You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
+ (presences of art)<br />
generalizatæ, care antreneazæ orice obiect, chiar funcflional, într-o derivæ spre<br />
un univers unde el dobîndeøte o valoare expoziflionalæ? Øi, pe de altæ parte,<br />
care sînt raporturile între artæ øi tehnicæ? Walter Benjamin susflinea cæ reproducerea<br />
tehnicæ a operelor de artæ le îndepærta din aura esenflialul. Afli scris<br />
mult dumneavoastræ înøivæ despre „enorma capacitate reproductivæ a universului<br />
mærfurilor“. Spunefli de asemenea cæ „între artæ øi tehnicæ, afinitatea<br />
nouæ creatæ de modernitate se trage din aceea cæ øi una, øi cealaltæ sînt<br />
determinate de «valoarea noului» øi depind de noutatea ca valoare“. În ce<br />
mæsuræ estetizarea generalizatæ se leagæ de inflaflia mijloacelor tehnice de<br />
reproducere? Care este astæzi diferenfla care separæ originalul de copie?<br />
√ Tehnica, aceastæ „naturæ færæ om“ (Michel Henry), e inerentæ omului<br />
în acelaøi timp în care ea e despærflitæ de el, aøa cum subiectul e despærflit<br />
de obiect. Tehnica nu este în definitiv decît un instrument al somærii<br />
pentru control a lui physis (Heidegger), care a sfîrøit prin a deveni ea însæøi<br />
un fel de „nouæ physis“, capabilæ sæ întreflinæ cu timpul un raport din ce în<br />
ce mai autonom. Tehnica poate fi prea bine privitæ mereu ca fiind în slujba<br />
omului care o concepe; ea øi-a cæpætat cu toate astea o autonomie<br />
care face astæzi din ea echivalentul nofliunii de timp, aøa cum a fost aceasta<br />
conceptualizatæ de secole în filosofia occidentalæ. În sensul acesta se poate<br />
spune cæ somaflia prin care Heidegger restituie adeværul miøcærii tehnicii<br />
constituie nici mai mult nici mai puflin decît ineditul istorial instaurator al<br />
modernitæflii. Tehnica artei e determinatæ de tehnica însæøi. Decurge de<br />
aici cæ raporturile între artæ øi tehnicæ depind efectiv de noutatea ca valoare<br />
– idee comunæ tehnicii øi modernitæflii –, tehnica fiind cea care constrînge<br />
toate formele, începînd cu acelea care nu intræ în procesul<br />
dezvoltærii sale. De altminteri, lucrurile nu se pot petrece altfel, cæci percepflia<br />
pe care noi o avem despre opere prin medierea reproducerii tehnice,<br />
cu efectul de ubicuitate care decurge de aici, nu numai cæ nu ne mai<br />
îngæduie sæ le vedem aøa cum au fost ele væzute øi primite în contextul<br />
lor de origine, dar øi face acest decalaj probabil ireversibil. Poate face artistul<br />
ca øi cum fotografia n-ar exista? Poate el asuma sarcina de a crea forme<br />
færæ a considera cæ e el însuøi victima unei alteræri a timpului, concomitentæ<br />
cu creøterea în putere a tehnicii, care joacæ asupra timpului ca material?<br />
Nu væd ca artiøtii, invers decît filosofii øi decît poeflii, sæ fi realizat întreaga<br />
mæsuræ a acestei determinaflii a întregului vieflii printr-o tehnicæ omniprezentæ.<br />
Øi totuøi ei au fost dintotdeauna sensibili la tehnicæ, fiindcæ opfliunile lor,<br />
destinul lor, curbura lor ontologicæ fac din ei niøte oameni ai formei, øi nu<br />
ai cuvîntului. În anii øaizeci, ei øi-au pus cît se poate de logic întrebarea:<br />
cum sæ fii artist øi cum sæ luminezi ceea ce se întîmplæ în vreme ce fiinfla<br />
ta nu e de ordinul cuvîntului? Beuys a ræspuns la aceastæ întrebare prin a<br />
produce opere de artæ concomitent cu a scrie – øi ritualizîndu-le, øi pe una,<br />
øi pe cealaltæ.<br />
Apropo de procesul estetizærii generalizate, douæ aspecte mai trebuie încæ<br />
deosebite. Primul ne-a fost indicat de Duchamp, care, decizînd sæ ia un<br />
Rembrandt pentru a face din el o planøetæ de cælcat, face semn cætre posibilitatea<br />
oricærui lucru de a scæpa din împletitura aceasta imensæ care fixeazæ<br />
în mod definitiv relaflia dintre cutare obiect øi consumul lui. Estetizare<br />
înseamnæ atunci acelaøi lucru cu fetiøizare, cu o distanflare prin intermediul<br />
unui lucru-fetiø. Al doilea, care, dupæ mine, este în mare mæsuræ preponderent,<br />
e, dimpotrivæ, acela al recuperærii a orice prin consum, aøa<br />
încît estetizarea generalizatæ ar putea fi consideratæ ca o imensæ deturnare<br />
a orice în vederea consumærii sale. Paradoxal, aceastæ situaflie rezultæ<br />
is the meaning of this process which engages any object, be it a functional one<br />
– a tool – or not, making it drift into a universe where it acquires such a (Benjaminian)<br />
value? What relationships stay alive between art and technique? Walter<br />
Benjamin held that the technical reproduction of the artworks removed their<br />
essential from the aura. You yourself wrote a lot about “the enormous reproductive<br />
capacity of the universe commodities”, that “between art and technique,<br />
the new affinity created by modernity originates in the fact that they are both<br />
determined by ‘the value of the new’ and depend on the novelty as a value”.<br />
To what degree does the generalized aestheticization relate to the inflation of<br />
the technical means of reproduction? What about the gap between the original<br />
and the copy today?<br />
√ The technique [tekhne], this “nature without man”, intrinsic to mankind,<br />
itself is separate from him as the subject is ripped from the object. Technique,<br />
summons the physis to restrain it (Heidegger) and has become itself a kind of<br />
“new physis” related to an increasingly autonomous way strongly linked to the<br />
time matter. Technique [as “technology”] ought to be regarded as serving the<br />
man who conceives and exploits it. Nevertheless, technique fatally acquired an<br />
autonomy which makes it today an equivalent for the time dimension established<br />
for centuries by the (Western) philosophy. In this respect, the essence<br />
of the technique is barely the historical (and vocational) trans<strong>format</strong>ion which<br />
installs and develops modernity. Accordingly, the technique in art – skill, craft,<br />
métier, savoir-faire – is determined by the art itself. Hence, the relations<br />
between art and technique depend more and more on the novelty as value;<br />
a common-trait of modernity and its overcoming technique, since technique<br />
constrains all forms to assume the beginning, the starting point, including those<br />
who have no part, at least directly, in this developmental process.<br />
Besides, things cannot take place differently because our perception of the artworks<br />
is alterated by the mechanical (technical) reproduction along with the<br />
ubiquity derived; it not only doesn’t allow us anymore to see them as before and<br />
therefore as received in their original context, but also renders irreversible any<br />
plausible delay. Can the artist pretend that photography does not exist, take the<br />
task of creating forms without considering himself captured by the time<br />
alterations related to the technique, gaining power, and playing with the time<br />
as a fabric like any other material? I don’t see the artists realizing the whole<br />
dimension of our existential determination submitted to an omnipresent<br />
technique. And yet they have always been sensible to technique: their choices,<br />
their destiny, their ontological bend turn them into a people of the form, not<br />
of the word. The question in the sixties was: how could one be artist and light<br />
up what happens while one’s being (his silent foundation: absconded) does not<br />
belong to the order of the words? Beuys answered this question by producing<br />
artworks concomitantly with writing – then ritualizing both.<br />
In the process of generalized aestheticization (esthétisation généralisée), two<br />
aspects still have to be discerned. The first was pointed at by Duchamp who,<br />
deciding “to take a Rembrandt and made an iron-board of it”, signals the possibility<br />
for everything to escape the huge net which definitively fixes the relationship<br />
between this object and its employ. Aestheticization is very similar to<br />
fetishization, it imposes a reserve – a distance – by means of a thing becoming<br />
a fetish. The second one, predominant, on the contrary, reclaims everything<br />
through consume; thus the generalized aestheticization may be considered<br />
a huge detour of everything for consumption. Paradoxically, this situation results<br />
from a wish to consider the “artistic” production as separate from the productive<br />
cycle in toto, the pretense of an autonomy assured by the generalized use of the<br />
211