Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

cærui obiect. Astfel, proprietæflile obiectului estetic nu mai acoperæ vechile
criterii ale finitului øi armoniei. Neterminatul, neesenflialul, efemerul devin
atribute estetice cu aceeaøi îndreptæflire ca, mai înainte, subiectul, meseria,
desævîrøirea. Rezultatul e cæ, odatæ cu împæmîntenirea maøinæriei muzeale,
se produce un fenomen de uniformizare care se îndoapæ de efemer,
dupæ imaginea modei øi a vitrinelor de magazine. Din acest punct de vedere,
ready made øi numeroasele sale derivate, gadgetul bunæoaræ, sînt
emblematice. Devenind pîlnia în care se varsæ efectele acumulærii, muzeul
a îngæduit legitimarea procesului pe care-l numesc fetiøizare, atribuind obiectului
noi funcflii în timp ce îi abroga funcfliile anterioare. Niciodatæ n-a fost
obiectul mai fetiøizat decît astæzi. Avîntul maøinæriei muzeale s-a însoflit, aøadar,
de o expansiune a fetiøismului, fæcutæ posibilæ prin instaurarea unui
anumit tip de raport cu obiectul, acesta îmbræcînd un soi de autonomie
în raport cu uzul øi intenflia primæ care-l creaseræ. Secularizare øi fetiøizare
modernæ nu mai constituie atunci decît un unic øi acelaøi gest. Fetiøurile
au devenit obiecte de artæ. A te duce la muzeu înseamnæ a contempla
aceastæ secularizare.
Aceastæ analizæ ar fi incompletæ dacæ n-am semnala alte trei consecinfle
majore ale muzeofiliei moderne. Prima se referæ la dezvoltarea considerabilæ
a producfliei asigurate de oameni care s-au convins cæ øi ei sînt capabili
sæ fie artiøti øi cæ, flinînd cont de multiplicarea locurilor de expunere, ar
fi pur øi simplu pæcat sæ se abflinæ. A doua e ilustratæ prin apariflia figurii, odinioaræ
necunoscute, a comisarului de expoziflie. E vorba de cineva care are
puterea de a decide în privinfla cumpærærii unei producflii øi care poate merge
chiar pînæ la a orienta alegerile estetice ale artistului, sæ-i impunæ sæ expunæ
mai curînd în cutare moment decît în altul, sæ prezinte cutare operæ mai
degrabæ decît alta etc. Este de fapt un intermediar – figuræ-cheie a vremurilor
noastre – între producætor øi consumator. În sfîrøit, multiplicarea locurilor
de expoziflie a permis, confruntînd publicul cu o eterogenitate monstruoasæ
øi sub pretext de liberalism estetic, emergenfla unui principiu al echivalenflei
generalizate între lucruri. Cu alte cuvinte: o sculpturæ din nord-estul
Congoului face cît un Donatello. Afirmaflie perfect absurdæ, nu fiindcæ sculptura
africanæ n-ar fi frumoasæ – ea poate fi, dimpotrivæ, admirabilæ –, ci pur
øi simplu fiindcæ aceastæ sculpturæ øi un Donatello reprezintæ douæ lucruri
distincte, concepute în universuri diferite, înscrise în istorii ale artei øi istorii
sociale diferite, cu destinaflii øi funcflii diferite de asemenea.
¬ Sæ revenim un moment asupra decalajului, probabil ireversibil, care ne
împiedicæ astæzi sæ vedem operele de artæ aøa cum au fost ele væzute øi primite
în contextul lor de origine. În afara eventualului efect al timpului øi al aceluia
al medierii legate de reproducerea tehnicæ a operelor, decalajul nu fline, deopotrivæ,
de faptul cæ, în vremuri mai vechi, arta nu exista ca o categorie autonomæ,
separatæ, ci era cuprinsæ în viafla însæøi? S-ar putea oare zice, pornind
de aici, cæ arta informa altædatæ totalitatea vieflii, în vreme ce astæzi producflia
socialæ în ansamblul ei e cea care conformeazæ arta imaginii acesteia?
√ Decontextualizarea operelor de artæ concureazæ inevitabil la estetizarea
generalizatæ. Or, arta nu trebuie sæ se mulflumeascæ sæ arate lucruri
frumoase, ea mai trebuie øi sæ povesteascæ istorii, sæ educe øi sæ formeze
spirite într-un context dat. Altædatæ, credincioøi øi necredincioøi, sinceri øi
mincinoøi, erudifli øi ignoranfli se regæseau într-un raport de strînsæ proximitate
cu toate lucrurile pe care le vedeau, cel mai adesea în biserici, øi care
aveau sens. A fi creøtin însemna, între alte lucruri, cæ mergeai sæ vezi obiecte
de artæ færæ ca vreodatæ chestiunea legitimitæflii estetice sæ trebuiascæ a fi
utes equally rightful as subject-matter, skill, craftmanship, and so on were
before. The result is that along with the entrenchment of the museum machinery,
a standardization process occurs, which becomes stuffed with ephemeral
along images of fashion, advertising and bow-windows. From this perspective,
the ready-made and its countless variations, the gadget for example, are epitomized.
Turned into the funnel in which the effects of the accumulations are being
poured, the museum allowed the process of fetishization, ascribing new functions
to any object erased by its former functions. Never was the object more
fetishized than it is today. The momentum of the museum machinery was therefore
accompanied by an expansion of the fetishism, rendered possible through
the establishment of a certain relationship with the object, as the latter acquired
a sort of autonomy regarding the use and the prime intention which had created
it. Secularization and modern fetishization are therefore one single action.
The fetishes have become art objects. Going to the museum means contemplating
this secularization.
This analysis would be incomplete if we would not mention three major consequences
of the modern museophilia. The first one concerns the considerable
development of the art production maintained by people who have to convince
themselves that they are capable of becoming artists and, considering the enormous
multiplication of the exhibiting spaces, it would be just a shame for them
to refrain. The second one is illustrated by the occurrence, once unknown, of the
rule of the exhibition curator, someone who has the power to decide about the
purchase of a production and can go as far as to guide the artist’s aesthetic
choices, requiring him to expose in a certain moment rather than another,
to display a certain work rather than another. He is in all senses a middle-man
– a key-character of our times – between the producer and the consumer.
At last, the multiplication of the exhibiting spaces allowed, by confronting the
public with a monstrous eclecticism and under the pretext of an aesthetic liberalism,
the emergence of a principle of the generalized equivalence of things.
Thus, a sculpture from the North-East of Congo is worth as much as a Donatello.
This is an absurd statement not because the African sculpture is not beautiful
– on the contrary, it can be admirable – but simply because this sculpture and
a Donatello represent two distinct things, conceived in different universes,
entailed into different art and social histories and with different goals and functions.
¬ Let’s get back to the gap, probably irreversible, which stops us see the artworks
today as they have been seen and received in their original context.
Except for the probable effect of time and mediation regarding the technical
reproduction of the works, does this gap relate to the fact that in ancient times
art was not an autonomous, a separate category, but life itself, sacred as well
profane? May we possibly say that while once the art shaped life’s totality, today
it is the social production in its whole that summons art to conform to the image
of this totality?
√ The decontextualization of the artworks concurs inevitably to the generalized
aestheticization. But art should not limit itself to displaying beautiful things;
it also has to tell stories, to educate and to shape the spirits in a given context.
Once, believers and agnostics, honest people and liars, scholars and illiterates
would find themselves in a relationship of close proximity to all the things they
saw, mostly in churches, and which made sense. Being a Christian meant, among
other things, going and seeing art objects without ever having to question their
artistic legitimacy. There was a continuum between art and society, which was
able to mobilize the individual beyond one’s characteristics. For the people
214