Why are there no art movements today? Blame the Internet
Where have all the isims gone? Remember them? Romanticism, Impressionism, Cubism, and so many more. Today, we don’t have schools of art; we have the internet, where everything and anything can be considered an artwork. However, we do have a lot of trends today.
Here’s a list of current art trends (not movements) according to the internet. I’ve not heard of most of them.
1. Post-Digital Art
2. Eco-Art & Climate Activism
3. AI and Algorithmic Art
4. Neo-Surrealism & Post-Humanism
5. New Figuration & Post-Internet Expressionism
6. Expanded Performance & Immersive Art
None of these can be considered an art movement or school. They are examples of styles that artists practice. They are not movements because no one critiques them as individual styles that define or separate them from other art movements. No one is writing about them. There is no push from artists, communities or galleries to present their art as an exhibition or collective. And, no one is studying them.
There isn't a singular, dominant art movement defining 2025, or for the last 30 years in the way that Impressionism or Surrealism once did. Today's art world is highly fragmented, with various styles existing simultaneously rather than a single movement changing or driving the arts.
Traditionally, an art movement is more than just a dominant style; it is a collective response to cultural, political, technological, or philosophical shifts, with artists sharing a common vision, albeit with many good, healthy arguments.
Today, instead of movements, we see broad trends mainly from technological influences and social and environmental concerns that individual artists or groups explore. The art world is more decentralised than ever, making it difficult for any single style to dominate.
However, there is one exception to this rule. Aboriginal Art in Australia can be said to have defining art movements. Throughout Australia, groups and small art communities create a particular style within their groups. The main groups are found in Arnhem Land, the Kimberley, the APY Lands (Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands), and Utopia, northeast of Alice Springs.
Within these groups, distinctive bark paintings, carvings, ceremonial poles, rock art and dot paintings are defined by their territories and visual art languages.
However, since the internet, creating a singular dominant art style has become impossible. Maybe that’s a good thing because it has opened art up. But movements from the past have given us some exceptional art and artists. Artists hanging their hats on a movement who developed that style have brought us things that have changed the world. Think of surrealism and its flow-on effects.
Surrealism wasn’t just a movement, but a way of seeing the world differently. It went on to affect books, movies, psychology, and philosophy.
Since the internet, the need for or the likelihood of a defining art movement has not been possible because anything can be art if someone chooses to call it art. The Western world is so internet-driven that it has even changed how we create art.
Art's creation, distribution, and reception have been transformed. Before, artistic movements were often formed through communities of artists. Think of Paris in the late 1800s (Impressionists), New York in the 1950s (Abstract Expressionists), or the Heidelberg School, known as Australian Impressionism, which flourished in the late 19th century, etc. During these times, small groups of artists influenced one another and defined a style.
Now, with the internet dissolving geographic and social barriers, art exists in a space where no singular form can dominate. Instead, we have micro-movements, niche trends, and individual expressions that coexist and evolve in real time.
The internet also changed what can be called "art." A meme, an AI-generated image, or a TikTok performance can be considered art if someone sees it that way.
Historically, art movements were driven by artists working in a shared style or philosophy, not just by critics naming them afterwards. Instead of movements, we now have an open, borderless art world where anything can be considered art.
Art today is more about individual expression than a collective identity, but no individual art style develops as it did before the global mess we call the internet.
The internet has changed art so much that the "art movement", as a concept is gone. It has altered the traditional art scene so much we now have this vast space where countless styles, mediums, and ideologies exist simultaneously, making it impossible for one approach to dominate.
However, the internet does tell us that dominant art exists by people liking things. Whatever art gets the most likes becomes the predominant style. But as likes are celebrity/influencer-driven, and through viral crazes, likes mean nothing. People like things because of a viral reaction or because celebrities and influencers like them.
The internet’s algorithmic “taste-making” isn’t based on artistic merit, innovation, or even widespread artistic consensus; it’s dictated by engagement metrics driven by celebrity influence and social media trends.
So, rather than movements arising from artistic communities with a shared vision, we now have an attention economy where popularity is seen as significance. This creates a feedback loop where what is seen the most is assumed to be important, even if it’s just the product of algorithmic amplification.
From my understanding, most artists' intentions have not changed; it’s just that the internet rewards the ones with the most likes.
Most artists still create with intent, vision, and purpose, just as always. What’s changed is which artists get seen and how their work is valued. The internet doesn’t determine what art is, but it does dictate what is visible and rewarded.
In the past, art movements gained recognition through exhibitions, manifestos, critical discussions, and the public's attendance at exhibitions. Today, visibility is algorithm-driven, meaning that popularity overshadows artistic depth. Likes, shares, and engagement numbers become a substitute for artistic significance, even though they reflect virality rather than artistic merit.
Artists who adapt to social media’s logic, play into trends, engage in self-promotion, and use influencer networks get more exposure. In contrast, others who focus purely on the art itself remain unseen. Rather than democratising art, the internet has transformed it into a mere commodity, resulting in many artists being reduced to nothing more than just another brand.