabriel from Oh Look. blog: Maximalism is Coming Back

Photography VS Painting

Our discussions and readings in class about photography really got me thinking about how I feel about it, and specifically how I feel about photography in contrast with painting. I am an Illustration major at LCAD, but my first love, and quite frankly my passion, is painting in oils. I appreciate photography as an art form, as well as rely heavily on reference photography myself while painting, and have friends who are actual professional photographers, but I’m constantly having to fight myself with my gut reaction of having less respect for the photograph in comparison to the painting.

On one hand, I completely agree with Berger… photography should not be considered art. For me, art implies creation at it’s very core… and I’m sorry, but a photographer snapping an image of what is in front of them is not what creates the image. They click a button, and the camera does the rest. And I know it can be more technical and advanced than that, but, still... anyone can take a picture, and that’s what makes photography so great! But to think of all photographers then as artists, or to try and compare the photo to the painting… raises my brow a bit.

Technically, anyone can also paint. Give someone a brush and some paints and a surface to paint on, and presto!: painting. But unless the art of painting is studied, the piece may or may not have any merit of skill. What Madison said in class though, really resonated with me. As a painter, I’ve lost a bit of respect for photographers… because as a painter, I set up reference shots myself, and then paint. I do twice the amount of work than a photographer to create an image, and yet they tote around their photograph as if they put as much time and effort into creating and constructing it as I did with my painting.

A photograph can never be an original piece, either, like a painting can. A photo, even when there’s only one existing copy in the entire world… is still just a copy, and technically, can be reproduced/scanned and reprinted in today’s technological world. A painting can be scanned and reprinted and reproduced, but the fact still remains, there lies an actual original unique piece of artwork that can never be duplicated or copied exactly, even with the finest printers.

But too, I also agree with Sontag. Some photography is breathtaking, and by itself is aesthetically beautiful. Even though it pains me a little to admit it, I don’t believe everything is meant to become a painting. Some things in this world exist outside of the painted realm, and to some degree that’s how it will always be (until someone decides to make it their subject). In either case, however, I would say that both photography and painting gives us a deeper retrospective of the world we inhabit. Both give us a commentary into diverse cultures, and both serve to record life; in both a literal and abstract way.

I will also note the existence of hyper-realism in some paintings, and the painterly effect in some photographs. It seems that the lines are constantly being blurred, pushed and pulled. Still, there’s a part of me that just wants to say that creating a painting is more time consuming, and requires more dedication and patience than snapping a photo, but I fear that might be a little pompous of me.

To begin, thoughts on Aesthetics, and the origins of.

Ellen Miller's article, Aesthetics Introduction, at the very least gave me a basic understanding and look into the origins of Aesthetics, as defined by the study and philosophy concerned with the nature and appreciation of art and beauty, and the aesthetic experience, which looks at how exactly one is to approach the experience of encountering aesthetic beauty, in art, but also all around one's self. 

I've often thought about the Aesthetic nature found in art. As an artist, I find myself constantly looking for the "beauty" in this world. Design, creation... In last week's class we talked about other words that might sum up what Aesthetics could be, and a few of the terms especially resonated with me. Visual Harmony, Sensitivity, Awareness, Instinct, Reaction, Enlightenment, Emotion, Interpretation, Realization... We talked about how the aesthetic experience must be one that is embodied, and felt down to the very core of the soul. For an artist, the task at hand is to find some physical way to show what otherwise cannot be seen - to reach out and touch the viewer with something profound; at least, that is the task I give myself as an artist, and one that I pursue vigorously.

In a large part, I feel that Aesthetics has to do a good deal with perception, another topic we covered in last week's class. How to take your insight and intuition, your senses, and mentally grasp and become aware of the underlying absolutes of beauty abundant in this world. I actually got into a very interesting conversation yesterday with a friend of mine, on just that. Absolute theory vs. the theory of relativity. At first I explained that I felt that, in regards to aesthetics and the topic of beauty, that I leaned more towards the the side of relativity. I suppose I've always looked at and understood that everyone in this world has a completely different point of view, a different mind set, a different set of beliefs... and so on. When I couple this basic understanding of people with how people view art, and beauty, and what they perceive art and beauty to be, I think that at some point, it is all really relative. 

However, what my friend talked about, and helped me to realize in the broader sense, is that there must be central and fundamental absolutes that guide this world; whether talking about beauty or good vs. evil, and likewise and so on. As always, I find myself seeing and understanding both sides of the coin. If there are absolutes that define what true beauty is (symmetry? design? color? nature?), then in a sense, as imperfect beings in the search for true beauty, we must consider wrapping our relative minds around such concepts, and merely hope that our interpretation and insight into the aesthetic experience can bring us closer to that true and absolute beauty. 

In the article, two quotes that particularly called out to me, especially when all of this other stuff was on my mind was that "Art is not hard to understand - it just requires that we adopt the aesthetic point of view", and therefore, "Everyone can appreciate art just by adopting [said] aesthetic point of view."