Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

atunci (gîndifli-væ la fel de bine la Jünger ca øi la Brecht, la Fassbinder, la Syberberg,
la Lukács øi, mai ales, la Heidegger, începînd cu Nietzsche-le lui) øi
credea într-o posibilæ izbævire prin educarea întru artæ a celor mai mulfli.
Klein fæcuse o adeværatæ pasiune pentru fæcut tæræboi, precum øi o obsesie
tipic modernæ pentru vitezæ. De-asta a øi murit, de altfel. Uitafli-væ de asemenea
la suprarealiøti. Dupæ cele douæ manifeste ale lui André Breton, totul
a ræmas în perfectæ ordine. Cu sinuciderea lui Rothko, în 1967, ultima avangardæ
s-a stins færæ sæ fi øtiut vreodatæ zice altceva decît nu – øi, prin urmare,
færæ sæ lase un veritabil discurs critic asupra prezentului. Retrospectiv, întreaga
perioadæ care merge de la anii de dupæ ræzboi pînæ la sfîrøitul anilor
’80 seamænæ cu o uriaøæ beflivænealæ. Nu cred cæ putem lua în serios aceastæ
avangardæ, care a fost expresia unei atitudini faustiene destul de conforme
genius-ului misterios al Statelor Unite. Autentica avangardæ aparfline vechiului
continent, adicæ fline de ceea ce încæ nu este, vorbind la propriu, Occident.
Avangarda a fost forma de expresie pe care Lumea Veche øi-a
ales-o atunci cînd s-a trezit confruntatæ cu modernitatea øi cu valul mareic
care-i siderase pe oamenii voind sæ facæ istoria, pe aceia care voiau
s-o comenteze, pe aceia care voiau s-o înfleleagæ, dar øi, øi poate cæ mai
ales, pe artiøti.
Trebuie deci deosebit cu atenflie între douæ avangarde. Aceea care voia
sæ continue istoria picturii, cu Cézanne, despre care Picasso zicea cæ lecflia
cea mai mare pe care a læsat-o e îndoiala, sau øi cu Matisse, pe care nu-l
mai evocæm astæzi altminteri decît ca pe Maica Precistæ. Øi aceea care se
afirma, dimpotrivæ, ca un radicalism declarat, nemaiînflelegînd sæ se continue
cu arætatul de lucruri frumoase în vreme ce gropile comune se înmulfleau,
oraøele hidoase proliferau, cînd „rafliunea“, logos øi ratio, nu explica
øi nici nu mai putea legitima sminteala rafliunii în marø. A fost miøcarea dada,
care, funciar, e o respingere radicalæ a tuturor ideologemelor în vigoare
în epoca primului mare carnagiu øi dupæ aceea, arta inclusiv, desigur. Dar
era deopotrivæ øi o miøcare funciar ancoratæ în reprezentare, aøadar,
una paradoxal esteticæ. Øi s-a putut deci ca, mai tîrziu, sæ fie la rîndul sæu
estetizatæ.
Totul s-a schimbat foarte iute de îndatæ ce Burghezul øi-a pus întrebæri asupra
motivelor pentru care artiøtii îl insultau. La fel cum s-a întîmplat øi cu alte
lucruri, Burghezul, recuperînd avangardele, le-a precipitat dispariflia, pentru
a læsa ca în locul lor sæ aparæ o muzeofilie ce postuleazæ cæ orice, nu
conteazæ ce, meritæ ca noi sæ mergem sæ-l vedem. Cum ea pune în joc
un lanfl întreg de solidaritæfli – de la producætor (artist) la consumatori: colecflionari,
muzee, galerii, bancheri etc. –, aceastæ muzeofilie implicæ o circulaflie
enormæ de bani. Din momentul acesta nu mai existæ scandaluri în
artæ, pur øi simplu fiindcæ nu mai existæ motive ca sæ fie. Tabuul a pæræsit
domeniul artistic pentru a se alætura altora. Dar, totodatæ, a pierit øi ideea
însæøi a subversiunii. Acesta e sensul în care putem vorbi de-o dispariflie
a vechilor avangarde în beneficiul unei „avangarde de masæ“ (Calvesi), situaflie
care se caracterizeazæ prin imposibilitatea de a-i face critica færæ a cædea
într-un paseism plat, dar øi prin imposibilitatea de a mai continua supunerea
oricærei creaflii unei stæri de urgenflæ permanente. Arta a devenit un mijloc
de integrare øi de promovare socialæ pentru artist, exact pe cînd se efectua
mondializarea sa comercialæ.
¬ Pentru a caracteriza epoca actualæ, afli vorbit de „estetizare generalizatæ“,
consemnînd cæ de-acum „orice obiect poate fi estetizat øi, ca atare,
dobîndi o valoare expoziflionalæ“. Care e sensul acestui proces de estetizare
thought in the ’70s, when the Extreme West was (and still is) a unique, extreme
(everlasting?) model. A critical discourse is created through words and words
always relate to other words, other discourses, not to images. Joseph Beuys or
Yves Klein, for instance, didn’t have a real critical, subversive, discourse. Beuys’
forethought translates a post-war mourning-like relationship to history.
He watched over the Wound through which Germany overwhelmed the world
and of which Germany itself suffered since then. He believed in a possible
redemption through the education of art practiced by everybody. As a French,
Y. Klein had a real passion for scandal, outrage, and a modern obsession for
rush. That’s why perhaps he died so soon. After André Breton’s Manifestes,
everything has remained into a perfect order. With Rothko’s suicide in 1967,
the last avant-garde died without leaving behind a critical discourse on the present.
It was a sort of mystical secularism, in-between colours and absconding
content, premises and promises. Retrospectively, the whole period after the last
war to the end of the ’80s resembles a huge booze. I don’t think we can take for
granted this avant-garde which expressed a Faustian attitude in accordance to
the secretive (and fertile) American genius loci. The genuine original avant-garde
belongs to the Old World, related to what is not just, stricto sensu, the Western
world which encompasses East as well as West. Avant-garde was the form
chosen-and-imposed at the same time by the Old World confronted with modernity
along the tidal wave which restrained the people who wanted to make
a positive history, those who wanted to comment upon it and those who wanted
to understand it. Maybe, and most of all, the artists, their affirmative and hesitant
dispositions...
There are two avant-gardes. That which wanted to carry on the history of painting,
with Cézanne (“his greatest lesson was the doubt” said Picasso) and Matisse,
evoked today as a Saint Patron of painting. And that which, on the contrary,
stood up into an open radicalism, unwilling to go on, exhibiting beautiful things
while the mass graves and hideous cities proliferated, since the “reason”, logos
and ratio, could not explain such a trend and could not legitimate the madness
of this “marching reason”: Dada, a truly radical rejection of all doctrines and
creeds at the era of the first Great Butchery, art included. But it was
a movement basically anchored in representation, therefore an aesthetical paradox
– which allowed its ulterior aestheticization through the museum.
Everything changed hastily as soon the bourgeois began questioning the reasons
which the artists, before, have insulted him for. Like in other cases, the bourgeois,
by reclaiming the avant-gardes, hurried their extinction, allowing them
to be replaced by the museophilia postulating that everything, it doesn’t matter
what, is worth be seen by us. As it engages an entire chain of solidarities – from
the producer (artist) to the consumers: collectors, museums, galleries, bankers,
etc. – this museophilia involves an enormous circulation of money. From now on,
there are no more scandals in art, simply because there is no reason for that
anymore. Taboos quitted the art domain in order to join other ones. The very
idea of subversion disappeared as well. In this respect we can talk about the
disappearance of the older avant-gardes as an (inflated) counterpart for a “mass
avant-garde” characterized by the impossibility to criticize without fading into
an inconsequential idealization of the past and the impossibility to submit any
creation to a permanent state of emergency. Art has become a tool for social
integration and social promotion when its commercial worldly liberal globalization
became overtly carried out.
¬ You described the present in terms of a “generalized aestheticization” since
“every object may be aestheticized and thus acquire a value of exhibition”: what
210