Authentizität – what's next?

Active Resistance To Propaganda

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:49 +0000

I make the great claim for my manifesto, that it penetrates to the root of the human predicament and offers the underlying solution. We have the choice to become more cultivated and therefore more human – or by muddling along as usual we shall remain the destructive and self-destroying animal, the victim of our own cleverness (To be or not to be).

Among the travellers who accompany Active Resistance are:
Alice
Pinocchio
Art Lover (an anthropologist)
True Poet (an alchemist)

Our journey to find art will show that art gives culture and that culture is the antidote to propaganda.

AR
Dear Friends, We all love art and some of you claim to be artists. Without judges there is no art. She only exists when we know her. Does she exist? The answer to this question is of vital importance because if art is alive the world will change. No art, no true progress.
We must find out; go in search of her. – But wait! Who is this with fire-cracking smouldering pigtails, gold teeth and a brace of flintlocks in his belt? He is a pirate. – And what does his t-shirt say? – I love crap.

Pirate hands Active Resistance a Hawaiian garland of plastic flowers.

Pirate
Leave everything to me. I plunder for you. Stick with me and you might get a share of the bounty. My name is Progress.

AR
But you have stolen imagination. There is hardly anyone left now who believes in a better world. What is the future of unlimited profit in a finite world?

Pirate Progress
I like you artistic lot. But, trust me or not, I’ll take you with me if I go down. We’ll all burn together.

Film clip, close up. the pigtails burst into flames and with a “Ha-haagh!“ the Pirate disappears in a pall of smoke followed by black night.

AR
He is not Progress. Sir Morgan Mammon stole the name and the Pirate works for him.

The defiant face of Pirate Progress appears and disappears like the Cheshire Cat. Light returns.

20th century progress was a bad idea. Smash the past and the future will take care of itself. Follow the trend, keep up with the times. Artists and intellectuals jumped on the bandwagon. Progress and future were automatically linked. March on! Don’t stop to think. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Pinocchio
Now that I have become a boy I want to be a freedom-fighter.

Sir Morgan Mammon
Music to my ears! More freedom, more consumption.

Pinocchio
No! Freedom to think for yourself, don’t believe everything you’re told! Consumption is propaganda – I want to fight propaganda.

AR
Culture is the antidote to propaganda.

Alice
Pinocchio, if you try to free yourself from the past completely, you drop the stuffy ideas and the good ideas. You throw out the baby with the bathwater. The only thing is hey kept a bit of the dirty bathwater and they’ve been piddling about in it ever since.

True Poet
The present is always the present moment of the past. We are the past. Art links past, present and future. Cut off from the past there is only habit.

Art Lover
We have lost touch with ourselves. Only the art lover stays in touch with ideas. I shall write a book, ‘The Art Lover and the Lost Generations’.

Beautiful Slavegirl
To progress or advance in any way you must know what is your end or purpose. For example, money is not an end but a means to an end. And for this reason, I shall be set free.
I am so happy! I am the famous Rhodopis (Rosycheeks). My master made a fortune from selling my body but now my lover will pay a vast ransom, – even more than my future earnings could be. Oh, Liberty! I thought you were my end, but now, I see you are just a beginning. Can I be happy when the other slaves don’t have a beginning? The only true End must be Happiness – but not just for one person. I see now that progress can be an end without limit for there is always a better way of living. And though we may progress towards greater happiness, as an end it will always escape us, and a good thing too, because if we ever reach Paradise we’ll all be dead.

AR
Aristotle took the practical view that the essence of any object lay in its end or purpose. If that could be discovered and realised then that constituted the true meaning or ‘happiness’ of that object – or person. I feel our end is to live in harmony with Gaia. This will happen when we each discover our deep interest.

Dryad of the Rainforest
How can humans be happy? For every tree they cut down a future child dies and there are more trees than children. Some people know these things but they plan to end the forest in one generation. (Nobody hears her…)

Pinocchio
Hey, Aristotle! He’s the chief who said that most slaves were happy for being told what to do. But you’ve got to give people the chance.

Child Slaveboy
A slave is not a person but a thing. A thing can be something like a car, or a hammer, as well as a slave. Soul-destroying, to put it in a nutshell. But my mother told me how to survive. I must try to understand the world and that way I don’t lose my soul, I know who I am. When she said goodbye, she said, “Love Liberty, but forget the key, for the key turns only once. I love you.“

Alice
She was your mirror. Her love showed you Yourself. She believed in you. The key is the key to your character. Aristotle said that character is a person’s habit of moral choice.

True Poet
This brave child who is capable of experience will find himself in a different world in every decade of his life, seeing it with different eyes and his outlook on life continually renewed. We are more privileged. As art lovers we have a more vast and intense experience. We see through the eyes of the artists who lived before us, all those very different views of the world throughout time, which we concentrate into our own existence: knowledge of life through an artist’s knowledge of life.

Alice
No mirror is big enough to show us the world, but art can.

Art Lover
(telling Pinocchio) Art cannot imitate life directly: it does it by representation as in a microcosm. The microcosm, which means small world, comes from primitive ritual. They made a man king for a year, then killed him to symbolize the destruction of the old world, then they made a new world from his butchered body – all inside a fenced-off area, a kind of magic circle; for example they took his eyes and said, this is the sun, this is the moon. The idea was that the small world was a pattern for the big one and that by controlling the small world you would have magical power over the exterior world, the macrocosm.

Pinocchio
Gotcha! Artists make small worlds.

Art Lover
And this small world imitates the real world. This is something humans do – we transform the world into something small so that it is within our scope to understand. All our concepts are put together from abstractions – symbols to work things out – for example, words, numbers; we can understand a model because we get an overview, then we can project it back onto the real world.
Art makes us feel the world can make sense – the satisfaction of something understood. And this piece of art, this slice of life, is a whole thing – because it is separate from the world and therefore complete. (Like the microcosm we fence it off – in a book, in a frame, on a stage). We have power over it because it is whole. It is the only time we’re in complete control, otherwise the world passes us by. That’s why we need art; crave it through all the generations.

Alice
(to Pinocchio) I love the idea of concentrating myself into a small complete world, then extending myself – Art gives me the power to face the real world.

Pinocchio
Through art we can stop the world! And make sense of it. I’ll be a painter and a freedom fighter. It’s all symbolic – the painter doesn’t paint every leaf on the tree.

AR
Action! Let’s continue our search by asking Aristotle about the art of Greek tragedy. To the Lyceum!

On the way, Pinocchio stops and turns to Alice

Pinocchio
There’s a bloke here who lives in a barrel.

Diogenes
I shit and wank in front of people in the street like a dog. I am the Cynic. The Great Alexander made a point of coming to see me and asked if he could do me a favour. Nobody’s better than me. – I told him to step out of my light. I am famous because I’ve got the balls to do what I want.

Alice
(Puzzled that he could be content with so little) He doesn’t want much.

Pinocchio
Cool, I’ve found art! I could be Diogenes II. I’ll call myself a piss artist and make lots of money.

AR
Come back children. You’ve gone too far. Alice we’re waiting for you to introduce us to Aristotle. And Pinocchio, you’re just being silly. Though Diogenes is obsessed by himself he doesn’t believe in anything, let alone himself. That’s why he’s a cynic. This self-promotion, and doing what you want is a sham philosophy of life. No, no, it’s not self-indulgence but self-discipline that makes the individual. And you, especially, need self-discipline if you’re going to be a painter.

Pinocchio
You are right. Diogenes seemed kind of happy, but he’s a poser. Too boring, I couldn’t keep it up. Ha, ha, keep it up! I could sell canned sperm. Great marketing opportunities.

Alice
(sarcastic). Oh how lewd!

At the Lyceum Aristotle, a Greek gentleman, impeccably dressed – in contrast to Diogenes – is in conversation with a philosopher of today (Adam Parker-Rhodes).

Aristotle
For the beginnings of art in general, there appear to have been two causes, both rooted in human nature. Thus from childhood it is instinctive in human beings to imitate. And man differs from the other animals as the most imitative of all and getting his first lessons by Imitation. And by instinct also all human beings get pleasure in Imitation.

As Alice enters Aristotle moves to centre stage. Alice stands beside him.

Alice
Aristotle refers to the writer of tragedy as ‘the poet’. Greek tragedy was expressed in verse but this is not the important thing. What defines the poet is that he is an imitator – just like a painter or any other maker of images. If a historian were to write up his whole history in verse this would not make him a poet; for he tells of things that have happened in real life and this is not Imitation. Imitation is more philosophical. Indeed Aristotle adds that the poet may imitate life not as it is, but as it ought to be. Even if the plot is historical the poet must select his facts to make a unified whole and then fit the characters into it – as in a microcosm.

Aristotle
For tragedy is not an Imitation of men but of actions and of life. It is in action that happiness and unhappiness are found, and the end we aim at is a kind of activity, not a quality; in accordance with their characters men are of such and such a quality, in accordance with their actions they are fortunate or the reverse. Consequently, it is not for the purpose of 5presenting their characters that the agents engage in action, but rather it is for the sake of their actions that they take on the characters they have. Thus, what happens – that is, the plot – is the end for which a tragedy exists, and the end or purpose is the most important thing of all.

Alice
Thank you very much Aristotle. I know that Active Resistance would like to ask you something.

AR
Aristotle, it is essential to every art in any medium of expression that it is a whole. For only art can achieve perfection. Please tell us what you mean by ‘the Whole’ in the case of tragedy.

Aristotle
The events which are the parts of the plot must be so organized that if any of them is displaced or taken away, the whole will be shaken and put out of joint; for if the presence or absence of a thing makes no discernable difference, that thing is not part of the whole.(Aristotle retires)

Alice
That’s how I feel about Velasquez. His work is so minimal and reduced. The paint is so thin and the people in the paintings are so real that I sometime think they weren’t there, especially in the split second before you turn to look again. I just wanted to melt into a pool on the floor.

AR
One can begin to grasp something of the obsession people have had with the idea of the circle as a perfect form. A work of art then, is an Imitation reduced to its essentials, thereby forming a whole – as in a microcosm.
Real life cannot give the complete picture. It is – a jumble of particulars in which events are engulfed in the flux of chaos. How can the artist see things as they really are when he, himself is part of the change? He needs a fixed fact to stand on.

Alice
Tell me all about it! If there is nothing fixed in the world then you find yourself in Wonderland where everything changes – including yourself. – And you try to play a game of croquet with a flamingo for a mallet and the ball is a hedgehog who runs away.

AR
A hedgehog must understand the world from a hedgehog point of view, and we must understand it from a human point of view.
We do have a fixed fact to stand on: IMITATION.
We know that Imitation gives us art – but that is as a result of the main fact which is that our species is programmed to imitate. We are the world’s best imitators and that is how we evolved into humans. We understand the world because we imitate it.
Alice will begin to explain.

Alice
It’s what happens when a baby smiles back at you. He sees you do it and the muscles in his face know how to make the same pattern, but it’s not just the muscles but his whole system which is at work. Our body is a coding system which can blueprint the eye’s impression of a smile and convert it into an actual smile. Scientists would tell us what chemicals etc. are involved.
Without this key – our human coding system, we could not hold anything in our memory or repeat our actions. Animals can do this to a limited degree. I’m thinking of a puppy I once met. I took a stick and it immediately understood my intention and was ready to run. And it brought the stick back. But animals do not have that continuous relationship with the world which gives us a great deal of control over our behaviour and our lives – even though we are free to act unwisely.

Adam Parker-Rhodes
Apes can’t dance!

AR
The philosopher Adam Parker-Rhodes is racing against time as he pins down the theory of Imitation. He knows that an understanding of who we are bears upon what we shall do in the face of looming disaster from Climate Change.

Adam Parker-Rhodes
Following on from Aristotle and with a better understanding of the brain we now know that human beings have the unique ability to transform patterns from one sensory or muscular medium to another. It enables us to do things like dancing to music which is translating sound patterns into corresponding movements of the body. We can feel something in the hand and match it with something seen or we see something in front of us and draw its form on paper. We can see someone else’s movements and imitate them ourselves. Most importantly we can see an action performed and understand its intention in terms of our own bodies and experience. Apes can do none of these things, which is why we are able to develop complex culture and they are not; civilization with language, science and technology and of course all the arts.

Pinocchio
We’re cross-wired! (dances and sings)

AR
Dance is not necessarily art but, for example, ballet is – because it aims at perfection. We spend our lives looking for perfection – because we are looking for standards to imitate. Every time we compare one thing with another we are imitating; we are trying to find a match between the data we hold in our mind and the new example – trying to find an ideal. (AR puts one hand on top of the other, palms facing) This is Imitation – matching one thing with another. We discriminate between good and bad, better and best. Discrimination is the mechanism of intelligence.

True Poet
The painter Whistler said that nature copies art. When the painter paints the perfect sunset we see it through his eyes, then look for it in real life.

AR
Not only through the eyes of the painter – we look at everything as if through other eyes. In order to judge, we want to know that other people feel the same. And don’t we always look for that communication – someone else to share the sunset? We’re looking for the perfect universal standard.

Art Lover
I’d like to tell you my idea of Imitation. It’s when we jump outside ourselves. Leave our own preoccupations and ego behind and see things through other eyes, know what it feels like to be someone else. Empathy – kindness. I like to think that everything we know has its source in human kindness.

AR
Everything becomes clear when we consider what Aristotle says: art may imitate life not as it is but as it ought to be. He is talking about perfection and only the whole is perfect. He means ideal; universal because it is something we recognize as being true to life, even if we’ve never seen it before; each part must be more essentially itself, even if it is something horrid like envy; more typical. Aristotle says that the best characters in a play are ‘someone like ourselves’ – people we can relate to.
For example, Chaucer’s characters are as alive to us today as when he first invented them. Timeless – outside of time. They speak to us of human nature. Each detail illuminates the type and is what we call the universal in the particular – ‘someone like ourselves’.
The universal in the particular is familiar to all of us – that flash of insight, that detail which suddenly reveals the whole thing, and we see things complete and as they are – and as we never saw them before. This is direct knowledge.
Insight happens because we suddenly exteriorize ourselves – it’s like ‘I am there’ and yes, if our object is a fellow human being we can imagine what it feels like to be them. We can put ourselves in their place.
Insight is often just a thrilling conviction that certain things are connected; we hold them in our mind waiting for the day of perception. (Turning to the True Poet) You are a poet and an alchemist. How does the artist create – arrive at perception?

True Poet
The originality of art lies in bringing ordinary feelings to our attention. Not everything that enters our orbit makes an impression; only the things we notice. Our senses do not register things unless we attach a feeling to them, so feelings are our prime contact with reality, more primitive than language or reason. Indeed the poet struggles to express feelings which are beyond words.
The artist’s mind is in fact a receptacle for storing up numberless feelings,phrases, images which remain there until a new idea ‘comes’ in. All the particles which can unite to form a new compound are then present together. This is alchemy.
Fusion into the whole takes place under an intense creative pressure from parts which are felt together. Emotion has its life in the work and is separate from the real-life passions of the man who creates. He must rid himself of habit.

AR
So we arrive at perception by imitating. Sometimes quickly, as when we imitate directly. Pinocchio, you’re really good at Imitation.

Pinocchio
When I notice habitual gestures and facial expressions, I say to myself, “Do that! What does that feel like?“ And then it’s quite shocking to find out. It reveals a whole attitude to life. I don’t know how some people get through a day. And have you noticed, if you’re fed up and you just make yourself do a smiley face, how the whole world lights up?

AR
And we can imitate through empathy, using our imagination to get outside ourselves.
(And turning to the True Poet) But you, the artist, are a professional imitator. These human feelings are the very stuff of art. You are the one who manages to re-present them, brings them to light – by modifying and distorting everything in relation to everything else.

Alice
These feelings about things connect us to spiritual unity, when everything is one. They show us likeness in unlikeness and difference in likeness.

Art Agent
You seem to be talking about old art. As if a work of art had a life of its own. People want the artist and they want him to give them something different.

Art Lover
Oh yes, ‘the artist’! Me, me, me. No culture – and trying to be extreme. The trouble with ‘something different’ is we’ve seen it about 17 times already.

Alice
Oh hello, Mr. White Rabbit! Please stop a moment! The artist has just produced a giant hole in the air. Perhaps he thought it was a ‘whole’. I’m sure you have an interesting observation on holes.

White Rabbit
Negative. (rushing off)

Artists Agent
Superb intellectual irony –Right on!

Mad Hatter
What do you mean a hole in the air? We’ve all got a hole in the head and we can fill it with whatever ‘Whole’ we want (changes price-tag on hat from 10/6d to £10m)

Art Agent
He’s right. The art-hole is shockingly ‘something different’, the ultimate aesthetic of all modern art. A last the past is blast! Value is once and for all transferred from the work of art to the mind of the punter.

Alice
How will you sell it?

Art Agent
Fantasy.

AR
Non-stop distraction makes people gullible.

Alice
What about fakes?

Art Agent
No problem. All genuine artists have an agent.

Alice
You’ll have to give them some sort of certificate.

Art Agent
Yes, authentication from the agent. Holes will be very popular. All those journeys into private fantasy. Like Lourdes without the crowds. Wait a minute, the art-hole concept is endlessly capable of manipulation; we could hire a stadium, the punter could pay for a massive event. The art-hole is the last word. (a moment of doubt) But not the end of ‘something different’. Anybody can be an artist, my door is always open.

Pinocchio
You people really believe in yourselves. Get a life! I just met Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They are now performance artists. When I told them I want to be a painter, Dum called me “Bourgeois!“ for believing I needed skill. I said, “I don’t think anyone uses that word anymore“. Dee said, “Contrariwise you are an elitist.“ I’m ok being an elitist – when I get the skill sorted. Hard work, though.

Talking Cricket
Pinocchio, you know that there are two sides to people, the donkey and the boy– the self who wants to live in Toyland versus the self who wants to grow up. It is the inner struggle between doing what you want and being true to your real self that humanizes a puppet.

Pinocchio
Dear little Cricket, I still get around, have a laugh! But, yeah, this inner voice is always having a go, “Pinocchio, don’t be an arsehole! Sorry – art-hole! I am your human self. Listen to me!“ (turns to Alice) C’mon Alice, you’re the chief. How do I trust myself to know what is genuine? Help me out.

Alice
Those primary feelings we’ve been talking about are ordinary feelings and they’re ethical feelings because we look at things in a universal way as if through all human eyes, trying to see things as they really are. That’s what being true to yourself means. Everybody knows this.
When they don’t, it’s because they don’t think it’s important. They prefer fantasy. And being true to yourself, Pinocchio, is when you’re not there, when your stupid little Pinocchio doesn’t get in the way. Trust your feelings. Don’t get in your own light! That’s the style!

Alice and Pinocchio
(pointing fingers, rapping) Feelings!
Pinocchio. Feelings: prime contact with reality.
Alice and Pinocchio. Trust it! Imitation!

True Poet
(to Pinocchio) Truth comes from doing the work. Art is always original. If you didn’t exist, that way of seeing wouldn’t exist.

Pinocchio
I feel like King Arthur. Only he could pull the sword from the stone. Here comes the hero! Gotcha, Alice! Good Imitation true, Bad Imitation false.

AR
I know a great couturier. He said to me, “I have prepared a dress shaped like a heart which I plan to make in black taffeta, it will hold the shape well. Now I ask myself, how would it be in black poplin? More poor, more nothing – less. In which one would a woman appear more beautiful? Until I know the answer, this will destroy me. And yes, I feel silly in front of the terrible problems others face in this world.” What does this tell us if we rely on our feelings, our feelings about things, not our personal ones? Put yourself in his place. Is he genuine or too extreme? Does he represent human nature?

General Assent
I believe in him, he’s true to life – well, he is alive. Is he self deceiving?

Art Lover
Well, next day it might not be so important, he might have other worries which also destroy him. It’s very difficult to empathize. The word ‘destroy’ is too extreme. I can’t bridge the gap.

Pinocchio
We all suffer when we can’t make decisions. But we have to make them according to our character and our character can grow strong from its seeds. We’re more wise when we’re older.

Dryad of the Rainforest
The acorn is happy when he becomes a tree.

Alice
Whoever is close to him should really try to help him. It seems serious.

True Poet
I think there’s something here which could be worked up into a play. If it were me, I would place the couturier in the context which he, himself, has introduced – world problems, the suffering of others. This begins the alchemical process of collecting and selecting the significant factors; being alive to metaphor and symbol. I would begin the action by having him make both dresses. For as Aristotle says, “It is in action that happiness or unhappiness lies.” The same woman would wear each different dress. I would discover the behaviour of the couturier by making it fit the unfurling action; set him free to find his own purpose. There are no rules as to what is true to human nature, only the discipline of our feelings, judging through trial and error. Through art we can reach what is universal, penetrate to the essential sickness or strength of the human soul.

AR
Without judges there is no art, which is the same as saying: we get the art we deserve.

Art lover
Very good – as an art lover, my passion keeps art alive. Therefore art exists! Through our engagement in art we gain culture. Culture makes us more human; elevates.

AR
But, the artist has no responsibility to us. He serves art, alone. He must tell the truth. This is the meaning of the L’art pour l’art movement, misleadingly translated as ‘Art for art’s sake’. But then, the English have never understood it. The painter, Whistler, is a protagonist of the creed and we must seek his opinion before we can safely say that we have found art.

Whistler
Art happens – no hovel is safe from it, no Prince may depend upon it, the vastest intelligence cannot bring it about and puny efforts to make it popular end in quaint comedy, and coarse farce.
This is as it should be. Why after centuries of freedom from it and indifference to it should the people have Art thrust upon them? She has no desire to teach, no purpose to better others.
Art seeks the Artist alone. Where he is, there she appears, and remains with him –loving and fruitful… And when he dies she sadly takes her flight.
With the man, then, and not with the multitude are her intimacies; and in the book of her life the names inscribed are few – scant, indeed, the list of those who have helped to write her story of love and beauty.

AR
We also have our part in all true art! Remember, Imitation makes the whole world kin.

Whistler
True indeed. But let not the unwary jauntily suppose that Shakespeare herewith hands him his passport to Paradise, and thus permits him speech among the chosen. Rather learn that in this very word, Imitation, he is condemned to remain without – to continue with the common.

AR
You mean that what is popular is also vulgar. We know the artist is a freak of nature yet he sees through human eyes. We small band of art lovers expect no favours from art. But from you, the artist, we hope to see the world through your eyes – in this way we serve art. It’s down to the art lover to engage in art.

Pinocchio
You get out what you put in – that’s my motto from now on. As a painter, perhaps Art will visit me some day, just like the fairy with blue hair.

Art lover
Mr. Whistler, I fear for these young people! In your field, painting – which has had such an impact on our lives – there is nothing happening nowadays. What are they to do? All their friends run around trying to catch the latest thing. When you’re young you like to think something is happening.¹¹

Alice
Running around? I don’t waste time, I make time – to see the ‘latest thing’ – the Rokeby Venus! Manet’s Olympia! There is so much happening outside Time.

Whistler
If Art be rare today, it was seldom heretofore. It is false, this teaching of decay. The master stands in no relation to the moment at which he occurs – a monument of isolation – hinting at sadness – having no part in the progress of his fellow men.
He is also no more the product of civilization than is the scientific wisdom of aperiod. The assertion itself requires the man to make it. The truth was from the beginning.
So Art is limited to the infinite, and beginning there cannot progress.
We have then but to wait, until, with the mark of the Gods upon him, there come among us again the chosen – who shall continue what has gone before. Satisfied that, even were he never to appear, the story of the beautiful is already complete – hewn in the marbles of the Parthenon – and broidered, with the birds, upon the fan of Hokusai – at the foot of Fujiyama.

Pinocchio
Mr. Whistler, are you the only American genius?

Art lover
progress in art – Picasso! What would he not have given to capture the ‘mana’ of those bulls from the cave paintings of twenty thousand BC? If art progressed then today’s painter would be greater than Picasso.

True poet
One truth is not more true than another.

Art lover
But time is running out for the art lovers. I’m talking about the planet. It’s all very well to say that we can become more human through art – human enough to save the planet!? Meanwhile, all we can do is believe in Alice and Pinocchio. At least they will have the advantage of a sane outlook on life.

Giant projection of Hitler’s face – in relation to which Hitler, standing on the podium in front, seems to be about the size of a garden gnome.

Hitler
All effective propaganda has to limit itself only to a very few points and to use them like slogans.

AR
Alice and Pinocchio, we have come to the end of our journey and you have passed the test. In the pursuit of art you became automatically impervious to Propaganda. Indeed, each of you quite forgot to take your daily NINSDOL pill. You are no longer addicted to Nationalistic Idolatry, Non-Stop Distraction and Organized Lying – the three constituents of Propaganda. The art lovers now invite you to become members of our movement, AR. Let us progress to the inauguration ceremony.
On the way we could look in at a Conference on Culture which is attended by those very same art lovers who from the beginning had no interest in our journey. Here it is in Paris. Pinocchio, I know you’re dying to go to the Louvre but Alice, you could just pop back in your book and I’ll put it in my pocket and take you in.

Opening speaker (French professor of anthropology)
And Man came out of Africa 180 thousand years ago …

AR
The talk lasts 3/4 hour. He’s scared of seeming Eurocentric …and the good thing is he ended up in Paris. (laughs) Quite right, too. France was the greatest flowering of western culture for the three centuries up until the First World War – interrupted by the Revolution, of course.

Philosopher
We need more festivals to promote cultural exchange between the world’straditional and popular arts and crafts.

Top cultural advisor
We need a common vision of the importance of television and cinema for the cohesion of society.

Choreographer
Dance is the only international language. It should be at the top of every agenda.

Rapper
I need the state to sponsor my music. The internet only helps established artists.

Composer
Young people should know that culture is not entertainment.

Director of state art gallery
We have not once mentioned American culture!

AR
As we began by saying, artists and intellectuals have abdicated their responsibility. They wish to be popular instead of truthful to their vision of the world. We have no avant garde. Art has never been popular; it is original and it takes time for people to see it. But where there is an avant garde, others will follow: this gives culture. There has to be a hierarchy of values. They’ve swapped culture for the cult of the individual.
When you boil it down, people think that culture is being nice to each other. Being nice is not enough. Life has to have meaning: discrimination in pursuit of truth – my way is through art. In the conference they realized they had a problem, when you like everything you end up with some sort of global soup –

Alice
– along with vanilla ice cream topped with onion sauce, magic mushroom Cornish pasties and …

Pinocchio
Ratshit!

Art lover
And Pinocchio, I think Alice has pinched some of your cheek. As we were leaving she jumped out and yelled –

Alice
You’re all a pack of cards!

AR
Children, You are expensive – crap is not good enough for you. Time is your luxury. You like to be alone because you like to think. As art lovers and readers you will converse with the highest forms of intelligence. You will form your own opinions and your ideas will be the avant garde. Ideas will give you power and you will fire the imagination of your friends. You see through propaganda. Therefore, engage in politics. It is time for you to receive your badges from the noble warrior, Leonard Peltier.

Alice
But Leonard is innocently serving Time.

Leonard Peltier
(It is the spirit of Leonard which now speaks) Art is an imaginative illusion which captures the imagination. State your vows.

Alice
Every time I read a book instead of looking at a magazine, go to the art gallery instead of watching TV, go to the theatre instead of the cinema, I fight for Active Resistance to Propaganda.

Pinocchio
The freedom fighters’ motto is: You get out what you put in.

Leonard pins on their AR badges

Leonard Peltier
Alice and Pinocchio, you are now in the presence of a great secret. Your journey has revealed to you that human beings have a choice. We can cultivate the human genius and build a great civilization on earth. Through art we see the future. It holds up a mirror of our human potential. Or, as victims of our mere cleverness we will remain the destructive animal. Our innovations can contribute to progress, but our humanity is a scientific fact, and must be taken into account for advance to happen, otherwise we have partial science which will kill us.
Indians have not made this mistake, they see the world in its entirety. Our first duty is to love our mother, Earth. Indians know the importance of living in harmony with creation. Men – not gods. The Greeks called human arrogance hubris.

Voice of Icarus
Remember the myth of Icarus. Do not fly too near the sun. Your wings are made of wax.

Light radiates through the patterns in a mandala composed of concentric circles alternating with diminishing squares. The squares represent the organization and knowledge of man and the circles represent the truth and chaos of nature.

Leonard Peltier
Progress lies in the centre of the mandala. Step forward. (In his hand he holds a small convex mirror from which the light is coming.) This is the mirror of true progress.

Alice and Pinocchio look at themselves in the mirror.

Dryad of the Rainforest
I must stay with my trees.

The most important thing about the manifesto is that it is a practice. If you follow it your life will change. In the pursuit of culture you will start to think If you change your life, you change the world.

Wiederabdruck
Das Manifest erschien unter http://activeresistance.co.uk/getalife/Manifesto_ENGLISH.pdf [5.6.2013].

Der Künstler ist abwesend. Die Absenz des Selbstdesigns als höchste Steigerungsform des Selbstdesigns

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:45 +0000

Die tiefe Verzweiflung darüber, dass es heute schier unmöglich sei, Kunst zu erschaffen, die über das ästhetisch-kommerziell definierte Kunstfeld hinausweist, trifft die Künstleridentität ins Mark. Das Kunstfeld erscheint als hermetisch abgeriegelter Raum, als gläserner Kubus. Zur Aussenwelt, zum echten Leben gibt es allenfalls Sichtkontakt. Der Traum von der Kunst als einem autonomen Bereich der geistigen Freiheit, der Traum von der weltverbessernden Wirkung der Kunst, der Traum von einer besonderen ästhetischen Verantwortung des Künstlers für die Gesellschaft – alles ausgeträumt, alles vorbei. Es scheint nur noch die Flucht in bitteren Zynismus oder freudige pseudosubversive Marktbejahung zu bleiben, man ertrinkt im Meer der Ironien und Retromoden.
Kunst trifft heute auf ein hochgradig ästhetisiertes Umfeld: Politik, Wirtschaft, Mode und Wissenschaft – überall werden Atmosphären erzeugt, Bilder und Stimmungen hergestellt, Performances und Inszenierungen zur Aufführung gebracht. Die traditionellen und die digitalen Medien warten mit einer Unmenge an technisch gut aufbereitetem und permanent aktualisiertem Bildmaterial auf. Unter diesen Umständen ist der klassische Typus des individuell arbeitenden Künstlers überflüssig. Seine Ehrenrettung, vielleicht sogar die letzte Möglichkeit, seine Niederlage doch noch in einen späten Sieg zu verwandeln, besteht in der Verweigerung, im Verschwinden.
Sich entziehen, unsichtbar machen, verschwinden – vielleicht ist es gegenwärtig die einzig verbleibende Strategie gegen die Überwucherung der Kunst durch die Kräfte der Politik, des Kapitals, des Marketings und kommerziellen Entertainments. Nachdem alle subversiven Strategien seit den 1960er Jahren gescheitert sind, indem sie doch noch vom Kunstmarkt verdaut wurden (siehe Fluxus, Soziale Plastik, Performance), ist der Tod des Autors, das Verschwinden des Künstlers kunsthistorisch und gegenwärtig in mehreren Varianten und Schweregraden zu beobachten:
Die leichteren Formen sind das Aufgehen im anonymen politischen oder künstlerischen Kollektiv oder die Vermeidung einer persönlichen Signatur im Werk, wie es in der Concept Art üblich wurde. Dramatischer ist bereits die Selbstzerstörung eigener Werke (Michael Landy), erst recht die körperliche Selbstverletzung im Rahmen von Performances (Chris Burden) oder exzessivem Suchtmittelgebrauch (Martin Kippenberger). Bei der persönlichen Werkvernichtung ist es der Künstler selbst, der seinen Arbeiten Gelingen oder Misslingen attestiert, noch bevor die Öffentlichkeit, bevor der Markt dazu die Gelegenheit hat – in der Zerstörung eigener Arbeiten wahrt er auf paradoxe Weise seine Autonomie. Gerne werden in diesem Zusammenhang, um dem Kunstmarkt eine Nase zu drehen, auch verderbliche Materialien verwendet (Dieter Roth). Noch gravierender ist die Einstellung jeglicher künstlerischer Tätigkeit (Lee Lozano), schliesslich gar der physische Tod durch Selbstmord (Jeremy Blake), grobe Fahrlässigkeit (Jackson Pollock) oder sogenannte Drogenunfälle (Jason Rhoades). Der Gipfel wäre in dieser Hinsicht der eigene Tod als künstlerisches Statement – auch das hat es in der Kunstgeschichte bereits gegeben. Da wäre der niederländische Performancekünstler und romantische Konzeptionalist Bas Jan Ader zu nennen, der nach seinem spurlosen Verschwinden auf einer Atlantiküberfahrt im Jahr 1975 zu den Lieblingen intellektueller Kunstbetriebsinsider und aufgeschlossener Sammler zählt. Der verschollene bzw. der tote Künstler geniesst offenbar ein besonders hohes Ansehen – gerade wenn er in Ausübung seines Berufes umgekommen ist –, er ist ein Held der Kunstgeschichte sozusagen, höchst ehrenhaft «gefallen an der Front». Das maximale, das finale Scheitern wird als maximaler Authentizitätsnachweis verstanden.
Doch zum romantischen Heldentod gibt es eine sanfte Alternative: die innere Emigration, der taktische Rückzug, der wohldosierte (und widerrufbare) soziale Suizid. Der sich im Atelier einschliessende Eigenbrötler wurde lange Zeit als einzige authentische Künstlerfigur angesehen, er schien sich um Prestige und Markt nicht zu kümmern. Die Figur des Aussenseiters, Spinners, Freaks erlebte in den letzten Jahren als «Nerd» eine gewisse positive Umdeutung, vor allem im Zusammenhang mit der Publicity, die den «Genies» und Entrepreneurs des Computer- und Internetzeitalters zuteil wurde. Wie die virtuellen Welten für schüchterne und kontaktarme Zeitgenossen zum Eldorado wurden, bot sich auch die Kunst traditionell als Fluchtort menschenscheuer Einzelgänger an. Das Verharren und Schwelgen in einer Innenwelt, die man zudem noch sukzessive ausgestalten und ästhetisch veredeln kann, stellte für manche bereits eine ausreichende Motivation dar, Künstler zu werden. Als Beispiel sei hier erwähnt: Claes Oldenburgs Fantasiewelt «Neubern», ein imaginäres Land, das Oldenburg als Kind erfand (er war aus Schweden in die USA gekommen und sprach zunächst noch kein Englisch). Für Neubern erstellte er zahlreiche Zeichnungen und «Dokumente», bis hin zu detaillierten Ex- und Importlisten. Der für die klassische künstlerische Arbeit existenziell wichtige Aspekt der Innerlichkeit, des Einswerdens mit dem Arbeitsprozess, soll hier aber gar nicht herabgewürdigt werden, im Gegenteil: Die Konzentration auf den experimentellen Umgang mit Material und Technik, der Ausbau selbstkonstruierter Ordnungssysteme, die Fokussierung auf das eigene Körperbewusstsein, auf den Widerstand des Materials, auf die Bewegung der eigenen Hand, auf die Signatur, die lebhafte Visualisierung von inneren Bildern, Stimmungen und Empfindungen in einer eigenen Bildwelt sind elementare Grundlagen jeder künstlerischen Tätigkeit und kommen heutzutage leider meistens viel zu kurz, weil immer mehr Kräfte auf das Selbstdesign verschwendet werden müssen. So werden elementare Erfahrungen des Künstlerdaseins selten, wie etwa die der Flow-Erlebnisse – eine immer wiederkehrende Erlebnislust und Funktionslust im Laufe des Arbeitsprozesses, die vom ständigen Feedback der praktischen Tätigkeit genährt wird und eine gewisse Abgeschiedenheit erfordert. Das Eintauchen in die Innenwelt ist für die Künstleridentität immens wichtig, vielleicht auch als Gegengewicht zum herrschenden Zeitgeist, in dem Selfbranding und Networking die eigentliche schöpferische Tätigkeit zu überwuchern drohen.
Während der extrovertierte Künstlertypus bzw. frei nach Groys der extrovertierte «Künstlerselbstdesigner» den Mechanismen des gegenwärtigen Kunstbetriebs optimal entspricht, ist der nach innen gewandte, kontaktvermeidende Künstler offenbar eher ein Rollenmodell des 19. und des 20. Jahrhunderts. So wurde damals sogar ein gewisses Quantum Autismus als Erfolgsbedingung in der Kunst angesehen. Der österreichische Kinderarzt Hans Asperger, der in den 1940er Jahren Studien über Kinder mit autistischen Störungen publizierte, hielt dazu fest: «Es hat den Anschein, dass man, um in der Wissenschaft oder in der Kunst Erfolg zu haben, einen Schuss Autismus haben muss. Zum Erfolg gehört notwendigerweise die Fähigkeit, sich von der Alltagswelt, von den einfachen, praktischen Dingen abzuwenden, die Fähigkeit, ein Thema mit Originalität zu überdenken, um etwas auf neuen, unberührten Wegen zu erschaffen und alle Begabungen in dieses eine Spezialgebiet zu lenken.» Diese Meinung ist (oftmals allerdings nur im umgangssprachlichen Sinne) auch heute noch durchaus populär, auch unter Kulturschaffenden. So verkündete beispielsweise Matthias Hartmann, Intendant des Wiener Burgtheaters, apodiktisch: «Kunst ist Autismus.» Ohne Zweifel weisen einige (wenige) Autisten, vor allem leichtere Fälle mit dem sogenannten Aspergersyndrom, faszinierende Inselbegabungen und Sonderinteressen auf, etwa in den Bereichen der Musik, Mathematik und des Zeichnens. Eine Reihe von Prominenten, die durch aussergewöhnliche geistige Leistungen bekannt wurden, ist durch populärwissenschaftliche Literatur in Verbindung mit dem Aspergersyndrom gebracht worden, so etwa Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Ludwig Wittgenstein oder auch Künstler wie Adolph von Menzel, Vincent van Gogh, Andy Warhol. Populäre Fernsehsendungen wie die US-Serie «Big Bang Theory» trugen sicherlich ebenso zum Hochbegabungs-Hype bei. Inzwischen ist das Aspergersyndrom allerdings unter Psychiatern umstritten, da es offenbar in den letzten Jahren zur Modediagnose geworden ist und die Assoziation mit der insulären Hochbegabung bei Betroffenen und Angehörigen zu einem zweifelhaften psychosozialen «Krankheitsgewinn» geführt hat.
So wurde die Simulation einer psychischen Ausnahmeerscheinung, die Simulation von Aussenseitertum und psychischer Labilität bereits ihrerseits zum wohlkalkulierten Selbstdesign, was sich auch in der Kunstszene bemerkbar macht: Galeristen raten ihren Künstlern, sich rar zu machen, auf Vernissagen lässt man sich tunlichst nicht mehr blicken, Einblicke ins Atelier werden Presse und Sammlern gar nicht oder nur sehr selektiv gewährt, und man arbeitet intensiv am Bild des Künstlers, der der Öffentlichkeit als «schwierig», «eigen» und «verschlossen» präsentiert wird. Wir lernen: Die Abwesenheit des Selbstdesigns zählt nun ebenfalls zu den Optionen des Selbstdesigns. Der kompromisslose Eigenbrötler an der Grenze zum Autismus als letzter Künstlertypus, der sich scheinbar nicht um Selbstdesign kümmert, der scheinbar keine Fassade nötig hat – er ist selbst reine Fassade, ist selbst Produkt umfangreicher Massnahmen eines Impressionsmanagements durch interessierte Händler, Sammler, Agenten und Journalisten geworden. Als Paradebeispiel dafür mag ein Phänomen wie Jonathan Meese gelten, dessen steiler Aufstieg zum beliebten «Grosskünstler» ohne seine publikumswirksamen Verschrobenheiten kaum nachvollziehbar wäre. In diesem Sinne lässt sich das süss-saure Fazit ziehen: Der Künstler ist abwesend – Bühne frei für den Künstlerdarsteller!

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Schweizer Monat, Nr.1006, Mai 2013, S. 93–95.

POSTIRONIE. Zur Kunst nach der Ironie

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:40 +0000

Postirony, the whole new era to come. And if I’m right, everybody wins.

Alex Shakar, 2001

Post-Irony means total imaginative and creative freedom.

Com&Com, 2008

Die Zeit der Ironie ist abgelaufen. Wir sind müde geworden, ständig mit den Augen zu zwinkern, kunstvoll zu zweifeln und alles im zweiten Grad und höher zu dekonstruieren. Nach einem letzten ironischen Höhepunkt als spöttisches Schwert der Postmoderne steht eine ironische Haltung heute dafür, Wahrheiten zu verschleiern, Problemen aus dem Weg zu gehen und jeden Schwachsinn damit zu rechtfertigen, dass es ja nicht ernst gemeint sei. Die Ironie verkommt zu einer Art Haftungsausschluss oder Fluchtmanöver vor jeder denkbaren Verantwortung. Viele Menschen wollen heute aber wieder ungebrochen und geradlinig durchs Leben gehen, die Dinge sehen, wie sie sind. Man lässt wieder Nähe und Emotionalität zu, übernimmt Verantwortung. Mit dem distanzierenden Gestus der Ironie ist dies nicht mehr ernsthaft machbar.

Von der Ironie zur Postironie
Bereits in den 1990er Jahren kündigten sich verschiedene Ansätze einer möglichen Nach-Ironie an; so zum Beispiel 1993 in David Foster Wallaces Essay E Unibus Pluram, in dem er die postmoderne Literatur mit der US-Fernsehindustrie verglich. Beide hätten sich mittels selbstbezüglicher Ironie der Angreifbarkeit entzogen, denn wer sich über sich selbst lustig macht, könne nicht mehr ins Lächerliche gezogen werden: „Die Ironie tyrannisiert uns. Sie ist ebenso mächtig wie unbefriedigend geworden, weil sie sich stets alle Optionen offen hält.“ Ausgerechnet der postmoderne Vollblutironiker Wallace träumte schon vor fast 20 Jahren von einer möglichen neuen Kultur des Post-Ironischen: „Die nächsten wirklichen literarischen ‚Rebellen‘ in diesem Land könnten als ein komischer Haufen von Anti-Rebellen auftreten, geborene Schaulustige, die sich erdreisten, vom ironischen Blick Abstand zu nehmen, und die kindliche Frechheit besitzen, unzweideutige Prinzipien gutzuheißen und auch umzusetzen. Die einfachen, uralten und vollkommen unmodischen menschlichen Schwierigkeiten und Gefühle mit Ehrfurcht und der Kraft der Überzeugung behandeln.“¹
Als weitere Position sei Jedediah Purdys 1999 erschienenes Buch For Common Things: Irony, Trust, and Commitment in America Today² erwähnt. Purdys Plädoyer für eine Repolitisierung der Öffentlichkeit wurde stark beachtet und ebenso oft als naiv gescholten. Es wurde als Generalangriff auf die ironische Kultur der USA gelesen, die den Rückzug aus der Öffentlichkeit zugunsten eines verantwortungslosen, allein individuell geführten Lebens fördere. Purdy kritisiert, dass wir eine Form von Ironie praktizierten, „die beharrlich jene Eigenschaften beargwöhnt, welche uns einen Mitmenschen ernst nehmen lassen: Integrität einer Persönlichkeit, Redlichkeit der Beweggründe. Wir hüten uns vor der Hoffnung, weil wir kaum sehen, was sie begründen könnte. An nichts wirklich zu glauben, besonders nicht an Menschen, erfüllt uns mit einem unbestimmten Stolz, und Überzeugungen zu haben, kann peinlich naiv wirken.“³
Während Foster Wallaces Essay im Grundton noch ironisch eingefärbt und uneigentlich bleibt, schreibt Purdy bereits eigentlich. Ohne doppelten Boden fordert er eine Art Rückkehr zur moralischen Integrität des Individuums, zu sozialer Verantwortung und gelebtem Umweltbewusstsein. Purdy formuliert Hoffnungen und geht damit das Risiko ein, dass diese enttäuscht werden und er als Autor als Spaßbremse da steht.
Der Terminus der ‚Postironie‘ wurde zwei Jahre später erstmals eingeführt von einem weiteren, ebenfalls aus den Vereinigten Staaten stammenden Autor. Alex Shakars im Trendscout- und Werbemilieu angesiedelter Debüt-Roman The Savage Girl (2001)⁴ bringt zwei interessante Kerngedanken hervor: die ‚Paradessenz‘ (jedem zu verkaufenden Produkt soll eine paradoxe Essenz inne wohnen, die zwei Dinge vereint, nach denen der Konsument sich sehnt) und eben die ‚Postironie‘, die hier als dritte Phase der Konsumgesellschaft (nach der präironischen Phase der 1950er und der ironischen der 1980er und 1990er Jahre) erklärt wird. Die Ironie sei inzwischen zum zentralen Stilmittel der Werbung degeneriert und habe so ihre oppositionelle Kraft verloren. Durch „ironischen Ernst“ („Postirony is ironic earnestness“⁵) könne aber der Lähmung durch den allgegenwärtigen Zweifel begegnet werden. Nicht nur wird das Phänomen des Zweifelns über Zweifel zum Zeitalter der Postironie extrapoliert, die Postironie selbst wird gar als neuer Trend und Marketingstrategie propagiert: „Postirony, the whole new era to come. And if I‘m right, everybody wins.“⁶
Wie schnell diese neue postironische Ära Wirklichkeit werden sollte, konnten weder Foster Wallace, Purdy noch Shakar voraussehen: Shakars Buch kam just an dem Tag auf den Markt⁷, als in New York die Türme einstürzten, und nichts mehr war wie zuvor. Nicht nur in den Vereinigten Staaten wurde unmittelbar nach den Terroranschlägen das endgültige „Ende der Ironie“⁸ ausgerufen.

Was ist Postironie?
Wikipedia bezeichnet den Begriff als „differenzierte Haltung zur Figur der Ironie. Analog zur Dekonstruktion der ‚großen Erzählungen‘ […] der Moderne im Zuge postmoderner Diskurse, […] setzt sich die Form der Postironie kritisch mit den Implikationen eines relativierten Wahrheitsbegriffes auseinander.“ Postironie sei weder als Ruf nach prä-ironischer Einfachheit, noch als strikte Anti-Ironie mißzuverstehen, vielmehr sei sie als sinnstiftende Empfehlung zu begreifen. Sie ist „eine verantwortungsbewusste Haltung, die Ironie ernst nimmt und diese unter den Bedingungen der Gegenwart wieder produktiv zu nutzen verspricht.“⁹ Eine ähnliche Lesart schlägt Sebastian Plönges in seinem Essay „Postironie als Entfaltung“ vor, die weder den Postironiker ironisiert noch die großen Erzählungen von Vernunft, Wahrheit, Geschichte, Fortschritt oder Kunst reanimieren muss: „Das Problem, auf das die Postironie eine Antwort sein könnte, hört auf ein Problem zu sein, sobald man produktiv mit Paradoxien umzugehen lernt.“ Das Aushalten von Kontingenzen sei die Stärke des Postironikers, „der somit eine freie und produktive Option zur Entfaltung der Ironie-Paradoxie anbietet. Er setzt alles auf eine Seite (ohne zu leugnen, eine Wahl gehabt zu haben), er markiert seinen Präferenzwert, und das alles ist ihm nicht peinlich: Er trifft eine Unterscheidung und übernimmt die Verantwortung dafür.“¹⁰ Postironie ist also eine Haltung, ein Statement, eine Positionierung.

Postironie und Kunst
In den Diskurs der Bildenden Kunst wurde der Terminus der Postironie Ende 2008 durch das Schweizer Künstlerduo Com&Com eingeführt. Mit dem first postironic Manifesto,¹¹ propagierte Com&Com die Postironie als neue Vorstellungs- und Gestaltungsfreiheit und rief in bunten Farben zur Wiederentdeckung der Schönheit, Huldigung des Authentischen und zur Feier der Kreativität und Einzigartigkeit auf. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass Com&Com bisher mit satirisch-ironischen Videos, Installationen und Aktionen bekannt wurde, ist die anfängliche Skepsis nachvollziehbar. Das Manifest wurde teils als ein „rhetorisches Manöver und ironische Reaktion auf die faktische Instituierung der Postironie“ verstanden.¹² Denn wenn die Ironie erst mal im Spiel ist, wird man sie kaum wieder los. Dass die beiden Schweizer es aber ernst meinen, zeigen sowohl ihre künstlerischen Arbeiten der letzten fünf Jahre, wie auch die begleitenden Vermittlungs- und Unterrichtsprojekte an den Universitäten von Köln, Hamburg und an der Zürcher Hochschule der Künste.¹³
Rund zwei Jahre später zeigte das Museum Morsbroich in Leverkusen 2010 mit der Gruppenausstellung Neues Rheinland. Die postironische Generation¹⁴ postironische Tendenzen in der deutschen Gegenwartskunst. Versammelt wurden rund 30 jüngere Positionen, die sich durch eine nachironische Haltung auszeichnen und eine „neue Hinwendung zu Ernsthaftigkeit, Engagement und Humor“ entwickelten.¹⁵ Die Co-Kuratorin der Ausstellung, Stefanie Kreuzer, sieht in der postironischen Kunst mit ihren künstlerischen Mitteln und Methoden wie Parodie, Zitat, Sampling, Fiktion und eben Ironie eine Abkehr vom Kunstbegriff der 1980er Jahre. „Hatte die Ironie in der Moderne und verstärkt in der Postmoderne das Problem von der Welt hin zum Diskurs, zu den Zeichen verschoben, so kehrt sich die Blickrichtung nun um.“¹⁶ Demnach bildet die Orientierung am Menschen das zentrale Moment dieser aktuellen Kunstproduktion. Körperlichkeit, Handgemachtes und innere Konstruktion sind also die Themen der Stunde. Beobachtungen, die auch die Kunsthistorikerin Noemi Smolik unterstützt: „Kneten und Formen, Zeichnen und Malen, Schneiden, Kleben und Binden kommen verstärkt vor. Keramik, diese verpönte Technik, haben plötzlich viele Künstler für sich entdeckt.“¹⁷ Kurator Markus Heinzelmann meint im Vorwort: „Es gehört Mut dazu, das Material wieder ernst zu nehmen und scheinbar altmodische Materialien wie die Keramik wieder auszuprobieren, Scherenschnitte anzufertigen, die Pigmente für seine Farben selbst auszugraben und anzumischen oder einen Song von Udo Jürgens in seinen Filmen einzubauen – und das nicht ironisch zu meinen.“¹⁸
Aber wirkt der Rekurs auf soviel ehrliches Handwerk und althergebrachte Technik nicht vielleicht selbst etwas hausbacken und abgestanden? Wo bleibt der aktuelle Bezug zur Politik und zum Leben von Heute, der der Postironie auch inne wohnt? Die Auswahl der in Leverkusen gezeigten Arbeiten lässt vermuten, die Kuratoren setzten Postironie mit neuer Innerlichkeit gleich. Die Künstlerin Alexandra Bircken zeigte einen Quilt, Jan Albers verlegte Rohre, Ulrike Möschel hängte eine weiße Kinderschaukel an einem seidenen Faden auf und in der Videoskulptur von Eli Cortiñas sang Judy Garland treffend: „There‘s no place like home“. Der Kritiker Michael Kohler summiert im Art Kunstmagazin denn auch nachvollziehbar: „Während die Welt gerade Kapriolen schlägt, dominieren Heim und Handwerk die Kunst: Das klingt beinahe nach der guten alten Biedermeierzeit.“¹⁹
Der Kunstkritiker Jörg Heiser steckt in seinem Katalogbeitrag den Begriff der Postironie etwas breiter ab und sieht erste Vorläufer bereits in der amerikanischen Camp-Bewegung („Camp ist Postironie avant la lettre“). Für Heiser ist Postironie nicht mehr etwas Komisches, das um einen ernst gemeinten Kern kreise, „sondern etwas zutiefst Ernstes, das den Beigeschmack zulässt, dass es auch lustig gemeint sein könnte.“ In der Postironie gehe es um die gesellschaftliche Durchsetzung eines „dialektischen Verständnisses davon, was ‚echt‘ und was ‚künstlich‘, was authentisch und was ironisch in der gegenwärtigen Überlagerung von Medienwirklichkeiten heißt.“²⁰ Doch mindestens solange dem „Post-“ weiterhin die „Ironie“ anhängt (und nicht etwa durch ein neues künstlerisches Konzept ersetzt wird), muss eine Unterscheidung über die erwähnte Dialektik hinaus führen: Postironie ist eine Haltung, die es nicht mehr nötig hat, sich an der Unterscheidung von echt/künstlich abzuarbeiten, egal ob ernst oder ironisch.

Postironisches Manifest
Das bereits erwähnte Schweizer Künstlerduo Com&Com wurde 1997 in St. Gallen von Marcus Gossolt und Johannes M. Hedinger als fiktive Firma („commercial communication“) gegründet, mit dem zunächst einmaligen Ziel, eine Kaffeefahrt rund um den Bodensee zu veranstalten. Aus diesem temporären Appropriations- und Sozialkunstexperiment wurden 15 Jahre der künstlerischen Praxis, in denen Com&Com sich und ihren Kunstbegriff mehrfach neu erfanden. Nach teils komplexen Kommunikations- und Strategieprojekten der Gründerjahre, die neben Techniken wie Sampling, Fake und Provokation auf das alles verbindende Gleitmittel Ironie setzten (C-Files: Tell Saga [2000],²¹ Mocmoc [2003–2008],²² Gugusdada [2004–2011]²³), begann ab ca. 2006 eine Phase der Umorientierung und ein umfassendes Rebranding auch der künstlerischen Ausrichtung, das in der Ausrufung des postironischen Manifestes Ende 2008 gipfelte²⁴:
1. Wir leben im postironischen Zeitalter. Ironischer Zweifel ist nur noch zur Lebensart erhobene Unzufriedenheit.
2. Wir beginnen das Verfahren des Zweifelns anzuzweifeln.
3. Wahrheiten sind nicht länger unbedingt, sondern vorübergehend, wie es dem augenblicklichen Zweck gerade dienlich ist.
4. Die Welt ist mehr als sie ist.
5. Das Alltägliche dient als Versuchsgelände für den menschlichen Geist.
6. Alles ist erfüllt von Zauber und Schönheit.
7. Schönheit kann uns dazu anregen, bessere Menschen zu werden.
8. Aus Schönheit kann Liebe erwachsen.
9. Aus der Liebe folgen Wahrheiten.
10. Wir stehen an der Schwelle zu einer wunderbaren Sache: vor der Wiedergeburt unserer Selbsterschaffung. Postironie meint völlige Vorstellungs- und Gestaltungsfreiheit.

‚Postironic Turn‘
Die postironische Neuausrichtung manifestiert sich seit 2009 im gesamten künstlerischen Output von Com&Com. Nachdem sich die Künstler jahrelang hinter dem Werk und der kollektiven, industriellen und digitalen Produktion verbargen, nahmen sie nun wieder selbst den Stift, den Pinsel oder das Messer in die Hand und traten wieder live vor Publikum auf. Zudem wurde das Interesse für Natur (vgl. Baum (seit 2010)²⁵), Volkskulturen und Traditionen in der eigenen und in anderen Kulturen (vgl. Bloch (seit 2011)²⁶) wach. Damit wurden weitere Forderungen des Manifestes eingelöst. Heute versteht Com&Com Postironie als das Zulassen von Emotionen sowie Mut zum Pathos und großen Gefühlen, als eine staunende Betrachtung des Realen, des Einfachen und des Zaubers im Alltag.
Postironie ist die Feier des Lebens, der Natur und der Schönheit. Postironie meint aber auch Gastfreundschaft und Verantwortung in der Kunst, sie schafft künstlerische Communities und setzt kritische Debatten in Gang. Postironie ist der grenzüberschreitende Dialog zwischen Menschen aus verschiedenen Kulturen und verbindet lokale und globale Perspektiven miteinander.
Die Postironie lässt sich auch nicht nur als Neuausrichtung eines gewandelten Kunstverständnis einer einzelnen Position (Com&Com) sehen. Ähnliche Denkweisen und Parallelen lassen sich mehrfach innerhalb der Post-9/11-Kunst und in der zeitgenössischen Kunst seit Beginn der Finanzkrise beobachten. Womöglich ließe sich gar von einem Paradigmenwechsel und „postironic turn“ sprechen.

Post-Post-Ironie
Und bevor jemand fragt „what’s next?“: Ich weiß es auch nicht. Gut möglich, dass die Postironie schon bald einen anderen Namen trägt. Welchen, ist gar nicht so entscheidend, solange dabei Kunst entsteht, die etwas bewirkt. Was von der Postironie jedoch mit Sicherheit bleiben wird, ist die Hoffnung auf Wandel und auf eine bessere Welt, frei von Sarkasmus und Zynismus. Damit verbunden ist die Einladung, das reiche Leben und dessen Schönheiten und Wahrheiten zu entdecken, in dem man neugierig ist, auf einander zugeht und gemeinsam nach kreativen Lösungen sucht. Und was ebenfalls bleibt, ist die Haltung, Fragen und Probleme frontal anzugehen, Verantwortung zu übernehmen, den Mut zur Utopie und zu schönen Ideen zu haben und keine Angst vor Scheitern, Peinlichkeiten und großen Gefühlen. – Denn dann gewinnt am Ende wirklich jeder.²⁷

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien erstmals in abgeänderter Form in: Kunstforum International Bd. 213: „Ironie“, Ruppichteroth, 2012, S. 112–125.
1.) David Forster Wallace, „E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction“, in: The Review of Contemporary Fiction, 13, Champaign 1993, S. 151.
2.) Jedediah Purdy, Das Elend der Ironie, Hamburg 2002.
3.) Ebd., S. 83.
4.) Alex Shakar, Der letzte Schrei, Hamburg 2002
5.) Alex Shakar, The Savage Girl, New York: Harper 2001, S. 140.
6.) Ebd., S. 124.
7.) www.themillions.com/2011/07/the-year-of-wonders.html (abgerufen am 30.7.2011).
8.) Vgl. z. B. Roger Rosenblatt: „The Age of Irony Comes To An End“, in: Time Magazin, 16.9.2001.
9.) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postironie (abgerufen am 30.7.2011).
10.) Sebastian Plönges, „Postironie als Entfaltung“, in: Torsten Meyer, Wey-Han Tan, Christina Schwalbe, Ralf Appelt (Hrsg.): Medien und Bildung. Institutionelle Kontexte und kultureller Wandel, Wiesbaden 2011, S. 438–446.
11.) www.postirony.com
12.) Jörg Heiser, „Im Ernst – von polemischer Ironie zur postironischer Vernetzung in der Kunst des Rheinlands und überhaupt“, in: Heinzelmann/Kreuzer (Hrsg.), Neues Rheinland. Die postironische Generation, Ausstellungskatalog des Museums Morsbroich, Berlin, 2010, S. 19.
13.) Der seit 2009 bestehende Blog auf www.postirony.com brachte neben einer umfangreichen Materialsammlung zu postironischen Tendenzen in den Künsten auch weitere Definitionsversuche hervor.
14.) Vgl. Markus Heinzelmann/Stefanie Kreuzer (Hrsg.), Neues Rheinland. Die postironische Generation, Ausst.-Kat. Museum Morsbroich, Leverkusen, Berlin, 2010.
15.) Pressetext auf: www.museum-morsbroich.de/ (abgerufen: 30.7.2011).
16.) Stefanie Kreuzer, „Gegenrede – Ironie“, in: Heinzelmann/Kreuzer (Hrsg.), S. 43ff.
17.) Noemi Smolik, „Ein Manifest für politisch wirksame Kunst“, in: Heinzelmann/Kreuzer (Hrsg.), S. 35f.
18.) Markus Heinzelmann, „Vorwort“, in: Heinzelmann/Kreuzer (Hrsg.), S. 7.
19.) Michael Kohler, „Totes Heim, Glück allein“, in: www.art-magazin.de/kunst/35806/neues_rheinland_leverkusen (abgerufen am 30.7.2011).
20.) Jörg Heiser, „Im Ernst – von polemischer Ironie zur postironischen Vernetzung in der Kunst des Rheinlands und überhaupt“, in: Heinzelmann/Kreuzer (Hrsg.), S. 19.
21.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDdjRZlxGpE.
22.) www.mocmoc.ch; www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3_SNlWx-NA.
23.) www.gugusdada.net; www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlxCBenCDns.
24.) Vgl. auch englische Originalfassung unter www.postirony.com
25.) www.com-com.ch/de/archive/detail/10
26.) www.bloch23781.com
27.) vgl. das Eingangszitat von Alex Shakar: „Postirony, the whole new era to come. And if I’m right, everybody wins.“ (2001), in: Der letzte Schrei, Hamburg 2002.

What’s Next? Translating Time, Transforming Objects in the Conservation of Multimedia

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:40 +0000

Identifying the Question
The question of “what’s next?” has temporal underpinnings. It pertains to time and how we engage with this concept. “What then is time? If no one asks of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not” confesses Saint Augustine in the eleventh of thirteen books he wrote in the fourth century titled Confessions.¹To be sure, time is one of the most mysterious aspects of the world we live in. Thinkers have been struggling with questioning the nature of time for centuries, yet the ultimate theory of time still seems to be lacking. With the end of modernism and confronted with the lack of perspective for the new beginnings, thinking about time was allegedly ignored and went out of focus in everything other than secondary literature.² “In a sense, it is always too late to talk about time,” posited French philosopher Jacques Derrida.³ Korean video artist Nam June Paik, in turn, having acquired a vast number of books devoted to the topic of time, realised that he had absolutely no time to read them.
And although the aim of this short digression is not to be a continuation of a major philosophical debate on the nature of time, it is worth trying to realise where we stand. Facing the impossibility of extricating ourselves from the linear structures and the inheritance of the clock-time discipline of capitalist modernity, we may find ourselves, not surprisingly, in a temporal limbo.

The Question’s Relation to Conservation
What especially interests me in this regard, and what I wish to convey in the following is that in the conservation of both the most recent and older art – a discipline that is most proximate to my professional background as conservator – the aspects of time have not been scrutinised sufficiently.⁴ The sequential, chronological experience resulted in the understanding of time merely as a method of its measurement, time of clocks, machines, industry and labour. Yet, while critical theory, philosophy and art practice have long been engaged with anachronistic and heterochronic interpretations of history – the belated and the put-of-synch, seriality and repetition to name but a few⁵ – conservation remained attached to the linear patterns. How can we, then, understand and care for art that is con-temporary and that in many ways incorporates and/or processes time through and by means of its media?⁶ Can we intellectually retreat from our attempt to rethink time in conservation?
Asking “what’s next” thus imposes on those conceptualising conservation a profound engagement with the aspects of time that goes beyond the methods of its measurement and observation of cyclicality in nature. The “next” would signify a turn towards the understanding of time in what we conserve and in how we perform conservation. It is, all in all, time to think about time in conservation – a challenge that this essay will attempt to introduce.

Locating the Crisis
Now that the main problem has been formulated and the direction of what follows has become clear, there still remains a question of what, in the field of conservation, could be identified as a crisis. A crisis, which – perhaps implicitly – is one of the crucial thoughts that lies at the conception of this volume, signifies a certain situation that negatively affects those involved and often indicates that the system in question is functioning poorly.
It may be said that conservation’s crisis occurred with the realisation that traditional conservation principles and doctrines cannot be applied to the dynamic, evolving, changeable artworks that commenced being created in the middle of last century. Much of these media were conceived during the 1960s and 1970s, marked by social, cultural and political transformations. During the heyday of Fluxus, and the rise of new forms of artistic expression, technology-based media, conceptual art and performance, possibilities emerged for artworks to be re-performed, reproduced, repeated, recorded and replayed. This not only introduced a new temporal awareness, but also the necessity to develop new attitudes in conservation and, equally, a new way of thinking about the “conservation object.“
Before this, as an inheritance of the Enlightenment, and coming with it the belief in the objectivity of scientific analysis, the assumption that an artwork may be stabilised in one specific condition was wide-spread.⁷ Artworks became static in their attempt to arrest change; the notion of the “original object” being, at times, in an “original condition” was widely established. This reflected the idea of the conservation of artworks as related to the museums’ mandate to safeguard works in their custody, which leant on a certain kind of ontological assumption about their permanence. Conservation, so it seemed, was preoccupied with the material preservation of the “past” for the “future.” Conversely, it was precisely that apparent connection with the past that valorised the heritage in the numerous discussions on authenticity.
Yet in a vast number of artworks created in the second half of last century up to the present day, their “objectification” signalises a reduction to a particular material “state” or “condition” discernable by observation, measurement and analysis. Clearly, the scientific analysis is of great importance; however, if considered alone, it is insufficient in the quest for understanding the ontology of works of art with which we engage.
Artworks, rather than being “objects” are products of humans and their culture; they are dynamic entities, the materiality of which can only be defined in an entangled network of relations and under the consideration of social and temporal structures.⁸ In grasping the nature of artworks and their networks, the more recent conservation theories strive to convey this shift.⁹

The Problem With the “Object”
Interestingly, the establishment of a “conservation object” and its reduction to a specific condition that is anchored in a certain moment in time reactivates the temporal problem. For instance, if an artwork, say, a multimedia installation, occurred in a different shape during various re-exhibition procedures, while designing strategies for its future shape, conservation tends to select a singular “condition” or “instance” that is extracted from its trajectory. Such a condition is often referred to as “original” or “authentic.” Importantly, it lies (remotely) in the past, often close to a work’s conception and/or first realisation. I believe that this connection to an earlier instance derives from conservation’s understanding of time in terms of its measurement on a chronological timeline and the observations of the linearity of decay and alteration. But how could this have become a non-plus-ultra, a definitive concept?
Let us, for a moment, reflect on how time became linear.

Thinking Time
There is no universal definition of time; attitudes towards the understanding of time occupied thinkers of different persuasions over centuries and resulted in a variety of approaches. Today, too, we find ourselves facing the unsolved and ubiquitous paradigm of time. What do we think when we think of “time”? In the words of Hans Castorp, the main protagonist in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain:
“… What is time? – Now is not then, here is not there – for in both cases motion lies in between. But since we measure time by a circular motion closed in on itself, we could just as easily say that its motion and change are rest and stagnation – for the then is constantly repeated in the now, the there in the here …”.¹⁰Time occurs within a range of various intensities and velocities while reading an interesting book or watching a play; it may turn into a painful expectation when we wait for someone or something that we long for, a lover or beloved, an important message or delayed train.

Time as a Method of its Measurement
The omnipresence of the common sense definition of time as a method of its measurement – a clock – was first introduced at the end of the thirteenth century. This also marks the inception of modern homogenous time, which replaced traditional methods of time measurement based on unequal intervals calculated by the length of daylight. Mechanical clock time was initially applied in monastic life and belonged to God. Early clocks were able to remind the monk of his obligation to announce the hours; the towers became houses for clocks and all announcements of religious festivities, warnings of danger and marking the beginning and end of the working day. French philosopher Michel Foucault saw in the religious orders the establishment of discipline and a chronological way of thinking that was linked with the application of timetable.¹¹It was only later that the clock entered secular life to announce the hours from the town hall’s tower and to regulate work in the textile towns of Flanders and Northern France.¹² It is striking that, until the sixteenth century, clock time remained a European phenomenon and was perceived in China merely as a curiosity, despite the long-standing Chinese tradition of mechanical water clocks. The modern science and refinement of the theory of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) confirmed time as a linear entity and its tightness to irreversible direction. Time became regulated with the appearance of the railway and telegraph, and was soon standardised. In 1884, during the International Meridian Conference in Washington, the world changed to twenty-four hour time with Greenwich as the zero meridian, and the first regulating time signal was emitted from the Eiffel tower in Paris in 1914. This division was only stable until the appearance of the global electronic network. The rise of capitalism and the expanding economy that tied the attachment of the employee and employer to clock time was manifest in the control over the cycles of labour and leisure. It was philosopher, economist and sociologist Karl Marx who delineated the exact measure of time as a value in capitalistic society. This standardised time led to the rise of ethical problems related to cultural and racial difference according to a linear, developmental notion of progress and amplified by the colonial imperative to conquer other than own time and space. This modern time consciousness, according to the media theorist Bliss Cua Lim, became gradually natural and incontrovertible – a sort of ready-made temporality – and obscured the plurality of our existence in time.¹³

Conservation’s Clock Time
It occurs to me that in conservation, as an Aristotelian inheritance of linearity, we have too easily accepted this ready-made temporality manifest in mechanical follow up of instances in the manner of replacement rather than organic continuity. Although, admittedly, the temporal irreversibility of decay and alteration (leading to entropy) implies a certain type of linearity, this concept is not sufficient to encompass the complexity of the existence of artworks in time.
The concept of reversibility, for instance – a much contested conservation theorem that, for a considerable time, was one of the main rules in conservation – presumes that a process or treatment can be reversed. It also somewhat approximates the idea of the return to an earlier condition of an artwork reflected in the term of re-storation, which, from an etymological point of view, already involves the notion of “redoing.”¹⁴Paradoxically, the return to the “ideal” or “original condition” contradicts the linear progress of time. It is precisely the impossibility of the return to the original condition that the very idea of reversibility is based on. Why would we wish to return to something, if we have not lost it already, as in Origen’s Garden of Eden?¹⁵ So this understanding of time as linear, in various attempts to restore an object, in other words, is predicated on the notion of reversibility, which does not change the fact of its misinterpretation (as one cannot turn back entropy).
“World-withdrawal and world-decay can never be undone” – contends German philosopher Martin Heidegger.¹⁶ “The works are no longer the same as they once were. It is they themselves, to be sure, that we encounter there, but they themselves are gone by.”¹⁷ This could be understood as a reference not only to time, but also to the “world.” Even if we could restore the object to its original condition (which is not possible, as I have argued), we would not be able to restore its world, so it will always be different from “how” (rather than “what”) it was. This also signalises an attempt to impose our own concept of timelessness¹⁸ and uniqueness of a temporal context, in which artworks are accessed.

Multimedia and Beyond
Although this critique can be applied to many art forms, both traditional and non-traditional, I will narrow its scope to multimedia installations.
Multimedia installations are heterogeneous, compound entities created from a range of materials and elements rather than in a singular medium. Due to their characteristics, they introduce aspects of dispersal and reassembly following the repeated cycles of their materialisation. These works, unlike traditional painting or sculpture, do not exist in an assembled form beyond the duration of an exhibition or a technical test-run. The ontological shift between the appearance and disappearance, a series of iterations characterised by the potentiality for change occurring throughout their lifespan, places them in a discursive realm of authenticity. This realm leans on the presence of the material evidence on the one hand (physical, performative object) and, on the other, the possibility of an authentic experience created in the course of the artwork’s re-performances with entirely or partially new components under the exclusion of its material origins (performed work). In museums, it also causes tension with regard to the aforementioned ontological assumption about permanence of artefacts.

Changeability
One of the main characteristics of multimedia works of art is changeability. Encompassing extrinsic and intrinsic change, and independently of its desirability and the questions of judgement (good or bad), changeability goes beyond any reference to some kind of a mean value and may involve a fundamental change as a historical practice. Changeability places an artwork in a universe of the already realised but also potential transformations. The key to understanding these transformations lies, I believe, in offering a conception of time that is different than the conventional, sequential one and that may supplement the certain linearity of decay and ageing.

Towards Alternative Conceptions of Time
In response to these new characteristics introduced by multimedia, in what follows, I propose supplementing the temporal irreversibility of decay and alteration with an alternative conception of time. I suggest that the key to the acknowledgement of changeability of multimedia works of art expressed in the variety of their instantiations lies in the recognition of the temporal equivalence of the plurality of their occurrences.
The privileging of one instance over another and thus freezing of a changeable artwork in the gesture of its conservation that accords with the conventions of a particular epoch and its ruling set of values reflects the understanding of time as progress, as succession from one point to another. Here, progress may be understood in a twofold manner: as the progress of time that enables the conservator to employ the newest technological and scientifically informed methods to obtain the preferred result, but also – and relevant for this argument – the progress from the “then” as the object’s “most precious” and “original” state to its changed reality. To be sure, instead of turning back to an object’s assumed state that has been but is no more, restoration/conservation is adding new values that result in manufacturing historicity and is actually producing something new.¹⁹

Bergsonian Duration as a Survival of the Past
To fully understand the durational character of artworks and acknowledge the continuity of change that they undergo, it occurs to me that the conception of time as durée of the French philosopher Henri Bergson’s (1859–1941) may be helpful. The Bergsonian conception is but first of all a critique of time of natural sciences conceived on the basis of specialised, fragmented time. Rather, it is the movement of time itself, the permanent, unstoppable changing of things. The concept of duration rests on the idea of there being a present involving a past and the anticipation of a future – an idea that I propose applying to the understanding of time in conservation that contradicts the fragmentation of an object’s identity into externally related moments.
Although my argument is based mainly on Bergsonian theory, it is difficult today to think about Bergson without including his most significant interpreter, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. In fact, Bergsonism as I understand it, is, nowadays, barely separable from Deleuze’s contribution.²⁰ In his book Bergsonism (1961), Deleuze provides us with a comprehensive insight into Bergson’s method, including his own ideas about the ontology of things. One insight is Deleuze’s assumption that “things must, of necessity, endure in their own way,” which reconfirms Bergson’s assertion that “…we do not endure alone, external objects, it seems, endure as we do.” This is based on Bergson’s argument that duration was from the start defined as multiplicity, and qualities exist in things no less than they do in consciousness.²¹ Bergson’s assumption of duration outside the “self” elaborated by Deleuze introduces a dimension that may have further consequences for the “object of conservation.” One possible way of its interpretation may suggest a horizon of time not only inherent to the subject (psychological time), but a time that enables objects and artworks to have their own duration. Artworks will thus cease to be “screens that denature duration,” a form of exteriority as it were, and will become temporal multiplicities on their own.
Bergsonian visualisation of the idea of the contemporaneity of the past in the form of a cone metaphor may be helpful for rethinking time in conservation.²² The cone is divided into three sections AB, A’B,’ A’’B’’ symbolising a state of coexistence of all layers of the past with the present. The past AB would coexist with the present S under the inclusion of all the sections A’B’ and A’’B.’’ The sections are virtual, symbolically representing the distance of the past in relation to the present, yet including the entirety of the past rather than its particular elements. The identity of duration is presented as an ever-growing image of the past in the present and “the conservation and preservation of the past and the present.”²³ Every following moment contracts and condenses with the former and, simultaneously, “always contains, over and above the preceding one, the memory the latter has left it.”²⁴ Deleuze maintains:

We are too accustomed to thinking in terms of the “present.” We believe that a present is only past when it is replaced by another present. Nevertheless, let us stop and reflect for a moment: How would a new present come about if the old present did not pass at the same moment as it is present? How would any present whatsoever pass, if it were not past at the same time as present? The past would never be constituted if it had not been constituted first of all, at the same time as it was present. There is here, as it were, a fundamental position of time and also the most profound paradox of memory: The past is “contemporaneous” with the present that has been. … The past and the present do not denote two successive moments, but two elements that coexist: One is the present, which does not cease to pass, and the other is the past, which does not cease to be but through which all presents pass.²⁵So in the contemporaneity, the past and the present that has been coexist, but the past also preserves itself endlessly in itself, while the present passes. Following this line of thought, would an artwork’s present preserve all its pasts?

Bergson speaks of the acting, abiding, actual past:
Like the universe as a whole, like each conscious being taken separately, the organism which lives is a thing that endures. Its past, in its entirety, is prolonged to its present, and abides there, actual and acting. How otherwise could we understand that it passes through distinct and well-marked phases, that it changes its age – in short, that it has a history?²⁶This duration of the past is crucial when rethinking the notion of time in conservation that is preoccupied with searching for the past authentic condition of an artwork as the one that ceased to be present. The past, for Bergson, is alongside the present – a concept distinct from conventional ways of thinking about past, present and future as separable realms.²⁷ Duration is the survival of the past, an ever-accumulating ontological memory that is wholly, automatically and ceaselessly preserved. In duration, the current moment does not depose that which came before. Following the Bergsonian conception of time and its Deleuzian interpretation, I propose that in changeable multimedia works of art, the present is the survival of the past. In the process of conservation, the past is actualised in the present, the latter being the only status we are able to analyse from our inhabited temporal perspective.²⁸ Duration is, I argue, crucial for understanding the continuity of artworks and essential to divorcing conservation from its traditional views of time. A possible consequence of the application of durée to works characterised by change is that their changeability expressed by the multitude of instances may unrestrictedly exist in a continuum of duration. In other words, each instantiation of a changeable artwork preserves, as it were, the former.

Preserving the Present
In sum, the orientation of conservation towards the past is a gesture reassembling back-and-forth movements between abstract times, or at best a misinterpretation of linearity – we allegedly “take care of the past” and “pass it over to the future.” If the past is exactly as contemporary as the present, then we do not need to “preserve the past” in the traditional meaning of the word, but preserve the present. In fact the present seems to be the only reality given, and the only one to be preserved. In the case of multimedia installations, conservation could thus be defined as a process that shapes the changeability of artworks, yet does not prevent it. If anything, it could contribute to the reduction of the degree of changeability, if desirable. So in my thinking – and following Bergsonian durée – artworks that undergo transformation abide in their present (and only) “condition,” which is constituted by their many different pasts. In other words, they are constructed by their “present” as much as by their “past conditions.” This may not only result in abandoning the search for authenticity somewhere in the remote past, but may also shift conservation from its attempt to manage change (measured in an artwork’s former conditions) to a process intervening in the artwork’s temporality. Furthermore, it will unquestionably release conservation from the drive to “recover the past” and “the original” or “give back the authentic object,” which, in my view, are misguided approaches based on an incorrect conception of time.
The applicability of this proposition may not only offer conservation the possibility to overcome the aforementioned too easily accepted ready-made temporality and the difficult relation with its ‘object,’ but also reach beyond the conservation of multimedia works. If taken seriously, it could have an impact on traditional art.
Whether related to traditional art or multimedia, it should not be left unmentioned that conservation may by no means claim to be neutral. Each intervention is a process that transforms the work of art. Furthermore, conservation is, according to the Italian conservation theoretician Cesare Brandi, a moment of the methodological recognition of a work, an instantaneous appropriation in which the consciousness of the observer recognises an object as a work of art.²⁹ In discussing the significance of the past and opposing the idea of permanence, the British heritage theorist David Lowenthal holds that “every act of recognition alters what survives.”³⁰ He adds to it a positive value – the past can be used fruitfully when it is “domesticated,” “to inherit is to transform.”³¹

1.) Saint Augustine, Confessions, transl. by Edward Bouverie Pusey (Kindle Edition: Evinity Publishing Inc., 2009 (397–398)).
2.) Frederic Jameson, “The End of Temporality,” in Abstraction: Whitechapel Documents of Contemporary Art, ed. Maria Lind (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013), 121.
3.) Jacques Derrida, Marges de la philosophie (Paris, 1972), 47, quoted in Jameson, “The End of Temporality,” 121.
4.) For a study on the concepts of time in the context of conservation, see Hanna Hölling, “Re: Paik: On Time, Identity and Changeability in the Conservation of Nam June Paik Multimedia Installations” (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2013).
5.) Amelia Groom, ed., Time: Whitechapel Documents of Contemporary Art (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, forthcoming), book overview available at https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/time.
6.) I use the expression “con-temporary” to expose its plural meaning that is related to the question of time: something may be con-temporary with something else in terms of synchronous existence (which nota bene implies a relation), and, equally, it may have a temporal characteristic pointing to the present. Online Etymology Dictionary, s. v. “contemporary,” accessed 10 August 2013. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=contemporary. For a brilliant discussion of the “contemporary” in art, see Richard Meyer, What Was Contemporary (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2013).
7.) Cf. Pip Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations” Tate Papers 6 (2006), accessed December 12, 2011, www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7401; Salvador Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation (Oxford: Elsevier, 2005). 3.
8.) For the “social” in conservation, see Miriam Clavir, Preserving What is Valued: Museum, Conservation and First Nations (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2002); Miriam Clavir, “Social Contexts for Conservation: Time, Distance, and Voice in Museums and Galleries,” Journal of the Canadian Association for Conservation 34 (2009); Glenn Wharton, “Heritage Conservation as Cultural Work: Public Negotiation of a Pacific Hero” (PhD diss., University College London, 2004).
9.) See, for instance, Laurenson, Muñoz Viñas, Clavir and the recent international initiatives such as the research project New Strategies in the Conservation of Contemporary Art (http://www.newstrategiesinconservation.nl/) and its outcome in several doctoral dissertations that are being written on this subject matter.
10.) Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain: A Novel, trans. John. E. Woods (New York, 1995 (1924)), 339.
11.) Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, translated by Allan Sheridan (New York and Toronto: Random House, 1995 (1975)).
12.) J. J. A. Mooij, Time and Mind: The History of a Philosophical Problem (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 105.
13.) Bliss Cua Lim, Translating Time: Cinema, the Fantastic, and Temporal Critique (Duke University Press, 2009), 11.
14.) “Re-” word forming element; C. 1200; from Old French and also directly from Latin re- “again, back, against.” Online Etymology Dictionary, s. v. “re-,“ accessed April 24, 2013, http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=re-&allowed_in_frame=0.
15.) Alessandro Conti refers to the story of the Garden of Eden as a wish “to return to a primitive state that is better that the present one.” According to him, rooted in mythology and Western religious tradition, this vision becomes dangerous in restoration when it induces to pass over the ageing of materials and impose the concept of the return to the original at all costs. Alessandro Conti, The History of the Restoration and Conservation of Works of Art, trans. Helen Glanville (London: Elsevier, 2007), 1.
16.) Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper and Low, 1975), 40.
17.) Ibid.
18.) Albert Albano, “Art in Transition,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996), 183.
19.) See, for instance, David Lowenthal, “Fabricating Heritage,” History and Memory 10/1 (1998): 5–24.
20.) I have in mind his books Bergsonism and Cinema 1 and 2.
21.) Gilles Deleuze, Bergsonism, transl. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (New York: Zone Books, 1991 (1966)), 48.
22.) Ibid., 59–60.
23.) Duration, according to Deleuze, is essentially memory, consciousness and freedom. Ibid.
24.) This is also expressed in the illusion of the difference between recollection and perception – the image cannot actualise a recollection without adapting it to the requirements of the present. Deleuze refers to contraction and recollection memory. Deleuze, Bergsonism, 51.
25.) Ibid., 58–59.
26.) “How otherwise could we understand that it passes through distinct and well-marked phases, that it changes its age – in short, that it has a history?” Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1998 (1911)), 15. For the Deleuzian view on the virtual past, see Deleuze, Bergsonism, 55. This matter is also discussed in Suzanne Guerlac, Thinking in Time: An Introduction to Henri Bergson (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006), 187–188
27.) According to David Lowenthal, the differentiation of past and present is a rather recent development and can be associated with a chronological time scale. The past as a state of things no longer existing emerged during the Renaissance when the remoteness of ancient Rome and unlikeness of recent medial times became apparent. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 390.
28.) Much of my thinking here and in the subsequent section is inspired by Bliss Cua Lim and her book entitled Translating Time: Cinema, the Fantastic, and the Temporal Critique. Drawing from Bergson’s (and Deleuze’s) philosophic project, she takes on the discussion of time in relation to fantastic cinema. Cua Lim, Translating Time.
29.) Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration, trans. Cynthia Rockwell (Nardini Editore: Florence, 2005), 48. For coherence, I replaced the originally used “restoration” with “conservation.”
30.) Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, 390.
31.) Ibid., 412.

From World Art to Global Art. View on a New Panorama

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:36 +0000

Recent books with titles such as World Art History and Global Art History seem to suggest that the two terms can be used as synonyms. But, in fact, world art and global art today have very different meanings, ever since the notion global art came up around twenty years ago. World art is an old idea complementary to modernism, designating the art of the others because or although it was mostly to be found in Western museums. It continues to signify art from all ages, the heritage of mankind. In fact, world art included art of every possible provenance while at the same time excluding it from Western mainstream art – a colonial distinction between art museums and ethnographic museums. World art is officially codified in international laws for the protection of cultural heritage and monuments. Global art, on the other hand, is recognized as the sudden and worldwide production of art that did not exist or did not garner attention until the late 1980s. By its own definition global art is contemporary and in spirit postcolonial; thus it is guided by the intention to replace the center and periphery scheme of a hegemonic modernity, and also claims freedom from the privilege of history (for an overview of publications see: this volume*, pp. 60–73).
This essay was written to prove how the notion of world art and its new companion term global art came into use, how the meaning of the terms changed, and what they reveal about the history of ideas and the inherent notions of art. I hope to make it clear how terminology provides a key to understanding the underlying intentions. However, one and the same notion, namely world art, also changed what it referenced, especially when the term global art came into use. This essay is divided into four parts, and begins with the concept of world art before turning to global art. A Paris exhibition in 1989 serves as a missing link, as it marked the time when world art split from global art. A fourth and final section deals with art history and its new challenges.

1.
World art was initially coined as a colonial notion that was in use for collecting the art of “the others” as a different kind of art, an art that was also found in different museums where anthropologists and not art critics had the say-so. The so-called Atlas of World Art, which John Onians edited in 2004, admittedly corrected this bias by including Western art in such an overview, the only remaining distinction being geographical difference. But up to this date the colonial connotation had been inherent in the conception of world art. It was central to the separation of world art from Western art by the abyss created by art history’s narratives. The Vienna school of art history, a hundred years ago, favored the term Weltkunst in order to expand the discipline’s field of competence. In this sense, Heinrich Glück, in the Festschrift for Josef Strzygowski, in 1934, wrote a study with the title Hauptwerke der Weltkunst. In Germany,
the magazine Die Kunstauktion, founded in 1927, was -relabeled Weltkunst in 1930 since world art had become -attractive for collectors. For some people, world art nourished a feeling of nostalgia whenever they felt dis-illusioned with modern art and longed for a lost past. This is not to say that a general study of art production across the world makes no sense; it depends on which purpose its description serves and whether it includes or excludes the one who is speaking. “World History,” as initiated by William H. McNeill and others in the postwar period, proved to be a successful approach; however, it left no doubt that it included the West and that there was no longer a Eurocentric view of the “other”
as a subject for writing history.¹ Ultimately, historians have the same problem with a terminology that distinguishes between world history and global history – despite the obvious need for such a distinction in the global age. History has less of a problem in the case of “world literature” as a comparative field of studies and in the sense that Goethe used the term when he recomposed the German translation of Arab poems in his West-Eastern Divan. After all, translation as a burden and challenge distinguishes literature from the field of art. Colonial trading and collecting of art and artifacts was always directed toward single objects or artifacts, which more often than not were deprived of their history and previous use when they arrived in Western collections. When we look back on colonialism the reader and the collector are two different roles.
The history of the world art discourse also distinguishes the background of two schools which have introduced education in world art into the academic curriculum. There is, on the one hand, the new School of World Art Studies at Leiden University, which was initiated as an interdisciplinary project by the art historian Kitty -Zijlmans and the ethnographer Winfred van Damme.
At Leiden, the global production of today’s art is seen against the presence of the colonial history of the Netherlands.² And, on the other hand, there is the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts at the University of East Anglia in Norwich whose Department of Art History was renamed in “Departmentof World Art Studies” in 1992. In this case, the Sainsbury Collection of art from Africa and Oceania was presented to the university as a gift, and John Onians, in his Atlas of World Art, paid tribute to the legacy of the Sainsbury collection in his own way.³ The magazine World Art, which was launched by the Sainsbury Centre in March 2011, in its editorial pointed to
“a major change in attitudes concerning what art is.” “World art,” the text continued, “has widely differing resonances,” and is “centered on human creativity […]. The consideration of ancient cultures around the globe must inform a broader rethinking of world art.”
The Sainsbury collection was, however, guided by a Kantian value judgment as an aesthetic postulate. This justified art by what seemed to be its universal and timeless form, purified from whatever content and cultural context. Thus, so-called world art was regarded as evidence that art had always been modern and had always been nothing but form, whatever its cultural conditions may have been. This view served both ends and justified modern art as well as world art. The Sainsbury family enjoyed “primitive” art for the same reasons as modern art, collecting the one and the other side by side. The collector Sir Robert Sainsbury found general consent when he confessed, to quote from the mission statement of the museum, that he had brought together “work spanning 5000 years of human creativity.” This confidence, however, only worked when the two parties were neatly separated: on the one hand the anonymous object, and on the other modern artists who by definition had to be Western and, preferably, British, like Francis Bacon whose work was collected in the 1950s by the Sainsbury family.
The Sainsbury Centre in the meantime acknowledges the fact that a watershed separates the traditional artisan, as he appeared in a colonial gaze, from a postcolonial artist who was born into the diversity and coevalness of “contemporary worlds,” to borrow Marc Augé’s felicitous term, and can no longer be represented by an ethnographic object.⁴ He or she may work next door as an artist-in-residence. At the British Museum, the Department of Ethnography, with its rich collections also from the Sainsbury family, started an initiative to actively collect contemporary art and to collaborate with artists, mostly of African origin, as a wall text informed visitors to the collection in 2007.⁵ But artists from the former colonies turned against such Western collections with their postcolonial critique, since these did not allow for the self-representation of their ancestors. Also Western curators of ethnographic museums face a crisis which makes the collection principles and exhibition practices a difficult problem. Sally Price points up the problem trenchantly in her book Primitive Art in Civilized Places, an acerbic account of the appropriation politics of foreign artifacts and religious art in Euramerica.⁶
World art – a kind of aesthetic appropriation of objects as pure “form” or as proof of individual creativity on a universal scale – was best described in André Malraux’s book Le musée imaginaire⁷, first published in 1947, a book based on a universal aesthetics despite cultural and historical differences.⁸ The author, a writer with personal experience of the French colonies in Asia, claimed to have overcome the traditional dualism between (Western) art and (ethnic) world art, which he identified as an outdated colonial attitude. Malraux also applied a Western art concept, the formalism of those days, without regard to the chronology and geography of art history, and compared medieval Western art and Buddhist sculpture or the art of Gandha-ra. Paradoxically, he still worshipped the museum, even if he dreamed of an ideal museum without walls, a museum in the brain or, for that matter, in a book.
World art, in the meantime, matters for identity politics in cultures that had no previous share in colonial selecting and collecting. Their history, whether precolonial or colonial, was embedded in and embodied by objects as items of cultural practice, but usually this was lost with their entry into a Western museum. Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum, therefore turned the tables when he published his BBC series A History of the World in 100 Objects in 1996. He gave their history back to the objects and also included modern Western examples or objects with a colonial use among them. The change from the exhibition hall to the text of a book also made it possible for him to include specimens of mass culture from the modern age.
But world art nowadays also receives unwelcome attention due to the growing pressure of repatriation claims from the former colonies. Metropolitan museums of the West, often accused of being outposts of empire and colonialism, today have to rethink their arguments in order to defend their collections. The British Museum is among them, and Neil MacGregor, claimed his museum to be “not only a museum of the world but also a museum for the world.”⁹ Along these lines he opened a blockbuster show with the Chinese Terracotta Army that attracted large crowds in 2007,¹⁰ thus ascertaining his claim not only to own, but also to promote world art. A bookshop on Great Russell Street I came across at the time, unintentionally offered a telling -example for the need of our distinction. The owner of the shop presented two books on world art and one on global art, although all three books were about art from China, side by side in the same window display.¹¹ The catalog of the show at the British Museum across the street shared the window with a book that was dedicated to visits to the studios of living Artists in China, as the title stated, and therefore would not have been possible as recently as twenty years ago.
The relation of world art to modern art, as the very canon of Western art, was linked to the notion of so-called Primitivism, as Robert Goldwater called a certain current of modern avant-garde in his book Primitivism in Modern Painting of 1938, published a few years after the MOMA had launched the exhibition African Negro Art in 1935. Primitivism, one of the basic creeds of modernism, was represented, and representable, for the last time ever in William Rubin’s Museum of Modern Art show of 1984 when its time already was over and the -reviews concentrated almost unanimously on the ethnocentric bias of the concept. The show’s subtitle “The Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern” was an attempt to explain, and to exculpate, the hegemonic appropriation of tribal artifacts by modern artists who borrowed “primitive” forms for their own work, thus translating them into an idiom of modern art. After the fact, the -so-called affinity was celebrated as a proof of the universality and timeless formal value of the modernist canon. But James Clifford, in a review of the show, -objected that one should “question the boundaries of art and the art world,”¹² and also opposed the distinction between modernist art and traditional craftsmanship in a colonial discourse.
A few years later, in 1988, Susan Vogel launched the exhibition Art/Artifact in the Center for African Art in New York as an attempt to reconsider the issues of the MOMA show. The debate about art and artifact had been lingering on for quite some time and had divided the exhibition practice of ethnographic museums. However, now the debate took a new turn. The shift happened at a moment when the Western concept of art had lost its clear profile in contemporary practice and had left the definition of art up in the air. A symposium linked to the 1988 show addressed the question “What makes something art?”. Thomas McEvilley, one of the participants, stated that “the boundaries of what had been called art had been stretched to the point where it seemed silly even to bring it up,” and he added that -so-called primitive art “is the only context left, which brings up the question of what is art.” As a result he -proposed “anthropology as a cultural critique, not forcing objects from other cultures into our categories, but rather allowing those objects to raise questions about ours.” The author concluded: “The fact that we designate something as art means that it is art for us, but says nothing about what it is in itself or for other people.”¹³ In the catalog of Susan Vogel’s show, Arthur C. Danto not only challenged the modernist creed of universal art. He even turned the debate about the so-called primitives on its head and maintained “there is no art more advanced than theirs.”¹⁴ In other words, the notion of “art” had lost its clear agenda in late modernism and could no longer be applied to or turned against the ethnographic object. Rather, the debate centered after 1989 on the question of how to deal with the fact that modern international art had lost its geographical frontiers, or home base, and had now ended up in global art, as the new distinction from world art was called. The former dualism of art and artifact was put aside when contemporary art production in a professional sense had become general practice and was no longer the West’s prerogative.

2.
A first step along this road was taken by the Havana Biennial, founded in 1984, at its two venues in 1986 and 1989. With 690 artists from 57 countries, the 1986 Biennial “created a new space, acting as a gigantic ‘Salon des Refusés’,” to quote Gerardo Mosquera.¹⁵ The focus on Latin America was a critical response to mainstream art, although the notion of “Third World Art” was only included in the official title for the 1989 venue. The two Havana Biennials still insisted on otherness and proclaimed an alternative internationalism without the dictate of Eurocentrism. Already in 1987, Rasheed Araeen had founded the periodical Third Text as a critical forum “for Third World Perspectives on the visual arts.” The concept of “Third World” went out of use with the end of the Cold War but it served as an interlude -before global art emerged (see: this volume*, pp. 41–48). The third Havana Biennial, in 1989, mixed high art with popular art in order to undermine the Western art system and to insist on local traditions other than art history’s narratives.¹⁶
The MOMA exhibition of 1984 had still been a colonial project, although it took place in the postcolonial era. Jean-Hubert Martin was ready to go beyond this divided world by proclaiming division as a practice had to be abolished. Magiciens de la terre, as the participants were called to avoid any protests by Western art critics, was hailed as “the first really global exhibition of contemporary art” (La première exposition reellement mondiale d’art contemporain), to quote the Gazette des Arts (see: this volume*, pp. 66–67 and pp. 212–220). The huge discussion and dissent which his show provoked, was not only due to its location in a former center of colonial politics and modernist Western art. Of equal importance was the unprecedented confrontation of a number of renowned Western artists with an equal number of formerly excluded artists from what had been the colonies. Each artist was given equal treatment, two pages in the catalog, giving only his or her name, work title, and place of birth.
It was a bold step to leave the opposing worlds of modern art and world art behind and to arrive in a shared world of global art. But Martin was accused of continuing the colonial game of the authentic because of selecting so-called “native” artists as the counterparts of their Western colleagues, especially since postcolonial artists working with video and installation already -replaced the former artisans. Martin also invited professional artist, for example, Chéri Samba, who presented his artistic self in the show with a self-portrait and a biography: the anonymous artisan from Africa had become a face with a name and a professional career. In the end the show succeeded in that both parties, even against their will, emerged as contemporaries with a name and a passport. The one no longer looked modern, and the other no longer ethnic in the old colonial sense. A few years later, in 1995, Jean-Hubert Martin became the director of André Malraux’s Musée des Arts d’Afrique et d’Océanie (founded 1962) in Paris. As par-ticipating curator of the first Johannesburg Biennale, -Africus, in the same year, Martin analyzed what he hoped would be a new future for world art, as a contemporary practice, in the museum.¹⁷ He distinguished between the ethnographic museum, where everything is explained, and the art museum where living artists, as representatives of human creativity, would honor “art’s heroes and ancestors.” But the boundaries, as he argued, were to become “increasingly unclear, and we have yet to create an art museum […] where artists of all the world can meet […] and compare themselves with historical works.” His own museum in Paris, Martin hoped, would “become such a place” and also artists would be able to take over the former role of anthropologists. At that time Martin did not know that his museum would soon be incorporated in the newly created Musée du Quai Branly in Paris, which opened its doors in 2006 and initially excluded professional contemporary artists from Africa and Oceania in order to celebrate once again the old myth of the arts premiers, a myth from colonial times. André Malraux had founded his museum as a place where ethnic art would be staged as an aesthetic experience, as was the creed of modernist times. In the meantime, however, such a colonial attitude was pass., and it was generally agreed that Malraux’s project no longer represented the global age.¹⁸

3.
In 1990, Thomas McEvilley, who had previously contributed to the catalog, reviewed the Magiciens show under the heading “The Global Issue.”¹⁹ Despite all criticism, whether from the right or the left, he acknowledged that the show was a first attempt to curate art in a truly postcolonial way. This was also the general response in the July 1989 edition of the magazine Art in America where a review of the Magiciens exhibition appeared titled “The Whole Earth Show.” The front cover of the same magazine featured a NASA shot of the Earth together with the title “The Global Issue” (see: this volume, pp. 64–65). For the first time the planetary view had been taken from an extraterrestrial position in space.
In order to justify what was a neologism in the art scene, the magazine presented six statements on the global world, including a text by the artist Martha Rosler and one by the anthropologist James Clifford. There was a general feeling about the danger of an unwelcome homogenization and consumer culture, caused by the -euphoria of Theodore Levitt’s view of “the marketing -imagination.”²⁰ Nevertheless, Craig Owens concluded: “Perhaps it is in this project of learning how to represent ourselves – how to speak to, rather than for or about, others – that the possibility of a ‘global’ culture resides.”²¹ Further, the interviews with fourteen “peripatetic artists,” as they were labeled in the same edition, confirmed that a global space for art was in the making.
History writing changed as well with the arrival of globalization. A “New Global History,” as Bruce Mazlish called it, “focuses on the history of globalization” and views “processes that are best studied on a global rather than a local, national, or regional level.”²² After all, he continued, “globalization is a process now going on around us, while world history stretches in all directions. One speaks of globalization; one can hardly speak of worldlization as a movement operating today.” It was a paradox to write a history not of the past, but of living together on the planet.
Globalization, indeed a road of no return, provided a place for artists who for a long time had been excluded with the label world art. Thus we can call the Magiciens show an intermezzo in which the cards were shuffled again. One could also call it a rite de passage, which marked a one-off transitory event that passed. The project would have been impossible before, and was no longer possible afterwards when globalization had opened up a new territory of art. Both terms, modern art and world art, suddenly looked old. The Magiciens project led into no man’s land where we still are and where we navigate with the help of provisional terminology. The show happened at the same time the posthistory debate reached its climax and the Cold War, with its confrontation of two systems, collapsed. It now seemed that inter-national art, an art between nations, though to be sure Western nations, had been an affair of the modern age and that the term no longer covered a polycentric map where cultures took over the former distinctions of nations.
With the Paris Magiciens show, global art made its entry into the art world. While world art remained synonymous with the art heritage of the “others,” global art by contrast crossed the boundaries and demanded acceptance as a contemporary practice on an equal footing with Western art. As the term global art was not yet acceptable to everybody, in January 1992 the journal Kunstforum International returned to the term “Weltkunst,” but linked it to an explanatory definition of “Globalkultur.” The editor, Paolo Bianchi, reminded his readers that a new kind of ethnicity was transforming the visual arts.²³ Ethnicity had been a concern in the debate on world art, but never in modern art. Now it became an issue in aspirations to identity and difference even for those who presented themselves as postethnic (for example, as “artists from Africa” instead “African artists”).²⁴ As a result, curators of biennials take over the former “fieldwork” of ethnographers to promote local artists and to create new “art regions” with a common transnational profile.
There was another notable episode in the terminology of the 1980s. Shortly before the term global art became firmly established, the old term world art was given a new significance as a label for the emerging new geography of art production. Thus, Jean-Louis Pradel’s book chose the title World Art Trends. 1983–84 in order to include a few newcomers from non-Western countries among the international artists. This kind of confusion also reached the seventh Sydney Biennale of 1988 which was proclaimed as A View of World Art 1940–1988 (see: this volume*, pp. 60–73). It should be noted that a show in Cologne, seven years earlier, in 1981, with the same time period (1939 to 1981) marked the -inclusion of American artists in what the curators called postwar “Western art” (Westkunst). However, this postwar position no longer represented the new frontiers. It was even attacked in retrospect when in 1989 Rasheed Araeen curated the exhibition The Other Story in London, emphasizing the other, neglected story of modern art.²⁵ The Sydney catalog explains the 1988 Biennale’s purpose as “an exhibition in Australia of contemporary art both from here and overseas”²⁶ and as an “attempt to view key developments in world art since 1940 from an Australian perspective,”²⁷ as against the old center and periphery view from Paris or New York.
The year 1988 also marked the bicentennial of white settlement of Australia, a commemoration that caused a hot debate among the Aboriginal Australians about their participation at the Sydney Biennale. In order to cope with the controversy, the curatorial board commissioned 200 hollow log bone coffins to be created by twelve Aboriginal artists from the Ramingining Artists Community symbolizing 200 years of oppression (see: this volume*, p. 127 and p. 167). But it could not be overlooked that the Biennale was otherwise restricted, as far as Australia’s part was concerned, to twenty-six “European Australians,” among them several pioneers of the modernist movement. Five years later, indigenous Australians entered the official ranks of the contemporary art scene. Three Aboriginal women artists were included among the nine participants from Australia. The Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, launched in 1993 by the Queensland Gallery, Brisbane, was an ambitious attempt at remapping the former art world (see: this volume*, pp. 112–113). Australia in the meantime opted for the Asia-Pacific region as its cultural background. The official acceptance of Aboriginal art as -contemporary art had been heralded by the exhibition Dreamings in 1988, which left behind the ethnocentrism at the Sydney Biennale of the same year. Thus, -Aboriginal art, as a branch of what had formerly been called world art, entered the territory of contemporary art under the auspices of what was now called global art.

4.
The global conditions of today’s art production, to come to my final section, leaves art history with unexpected questions. Can art history become global at all? Who writes art history in the future, and does it need to be art history in the common sense and with a common concept not only of art but also of history? It was not a coincidence that the 2008 Congress of the International Committee of the History of Art (CIHA), which took place in Melbourne, Australia, did not by chance address these questions with such vigor. And because this was so, it changed the history of art history forever. Its title Crossing Cultures, understood as a move in every direction, indicated a shift of perspective that gave up the idea of a privileged viewing point and also the notion of cultures not already penetrated by other cultures. Understandably enough, though, there was still ambiguities in terminology as there were many participants. Conference sections with titles such as “Perspectives on Global Art History” and “The Idea of World Art History” raised the question whether the two notions mean the same at all.²⁸ If we are willing to use definition as distinction, rather than as affirmation, then the different history of the two terms cannot be overlooked. After the arrival of global art, also world art must be newly defined and, ultimately liberated from its colonial baggage.
The same CIHA congress had a section on global art, but labeled the latter as contemporary art in a new sense. “Writing the history of contemporary art,”²⁹ to quote the title of Terry Smith’s essay, is a paradox for an art which, in many ways, comes after history and even turns against history. Alexander Alberro, in the same section, concluded that periodizing contemporary art is “subject to a battlefield of narratives and stories.”³⁰ This conclusion is almost inevitable, since contemporary art is site specific and looks very different when we pass from one local perspective to another. The only consensus was that the term contemporary art no longer merely designates the most recent art, but distinguishes this art from modern art. The term postmodern, however, is not available, as it stood for something inside modernism. Terms like “multiple” or “alternative modernities” are only serviceable to those who want to reclaim a neglected or forgotten modernity of their own.³¹ Global art is not only polycentric as a practice, but also demands a polyphonic discourse. Art history has divided the world, whereas the global age tends to restore its unity on another level. Not only is the game different: it is also open to new participants who speak in many tongues and who differ in how they conceive of art in a local perspective. We are watching a new mapping of art worlds in the plural (see: this volume*, pp. 246–254), which claim geographic and cultural difference.
Art history, as I have insisted myself on various occasions, suddenly appears to have been a rather local game that worked best for art from the Renaissance onwards. I have called it a post-Vasarian narrative that does not even adequately describe medieval art and its religious images.³² To speak of Art History after Modern-ism, as I did in the title of a book³³ which continues the arguments of The End of Art History with reference to the exodus of contemporary art from art history, means art history faces a new challenge after the end of modern-ism. Global art not only accelerates contemporary art’s departure from the guidelines of a linear art history, it also flourishes in parts of the world where art history has never been practiced or where it only followed colonial models. The loss of a central place of art history in art theory and art display may also explain the new role of curatorial studies or visual studies that have replaced art history in the curriculum of art academies such as the Goldsmith College in London. The majority of today’s art curators is trained in political, social, or cultural sciences rather than in art history, and thus tend to emphasize art’s political or cultural agenda as against aesthetics.
However, we need not speak of art history’s crisis unless we are thinking of a necessary crisis. The time has come to rewrite art history in the West as well in order to respond to a new audience that looks at Western art with other premises. I therefore do not share a current trend in US American art history that excludes the rest of the world either by writing “World Art History” on a universal scale and thus restoring an old privilege of the West³⁴ or by denying that art history can ever work outside the West.³⁵ Rather, I feel the need to encourage other, new narratives with a local perspective of art history that abandons obedience to the colonial gaze of former world art studies. World art, in the old sense, tended to support the mainstream art discourse via exclusion. Today, we need a new paradigm and a postcolonial discourse for world art studies that are based on comparative studies which are on equal footing. For example, we take for granted the study of Chinese language and history at Western institutions but shut our eyes to the news that the National University of Beijing has opened a Department of Western Classics (Greco-Roman) and supports a bilateral conference with Durham University. In short, world art history is only justified as a cross-cultural project that also admits looking at Western -culture and art history from the outside. This is the challenge of the global age, in which we have to recover our narratives with new eyes.
Yet Western art history also faces a problem on its own territory. This is the noncontinuity of the story that connects premodern, modern, and current art. The linear story in the genealogy of modern art which Alfred H. Barr, Jr. devised for the MOMA in the 1930s, no longer continues to represent art since the 1960s even in the West, as an unsuccessful attempt to prolong this genealogy demonstrated at the Tate Modern in London.³⁶ And the methods of art history fail to explain the transition from the artwork, with its given place in history and its survival in a collection, to art projects that are ephemeral and badly documented, to give just one example from changing art practice. I am not complain-ing about this turn of events, but I do wonder whether art history needs to look back and discover its own past with fresh eyes. It appears that we have reached a watershed where the West is encountering the same situation as other cultures. Entry into the global age where art production has become general not only marks a beginning but also an end, the end of the old world map of art with its center and periphery scheme.
At the same time, when art production becomes a global condition, the diversity of visual cultures or art histories that appear behind today’s art practice and art theories is something we all have in common. In other words, what at first sight looks like the new homogeneity of a “flat” world, a second glance reveals as a diversity of traditions that demand a similar diversity of local narratives, including that of Western art history. I ventured forth in this direction when, in a recent book, I tried to show that the invention of perspective in Florence in the end turns out to have been a local game and, furthermore, that it responded to an Arab theory of optical perception (called “perspective” in the Latin translation), that, however, represented a different visual culture. It needs a cross-cultural investigation to look at Western art in the new expanded space from the outside.³⁷
Today art history faces a challenge of a different kind. The rise of new art worlds in many parts of the world demand a narrative that also takes into account the growing role of economics and the politics of art in describing art. The documentary part of the exhibition The Global Contemporary in 2011/2012, therefore, turned to descriptions that, in contradistinction to the paradigm of self-referential art history (art as a system apart), emphasized the need for geopolitical and institutional aspects beyond issues of style, innovation, and progress (see: this volume*, pp. 50–59). It was the documentation’s aim to create a space for different and even competing histories instead of a single art history. Art’s complicity with contemporaneous social, religious, and cultural worlds was surely always given, but its complicity goes further since art today “has more to do with clarifying cultural identity than with aesthetic feeling,” as Thomas McEvilley wrote in 1995.³⁸ Art is not only produced “in an atmosphere of global dialog,” as he added, but serves the competition of conflicting politics of representation. The emergence of art spaces, which share the name but not the function of what we called a museum, is part of the game, as also is the spread of art markets to Asia. This new state of things, in retrospect, sharpens the view of what art has been in the past and demands the interaction of different art histories. In other words, the present world leaves most of us in a similar situation in the face of an unwritten history of world art as a joint enterprise.

Translated from the German by Elizabeth Volk.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Hans Belting, Andrea Buddensieg, and Peter Weibel (eds.), The Global Contemporary and the Rise of New Art Worlds, exhib. The Global Contemporary, Art Worlds after 1989, ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, Sept. 17, 2011 – Feb. 5, 2012, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013, pp. 178–185.

* “this volume“ refers to: Hans Belting, Andrea Buddensieg, and Peter Weibel (eds.), The Global Contemporary and the Rise of New Art Worlds, exhib. The Global Contemporary, Art Worlds after 1989, ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, Sept. 17, 2011 – Feb. 5, 2012, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013.

1.) Bruce Mazlish, “Comparing Global History to World History,“ in: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 28, no. 3, 1998, pp. 385–395.
2.) Kitty Zijlmans and Wilfred van Damme (eds.), World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts and Approaches, Valiz, Amsterdam, 2008.
3.) John Onians, “A New Geography of Art Museums,“ in: Peter Weibel and Andrea Buddensieg (eds.), Contemporary Art and the Museum. A Global Perspec-tive, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2007, pp. 124–138; John Onians (ed.), Atlas of World Art, Laurence King, London, 2004. The latter is a book with 68 contributors that intends to cover the whole history of human picture production.
4.) Marc Aug., An Anthropology for Contemporaneous Worlds, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto (CA), 1999, pp. 89ff.
5.) See: Hans Belting, “Contemporary Art as Global Art,“ in: Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg (eds.), The Global Art World – Audiences, Markets, and Museums, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2009, pp. 38–73, p. 56, fig. 8.
6.) Sally Price, Primitive Art in Civilized Places, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (IL), 1985.
7.) Hans Belting, Art History after Modernism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (IL), 2003, pp. 153ff.
8.) Ibid.
9.) See: Belting 2007, p. 33.
10.) The First Emperor: China’s Terracotta Army, The British Museum, September 13, 2007 – April 6, 2008.
11.) See: Belting 2009, p. 43, fig. 3.
12.) James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 2002, p. 213.
13.) Thomas McEvilley, Art and Otherness: Crisis in Cultural Identity, McPherson, Kingston (NY), 1992, pp. 164–165.
14.) Arthur C. Danto, “Artifact and Art,“ in: Art/Artifact: African Art in Anthropology Collections, exhib. cat., Center for African Art, New York, et al., The Center for African Art, New York (NY) and Prestel Verlag, Munich, 1988, pp. 18ff.
15.) Gerardo Mosquera, “The Third Bienal de la Habana in its Global and Local Contexts,“ in: Rachel Weiss et al., Making Art Global (Part 1): The Third Havana Biennial 1989, Exhibition Histories, vol. 2, Afterall, London, 2011, pp. 70–79, p. 74.
16.) See: Luis Camnitzer, “The Third Biennial of Havana,“ in: Rachel Weiss et al., Making Art Global (Part 1): The Third Havana Biennial 1989, Exhibition Histories, vol. 2, Afterall, London, 2011, pp. 206–214, p. 207.
17.) Jean-Hubert Martin, “Art in a multi-ethnic society,“ in: Africus: Johannesburg Biennale, exhib. cat., Transnational Metropolitan Council, 1995, p. 49.
18.) Bernard Dupaigne, Le scandale des arts premiers: La véritable histoire du musée du quai Branly, Mille et une nuit, Paris, 2006.
19.) McEvilley 1992, p. 153.
20.) Theodore Levitt, The Marketing Imagination, Free Press, New York (NY), 1983.
21.) “The Global Issue: A Symposium. James Clifford, Boris Groys, Craig Owens, Martha Rosler, Robert Storr, Michele Wallace,“ in: Art in America, vol. 77, no. 7, July 1989, p. 89.
22.) Bruce Mazlish, “The New Global History,“ available online at: www.newglobalhistory.com/docs/mazlich-the-new-global-history.pdf, see: p. 5, accessed 09/04/2012. See also: Bruce Mazlish, “On History Becoming History: World History and New Global History,“ available online at: www.newglobalhistory.com/docs/mazlish-on-history-becoming-history.pdf, accessed 09/04/2012. I thank Sara Giannini for this link.
23.) Paolo Bianchi, “Vorwort,“ in: Bianchi (ed.), “Weltkunst – Globalkultur,“ in: Kunstforum International, vol. 118, 1992, pp. 72–291, p. 73
24.) See: Hans Belting, “Contemporary Art and the Museum in the Global Age,“ in: Peter Weibel and Andrea Buddensieg (eds.), Contemporary Art and the Museum. A Global Perspective, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2007, pp. 16–38, p. 34.
25.) Rasheed Araeen (ed.), The Other Story: Afro-Asian Artists in Post-war Britain, exhib. cat., Hayward Gallery, London, 1989.
26.) Franco Belgiorno-Nettis, “Chairman’s Preface,“ in: From the Southern Cross: A View of World Art c. 1940–1988,“ exhib. cat., 1988 Australian Biennale, Biennale of Sydney, 1988, p. 7.
27.) Nick Waterlow, “A View of World Art c. 1940–88,“ in: From the Southern Cross: A View of World Art c. 1940–1988,“ exhib. cat., 1988 Australian Biennale, Biennale of Sydney, 1988, p. 9, italics added.
28.) See: Jaynie Anderson (ed.), Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence. The Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress in the History of Art, The Miegunyah Press, Carlton (Victoria), 2009.
29.) Alexander Alberro, “Periodising Contemporary Art,“ in: ibid., p. 938.
30.) Terry Smith, “Writing the History of Contemporary Art,“ in: ibid., p. 918.
31.) See: Araeen’s Magazine Third Text; and books like Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar (ed.), Alternative Modernities, Duke University Press, Durham (NC), 2001.
32.) Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (IL), 1994.
33.) Hans Belting, Art History after Modernism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (IL), 2002.
34.) For critical reflections on the problems implicated see: David Carrier, A World Art History and its Objects, Penn State University Press, University Park (PA), 2008.
35.) James Elkins (ed.), Is Art History Global?, Routledge, London et al., 2007.
36.) Belting, 2009, p. 46.
37.) Hans Belting, Florence and Bagdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 2011.
38.) Thomas McEvilley, “Here comes everybody,“ in: Africus: Johannesburg Biennale, exhib. cat., Transnational Metropolitan Council, 1995, p. 57.

Das Erkunden der Scherben. Jetzt-Archäologie, Retrovision und archäologische Avantgarde

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:36 +0000

Im Feld der künstlerischen Archäologie der Gegenwart zeigt sich ein „Unterirdischer“ am Werk – ein Grabender, Bohrender und Wühlender. Wenn er gräbt, dann erfolgt das nach Saatgut, das im Schreiben als Schriftsteller oder im Gestalten als Künstler aufgehen kann als Leben. Bei der Suche nach einer Erklärung für dieses an den Maulwurf erinnernde Phänomen einer künstlerischen Existenz könnte man Friedrich Nietzsche folgen, der in seiner „Morgenröthe“ den Rat gibt, dass es besser ist, ihn nicht zu fragen, was er da unten will. Trotz allem aber gilt hier das Interesse dem möglichen Versuch von Antworten auf die Frage nach dem Sinn des „‚Unterirdischen’ an der Arbeit“¹. Im Fokus steht die Archäologie als Medium, Matrix und Metapher für die Kunst.

Kehren, Wenden, Drehen oder: archäologische Avantgarde
Der Transfer von Methoden aus der klassischen Archäologie in die künstlerische Produktionsweise führt zu einer dialogischen Parallelaktion von Archäologie und Avantgarde. Das Interesse der neuen archäologischen Avantgarde ist geprägt von dem Wunsch nach Sichtbarkeit und Materialität der Exponate zwischen Artefakt und Allerleizeugs (miscellaneous things). Der Archäologe der Jetztzeit steht – als Wissenschaftler wie Künstler – im Dialog mit den Dingen, agiert und forscht transdisziplinär, schöpft aus den Quellen der Natur- und Geschichtswissenschaft ebenso wie aus Ästhetik, Technik und Philosophie. Dieses Dialogprojekt beschreibt einen offenen Prozess, der widerständige Anstöße gibt, ergebnisoffene Prozesse initiiert sowie kritische Hintergründe und Denkstrukturen von Kunst aufzeigt.
Scherben bringen Glück. Im Vergleich zur historia bringt die archaiologia ganz andere Verfahren ins Spiel. In der Metapher vereinfacht ließe sich sagen: Stein statt Wort, Sehen statt Lesen, Monument statt Dokument. Die Archäologie schafft und vermittelt einen Zugang zur Gegenwart, indem sie nach den besonderen Fragmenten und Sedimenten sucht, die mit ihrem Goldstaubglanz bis heute eine unvergangene Vergangenheit wirksam sein lassen. Im Sprichwort „Scherben bringen Glück“ gibt es eine Analogie zum von Archäologen und Künstlern betriebenen Ausgraben, Auswerten und Archivieren von Bruchstücken, die auf das Töpferhandwerk bezogen meint, dass gefüllte Vorratsgefäße aus Ton Glück und Segen bringen. In der Jetzt-Archäologie von Kulturschaffenden nimmt das Vorratsgefäß die Matrix eines inzwischen prallvoll gefüllten kunst- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Globalarchivs an, das auch als eine Art „enzyklopädischer Palast“ (Biennale Venedig 2013) für Ausstellungen und Wahrnehmungen verstanden werden kann – „ein synkretistischer Tempel, in dem alle Götter einen Platz gefunden haben“.²
Im Idealfall bewegt sich eine archäologische Avantgarde an der Schwelle der Ununterscheidbarkeit von Erinnerung und Vergessen, von Antike und Zeitgeist, von Kuriositätenkabinett und Kontext Kunst. Während der (Kunst-)Historiker mit dem Imperativ der Wahrheit winkt und verkündet: „So ist es gewesen!“, bleibt der avancierte Archäologe skeptischer und zurückhaltender, denn er weiß nicht immer, „wie es wirklich gewesen ist“. Der Medientheoretiker Knut Ebeling erklärt dieses Spezifikum der Archäologie wie folgt: „Die Vorsicht und Voraussetzungslosigkeit der Archäologie hat ihre Vorgeschichte. Seit dem 19. Jahrhundert hat sich diese Disziplin als Wissenschaft der Entbergung von Unwahrscheinlichkeiten einen Namen gemacht. Bis heute ist sie für abweichende Zeitverläufe und alternative Szenarien der Vergangenheit zuständig. […] Allein schon die Tatsache, dass die Aktivität des Findens zu ihren selbstverständlichen Szenarien gehört, spricht dafür, dass das Unwahrscheinliche hier gewissermaßen zum Alltag gehört.“³
Im Paradigma des Scherbenerkundens verschwimmt die Grenze zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft. Der gestalterische und geistige Umgang mit Vergangenheit führt zur Schöpfung von Mythen, so auch zu ihrer Dekonstruktion und Rekonstruktion. Im besten Fall trägt eine Selbstkritik und Reflexion vermengende archäologische Avantgarde dazu bei, alternative Deutungen von Welt, von In-der-Welt-Sein und von Innenwelt zuzulassen.
Der Gestus des Archäologen. Ein Faustkeil gilt in der Renaissance als ein von Regen und Sturm geformter Stein. Nach heutigem Wissen gehört es zum ersten vom Menschen produzierten Werkzeug, auch wenn es sich zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt einmal als versteinertes Gebäck oder Kunstwerk entpuppen sollte. So wie das archäologische Wissen, generiert und konturiert sich auch die archäologische Avantgarde aus Imagination (Erfinden), Imitation (Nachahmen) und Ingannation (Täuschen). Die „per Spaten“ gewonnen Altertümer sprechen nicht einfach für sich selbst. Sie müssen eingeordnet und damit zum Sprechen gebracht werden. Die Geschichte beginnt erst dort zu reden, wo dem Gefundenen eine Dimension des Verstehens beigegeben ist, ein Befund vorliegt.
Der Philosoph Giorgio Agamben misst der Archäologie einen hohen Stellenwert zu, wenn er schreibt: „Den Lauf der Geschichte, wie der Archäologe es tut, wider den Strich, in ihre Gegenrichtung zurückzulegen, ist somit nichts anderes als das Schöpfungswerk nochmals zu durchlaufen, allerdings in umgekehrter Richtung, um es dem Heil, von dem es stammt, wieder zurückzugeben.“ Und mehr noch: „Der Gestus des Archäologen [ist] das Paradigma jeder wahren menschlichen Aktivität.“⁴
Von den Ausgrabungen der klassischen Archäologie führt der Weg zu einer archäologischen Avantgarde als ein Medium der Subversion, die den Konformismus mit Umkehrung und Umsturz bedroht und ein Kehren, Wenden, Drehen und Umdrehen – in Kunst, Politik oder Gesellschaft – zur Konsequenz hat. Im Kontext einer archäologischen Avantgarde sind Künstler und Kuratoren, Kunstkritiker und -vermittler auf der Suche nach den verdeckten Seiten, nach dem, was die Zeit unter die Oberfläche verbracht hat und dort im Verborgenen arbeitet. Bei diesen im Menschen verdeckten, verschütteten und verdrehten Eigenschaften, sehen wir Protestenergien lagern, deren behutsame Bergung die ästhetische Kraft der Kunst erneut freisetzen kann. (Verfasst im Sommer 2013, im Folgenden der Originaltext aus dem Jahr 1993.)

Erfindungen erfinden oder: Jetzt-Archäologie
In Zeiten der Krise, der Orientierungslosigkeit, des Umbruchs haben Legenden und Heldenepen Konjunktur. Sie ziehen Linien vom Heute zurück ins Gestern und versuchen, durch magische Beschwörung die Vergangenheit der Zukunft dienstbar zu machen. Mit dem Abstand vieler dazwischen liegender Jahre kann ohne Risiko nostalgische Rückschau gefeiert werden. Das Prinzip der Anekdote grassiert. Geschichte erzählen, erschöpft sich jedoch nicht im Geschichtenerzählen. Das gilt in der Wissenschaft für die Alpenmumie Ötzi, in Hollywood für den charismatischen Führer der schwarzen US-Bürgerrechtsbewegung Malcolm X und in der Kunst für den (noch) großen Unbekannten und bis heute unverstanden gebliebenen Joseph Beuys.⁵ Auffallend ist im heutigen Kunstdiskurs die Erscheinung des Künstlers als Erkunder und Erforscher der Jetztzeit und als Erfinder von Geschichte(n).
Verwirrspiel & Vermischung. Die Rede ist von Künstlern als Erfinder von Geschichte(n) samt ihren Fälschungen. Dabei kopieren sie die Wirklichkeit nicht, sondern erschaffen sie neu oder gehen ihr sogar voraus. Sie sind Schöpfer von Fiktionen. In ihren Arbeiten haben nicht nur die Menschen keine festen Konturen, auch Orte, Zeiten, Spuren und Ereignisse sind wandelbare Versatzstücke für ein ständig wechselndes Puzzle. In ihren Bild-Erfindungen entstehen Welten, in denen Vergangenheit und Zukunft zusammenfallen und etwa die Grabstätten Ägyptens in die Visionen zukünftiger Atomkatastrophen umgedacht werden. Wird die Antike mit einer utopischen Zukunft kombiniert und werden Archetypen mit Visionen vereint, dann entsteht ein schwindelerregendes Verwirrspiel mit Oberfläche und Hintergrund, mit Oberflächlichkeit und Tiefsinn. Thematisiert wird – bewusst oder unbewusst – das Verschwinden der Wirklichkeit, der Verlust der Transzendenz und die Brüchigkeit der Normalität.
Fragen über Fragen türmen sich angesichts der Werke und ihrer Wirkung auf: Ist nun alles Spektakel, Trugbild und Mache? Schauspiel, Schein und Parodie? Piraterie, Pastiche, Plagiat und Persiflage?
Oder weiter noch: Löst sich der Unterschied zwischen Realität und Fiktion, zwischen Normalität und Wahnsinn auf? Alles ist Spiel, alles Simulation, nichts ist Wirklichkeit? Symbole, Codes, Chiffren haben ihren Inhalt, ihren Realitätsbezug und Sinn verloren, sind bloß noch Versatzstücke, Untergangsmetaphern im zynisch-naiven Allerlei der Postmoderne? Selbst die Emotionen wie Freude und Lust, wie Wut und Hass sind nicht echt, sondern bloß Gefühlszustände, die anprobiert und weggelegt werden, wie die neusten Kleider aus der Zeitgeistboutique?
In der Tat: Unbekümmert werden in der aktuellen Kunst alte Zöpfe abgeschnitten. Die Ausgangslage steht ja fest: Nichts ist echt. Alles wurde schon einmal dargestellt, gesagt oder geschrieben. Deshalb ist Dekonstruieren und Neuzusammensetzen das einzige, was zu tun bleibt.
Gegen das Gebot der Echtheit und Authentizität verstoßen viele heutige Künstler, denn sie wollen ja gerade das Trügerische an der Wirklichkeit zeigen, das Halbechte, Scheinhafte. Sie demaskieren die Wirklichkeit als ein flüchtiges Bild auf der Netzhaut, als zufällige Konstruktion im Kopf. Sie übertreffen konventionelle Darstellungen, weil sich in ihren Arbeiten akribisches Erkunden und subjektive Sicht derart ineinander spiegeln, dass eine ganz eigene Authentizität entsteht. Sie schaffen besonders dann herausragende Arbeiten, wenn es ihnen gelingt, den kühlen, analysierenden Blick, die Unübersichtlichkeit des schöpferisch-künstlerischen Prozesses und das private Coming-out in einer spannungsreichen Vermischung zusammenzufassen.
Reliquien des Profanen. Sie sind keine Intellektuellen und ihre Dialektik stammt nicht aus dem Studium von Baudrillard oder Sloterdijk, sondern aus der analytischen Beobachtung der Jetztzeit, die das letzte Jahrzehnt unseres Jahrhunderts erfüllt: An der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert ist Altes dem Untergang preisgegeben, und Neues, manchmal noch undeutlich konturiert, steigt empor.
Diesen Künstlern ist gemeinsam, dass sie auf ihrer archäologischen Spurensuche nicht die Artefakte einer entschwundenen oder weit zurückliegenden Zivilisation sichern, sondern diejenigen unserer eigenen.
Als Archäologen der Gegenwart, der Moderne bzw. der Postmoderne, betreiben diese Künstler, wenn auch mit verschiedenen Methoden, weniger Spurensicherung, persönliche Mythologie oder politische Utopie als vielmehr Jetzt-Archäologie.
Aus Repliken, Kopien, Reproduktionen und Relikten werden Reliquien des Alltags, aber auch des simplen Überlebenskampfes und der Selbstfindung; Reliquien der Konsum-, Massen- und Populärkultur, Reliquien des Profanen, des Banalen und nicht Bewahrenswürdigen. Ihre Werke sind jedoch weder mit der Trash noch mit der Junk Culture verwandt und gehorchen ebenso wenig der allgemeinen Tendenz zum trivialen Fast Food im aktuellen Kulturkonsum. Es geht ihnen nicht um Illustration, Karikatur oder gar um einen Kommentar zur Kultur, sondern um die Verschiebungen zwischen Hochkunst und Alltags- bzw. Trivialkultur, ja generell um die Unterschiede, die Ausnahmen, die Änderungen, die Umwertungen und die subtilen Wechsel, die in der heutigen Kunst- und Lebenswelt stattfinden.
Freude am Zitat. Jeder Gegenstand, über den die Künstler stolpern, jedes Ready-made, jedes Objet trouvé und Objet sentimental ist ihnen ein Lieblingsobjekt, weil sie es waren, die es gefunden haben. Ins Auge fällt bei dieser Kunst ein inspirierter Umgang mit fremdem Material. Fremdes wird zur Folie für Eigenes. Das Original oder die Originalkopie wird neu erschaffen. Die Trans-Formation, die Um-Wandlung, Um-Formung, Um-Gestaltung und Über-Tragung wird zur Hauptbewegung. Die Umwandlung (und nicht Verfremdung) des Gegenstands beschränkt sich nicht nur auf das Objekt selbst, sondern ebenso auf dessen Idee und Charakter, dessen Aura und Ausstrahlung.
Zumeist werden einerseits Themen profanen Inhalts mit sogenannten kulturell wertvollen Formen dargestellt oder erfahren, andererseits haben wertvolle Inhalte oft banale und profane Ausformungen. Die künstlerischen Eingriffe sind stets ebenso einfach wie vielschichtig, ebenso kunstvoll wie kunstlos.
Déjà-vus kommen in den Arbeiten dieser Künstler bewusst vor. Wenn kurzsichtige Kritiker die Zitierfreude als plagiatorisch oder epigonenhaft denunzieren, dann zu Unrecht. Wer zitiert, kopiert nicht einfach. Wer zitiert, trifft eine Auswahl, bewirkt eine Rückkopplung mit dem Zitierten, bringt Töne, Bilder, Worte oder x-beliebige Dinge in einem neuen kontextuellen Umfeld auf neue Weise zur Darstellung, verleiht ihnen somit auch eine zusätzliche Zeitdimension, bezieht sie – durch Vergegenwärtigung – auf die Zukunft. Töne, Bilder, Worte wie auch andere Dinge und Formen bergen nicht bloß Erinnerungen, sie bergen auch Energien, die freigesetzt, umgesetzt, für weiterführende Erfindungen nutzbar gemacht werden können.
Dialog der Subjektivität. Diese Künstler sammeln zwar Spuren und Daten – Feld-Forschung, Sperrmüll-Streifzüge, Flohmarkt-Billigkäufe, Antiquariats-Trouvaillen, Dachboden-Räumungen, Abfall-Recycling, Daten-Speicherung, Ideen-Sampling und Archiv-Arbeit sind denn auch wichtige Teilaspekte der künstlerischen Arbeit – im Mittelpunkt steht jedoch vielmehr die innovative Fähigkeit, etwas Sinnvolles mit dem Gefundenen und Gesammelten anzufangen.
Die Fundstücke, diese Dinge der „wirklichen“, der materiellen und äußeren Welt, durchtränken die Künstler mit immaterieller, psychischer Energie. „So machen sie die Werke zur Manifestation von Wirklichkeiten, die nicht mit den Kategorien der für verbindlich gehaltenen Realität erfasst werden können. Ihre Bildwelten zeigen Figurationen, die andere Unterteilungen, Formen, Beziehungen und Wertigkeiten erkennen lassen als solche, die in einer überprüfbaren Aussage erwartet werden dürfen. So aber kommen sie zum Ausdruck von Welten neben, unter oder über der Welt alltäglicher Übereinkünfte. Diese Welten haben eine empfundene, geträumte oder auch zwanghafte Richtigkeit. Sie tragen das Signum des Subjektes, doch gerade ihre erhöhte Subjektivität scheint sie nicht hermetisch zu machen: Es scheint möglich, dass Betrachter jene subjektiven Bildwelten ‚erkennen‘ und von ihnen berührt werden. Es ist, als fände der ‚subjektive Ausdruck‘ des Künstlers ein Echo in anderen Individuen.“⁶
Was die Werke dieser Künstler so erfrischend macht, ist ihre Selbstironie, ihr skeptischer Gestus und ihre Aufrichtigkeit. Ihre ungebrochene Spontaneität den Menschen und der Natur gegenüber. Ihr Bezug – ohne Eitelkeit – auf sich selbst in der Begegnung mit dem Anderen. Begegnung und Dialog sind Zeitzeugen; in ihnen wird Subjektivität selbst zum Dokument.
Heimat & Fremde. Nicht nur das handwerkliche Bric-à-Brac, sondern zugleich auch die denkerische Sensibilität und Intensität haben diese Künstler zur eigenen Sache erklärt. Es geht den Jetzt-Archäologen um mehr als bloße Bricolage von Eigenem und Fremdem. Auch die empfundene oder real existierende Enge menschlicher und räumlicher Umwelt ist längst ein Thema unter anderen in einer sich zunehmend polyglott und multikulturell entfaltenden Welt der grenzenlosen Mobilität. Ihnen ist es wichtig, in einer selbstgewählten Eingrenzung alle Freiheiten auszuloten.
„Heimat“ und „Fremde“ sind für diese Künstler unverzichtbare Erfahrungsräume: Die Enge der Heimat treibt sie in die Fremde und erzwingt den Wandel; die Gefahr in der Fremde sowie die Angst vor dem Fremden wecken wiederum das Heimweh und die Sehnsucht nach Heimat und Tradition. Sie durchsetzen ihre Kunst statt mit Bekanntem und Vertrautem mit (Kunst-)Fremdem: Kunst (und Kultur) ist für sie das, was in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Fremden entsteht, sie stellt sich dar im Produkt der Veränderung des Eigenen durch die Aufnahme des Fremden. Mario Erdheim hat hierfür eine treffende Formulierung gefunden: „Die Heimat bedeutet Geborgenheit und Unbewusstheit; die Fremde Verlorenheit und Bewusstsein. Das Leben des Subjekts ist ein Pendeln zwischen diesen beiden Erfahrungsräumen.“⁷

Vergangenheit als Zukunft oder: Retrovision
Künstler wandeln sich zusehends zu Weltkünstlern. Woher ein Künstler stammt, wird in wenigen Jahren keinerlei Bedeutung mehr haben. Die Begriffe „amerikanischer“, „europäischer“, „afrikanischer“, „österreichischer“ oder „japanischer Künstler“ werden verschwinden. An der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert werden erfolgreiche Künstler sich dadurch auszeichnen, dass sie die nomadische Fähigkeit besitzen, sich im globalen Geflecht der multikulturellen Gesellschaften selbständig zu bewegen, Probleme zu erkennen, diese modellhaft darzustellen, zu analysieren und schließlich ins Werk umzusetzen. Die neue Weltkunst geht nicht mehr von einem gemeinsamen Ganzen oder Ursprung aus, sondern von anonym vernetzten Diskursen.
Blick in den Rückspiegel. Die neuen Weltkünstler und Jetzt-Archäologen werden eine transmediale Spurensuche im Global Village von heute entwickeln, in dem sie als Jetzt-Forscher und -Erfinder unsere Zeit und Zivilisation ruhelos wie Nomaden durchstreifen. Dabei stochern sie in Erinnerungen und heben Schätze vom Grund des Vergessens. Mit dem Blick zurück stürzen sie vorwärts. Das meint keine nostalgische Rückwärts-Gewandtheit, sondern im Gegenteil eine vorausblickende Rücksichtnahme auf Bestehendes, Vergangenes und Künftiges. Die Schlagworte lauten: „Back to the Future“ und „Vorwärts zur Tradition“, „Unsere Vergangenheit liegt vor uns“ oder „Vergangenheit als Zukunft“. Jetzt-Archäologen sind Visionäre, genauer gesagt: Retrovisionäre.
Retrovision meint den Blick in den Rückspiegel auf unserer unausweichlichen Weiterfahrt in der Geschichte, die etwa der immerwährenden Reise der Erde um die Sonne entspricht. Es handelt sich bei unserer Zeit- und Weltreise Richtung Zukunft um die Besinnung auf den Rückspiegel, auf seine zwei Einstellungsvarianten: die extrospektive und die introspektive.
Letztere haben wir – hier weniger im Sinne von Selbstbeobachtung und Selbstsuche, denn vielmehr als Selbstbezogenheit und Selbstsucht, aber auch als Narzissmus, Individualismus, Eigennutz, Egomanie und Vereinzelung gedacht – ohne Interesse für Zukunft und Vergangenheit mit verheerenden Folgen gegenüber Mensch und Natur praktiziert. Und tun es weiterhin.
Von ersterer können wir anscheinend nicht lassen: Damit sind hier Expansion, Eroberung und Entdeckung, Sicherheben und Sicherkämpfen gemeint, was in Richtung Fortschritt, Maximierung und Wachstum zielt, zumeist aber auch Gewalt, Zerstörung und Krieg mit sich bringt.
Beide Sichtweisen hängen zusammen, und doch gibt es eine andere, eine dritte Variante, an die nicht gedacht wurde oder an die niemand denken wollte: den Blick in den Rückspiegel im Sinne einer wirklichen Retrovision.
Die Vergangenheit als Schatzkammer. Retrovision? Ist damit die Ablösung der Postmoderne angesprochen? Ein neues Weltbild vielleicht? Letzteres wohl kaum. Retrovision ist vielmehr eine praktische Theorie, die uns zu neuen Ufern führen könnte, zu neuen Räumen und Tiefen. Retrovision sucht nicht nach neuen dogmatischen Formulierungen, nach Korrektur oder gar Umkehrung postmoderner Aussagen, sondern nach einer Deutung der Avantgarde, die andere Wege beschreitet.
Beim Gedanken an eine Umschreibung, was mit Retrovision gemeint ist, fallen einem erst einmal ein Negativ-Kanon ein: Es geht nicht um eine Rückwärtsgewandtheit in die Vergangenheit im Sinne von Nostalgie oder sentimentaler Illusion, nicht um die Vorstellung, dass das Leben in der Vergangenheit in bedeutsamer Weise besser gewesen sein könnte als heute (was allerdings nicht ganz unwahrscheinlich ist). Es geht auch nicht um die Gleichsetzung von Vergangenheit mit veralteten Konsumgewohnheiten, abgelegten Moden und alten Normen und Verhaltensweisen. – Geht es also darum, in der Vergangenheit Maßstäbe zur Beurteilung der Gegenwart zu finden? Im Mythos oder in der Erinnerung an ein „goldenes Zeitalter“ aus einer weit zurückliegenden Vergangenheit zu schöpfen? Die Vergangenheit als kulturelle, politische und psychologische Schatzkammer zu betrachten?
Vergangenheit erinnern. Retrovisionäres Denken orientiert sich weder nach innen noch nach rückwärts, vielmehr löst es veraltete Strukturen und geistige Stagnation auf, überdenkt die eigene Geschichte kritisch und erneuert sich immer wieder selbst. Retrovisionäres Denken ist eine Außenorientierung, eine Vorwärtsstrategie, die sich aus einem bunt gefüllten geschichtlich-geistigen Rucksack nährt. Retrovisionäres Denken ist Archäologie der zeitgenössischen Lebenswelt, Jetzt-Archäologie unserer Kulturen und Zivilisationen.
Retrovision steht für die „Vergangenheit als Zukunft“ (Habermas). Sie steht aber nicht für die scheinbar unwiderstehliche Neigung, Modelle der Vergangenheit als Muster der Interpretation des Künftigen zu wählen. Retrovision kann sowohl zukünftige Vergangenheit sein als auch Zukunft in der Vergangenheitsform im Sinne eines „Packen wir‘s, so wie wir es schon einmal gepackt haben“⁸. Das heißt jedoch längst nicht, dass nur noch die Vergangenheit über die Zukunft herrschen soll. Eigentlich steht weniger der Glaube an die Vergangenheit als vielmehr die Erinnerung daran im Mittelpunkt.
Während die einen die Welt als Global Village wahrnehmen, das Wissen über jeden Ort und jedes Ereignis auf dieser Welt gewissermaßen auf Abruf im Gedächtnis haben oder mit Hilfe von Gedächtniswerkzeugen wie Filmen, Büchern, Datenbanken etc. speichern, andererseits jedoch nicht in der Lage sind, selbst einen einfachen abstrakten Begriff oder Gedanken zu verstehen, sehen sich andere ihres Gedächtnisses, ihrer Lebensgeschichte und ihrer Identität beraubt, wie etwa die Indianer Nordamerikas oder die Indios Lateinamerikas, die Kurden und die Moslems in Bosnien. Menschen, die nichts vergessen können, und Menschen, die alles vergessen mussten, stehen sich heute gegenüber. Menschen mit Erinnerungen besitzen zwar die Welt, verlieren dafür aber ihr Leben. Der erinnerungslose Mensch sieht die Welt als Scherbenhaufen, dafür kann er sein Leben wieder zurückgewinnen. Der russische Psychologe und Hirnforscher Alexander Lurija (1902–1977) hat zwei neurologische Geschichten geschrieben, die genau diese beiden Zustände wiedergeben.
Erinnerung. Der junge russische Offizier Sassezki wird im März 1943 am Kopf verwundet, ein Granatsplitter verletzt sein Gehirn. Er überlebt, doch als er im Lazarett aus der Bewusstlosigkeit erwacht, kann er sich nicht an sein bisheriges Leben erinnern. Er hat auch seine Sprache verloren, befindet sich in einem Zustand „geistiger Aphasie“. Seine Welt liegt in Scherben, die er beim besten Willen nicht wieder zusammenfügen kann. Manchmal sieht er sein rechtes Bein oberhalb seiner Schulter oder sogar über seinem Kopf schweben. Er vergisst, wofür sein Körper überhaupt da ist – auf der Toilette kann er sich nicht daran erinnern, wie er seinen Darm entleeren muss. Alles ist in einem ständigen Fluss, ein andauernd wechselndes visuelles Chaos erscheint vor seinen Augen. Um den Sinn des Lebens wieder zurück zu gewinnen, beginnt Sassezki noch einmal ganz von vorn. Er erkämpft sich unter großen Mühen die Sprache zurück, Buchstaben für Buchstaben zunächst, dann Wort für Wort. Doch die Wörter bilden keine Sätze, geschweige denn Zusammenhänge. Kaum hat er etwas gelesen, ist es bereits wieder vergessen. Eines Tages macht er eine Entdeckung, die ihn rettet: Er kann schreiben, in einem Zug, ohne auf den einzelnen Buchstaben zu achten, spontan, ohne nachzudenken, automatisch, ohne Kontrolle. Obwohl alles gegen ihn spricht, obwohl er als hoffnungsloser Fall gilt, fügt er Splitter, Bruchstücke und Fragmente mit der „Verbissenheit eines Verdammten“ zu einem sinnvollen Ganzen zusammen; auf dreitausend Seiten in zwanzig Jahren. „Dies ist die Geschichte eines Menschen“, schreibt Lurija, „der alle Kräfte einsetzte, um seine Vergangenheit zurück zu gewinnen und dadurch seine Zukunft zu erobern.“⁹
Erinnerungslosigkeit. Die andere Geschichte schildert die innere Welt des Mnemonikers Schereschewski, eines Mannes mit übersteigertem Erinnerungsvermögen. Sein Gedächtnis scheint keine Grenzen zu haben. Was es auch immer aufnimmt, scheint wie eine Tätowierung für immer festgeschrieben zu sein. Jedes Geräusch, jeder Blick, jeder Geruch, jede Empfindung, jedes Wort, jede Idee, jedes Bild, jeder Gedanke führt in Schereschewskis Kopf „zu einem Ausbruch synästhetischer Assoziationen, die alles, das Visuelle, Akustische und Taktile, miteinander verbanden“, wie Oliver Sacks schreibt.¹⁰
Um sich Zahlen einzuprägen, assoziiert Schereschewski diese zum Beispiel mit Bäumen oder Statuen. Im Geist platziert er diese an einer bekannten Straße in Moskau und lässt die Gedächtnisstraße wie in einem Film vor seinem inneren Auge Revue passieren, um die Zahlen wieder abzurufen. Als er in der Kunst der Erinnerung immer begabter wird, hängt er seinen Journalistenjob an den Nagel, um seinen Lebensunterhalt als Gedächtniskünstler in Varietés zu bestreiten. Das Publikum ruft ihm bei seinen Auftritten Hunderte oft absichtlich komplizierte und sinnlose Wörter zu. Er wandelt diese Wörter in sinnvolle Bilder um und speichert sie in seinem gigantischen „Gedächtnisarchiv“. Seine Wiedergabe erfolgt – zur allgemeinen Verblüffung – als identisches Echo.
Alles Wahrgenommene hinterlässt bei Schereschewski unauslöschliche Erinnerungsspuren. In dieser Flut der Bilder, die sein Gehirn überschwemmen, droht er zu versinken und nie wieder aufzutauchen. Während unsereiner nach Wegen sucht, seine Gedächtnisleistung zu verbessern, stellt sich für den Gedächtniskünstler das umgekehrte Problem: Wie kann die Kunst des Vergessens gelernt werden?
Retrovisionäre sind Grenzgänger. „Ein Leugnen der Vergangenheit, das sich oberflächlich progressiv und optimistisch gibt, erweist sich bei genauerem Hinsehen als Ausdruck der Verzweiflung einer Gesellschaft, die der Zukunft nicht ins Auge zu sehen vermag“, schreibt der US-amerikanische Historiker und Kulturkritiker Christopher Lasch treffend.¹¹
Während die Postmoderne dem Gesetz der Erinnerungslosigkeit und der Vergangenheitsverleugnung huldigt, wird eine retrovisionäre Weltgesellschaft die Erinnerungslosigkeit nicht als Vergessen, sondern als Wiedererfinden und -erleben, Wiedererfahren und -entdecken praktizieren. Vergangenheitsverleugnung oder -verlust wird durch das Erkunden der Scherben einer versunkenen Welt, durch das Retten eines vergessenen, verschollenen Lebens ersetzt. Retrovision meint die Widerlegung des Fortschritts und das Wirken des Archaischen, die Interaktion zwischen Vergangenem und Gegenwärtigem.
Im Auto, unterwegs auf dem Weg zu sich selber, sitzen identische Zwillinge: Der eine blickt in den Rückspiegel, in die Vergangenheit also, der andere geradeaus in die Zukunft. Beide Sichten, beide Zeiten und beide Orte fließen permanent ineinander, bilden gewissermaßen die Sehnsuchtsperspektive einer menschlicheren Welt, einer sozialeren Heimat, kurz: einer Welt-Heimat – das ist Retrovision.
Retrovision ist zugleich aber auch die Rücksichtnahme auf den anderen Menschen wie auch auf alles Andere. Der retrovisionäre Mensch setzt alle Kräfte ein, um seine Vergangenheit zurück zu gewinnen und dadurch seine Zukunft zu entdecken. Es geht nicht um Entdeckung im herkömmlichen Sinn, sondern, wie Vilém Flusser schreibt, um „die Kunst des Entdeckens als Akt, dank welchem die Wahrheit (also die theoretische Sicht der Ideen) unter der Decke des Vergessens herausgezogen wird – es ist gleichsam ein Geburtsakt“. Und weiter: „Unsere Kultur ist erschöpft, dank unserer Entdeckungen ausgeschöpft worden. Die Decke des Vergessens (und der Schuld) breitet sich über uns aus, und nach den dreitausend Jahren der Entdeckungen bricht die Zeit der Verdeckung über uns herein, um alles wieder zu glätten.“¹²
Über den geistigen Zustand des retrovisionären Menschen und Künstlers lässt sich sagen, dass er nicht in einer einheitlichen und eintönigen Welt, einem Universum lebt, sondern in einer viel- und mehrschichtigen Welt, einer Welt, die Multiversum genannt werden könnte. Der ungestüme Aufbruch ins Offene wird für den Retrovisionären unvermittelt zur Rückkehr ins eigene Innere. Der nomadische Weg erweist sich als spiralförmige Bewegung, die uns, gewandelt und bereichert, zum Ursprung, zur Mitte zurückführt. Für den retrovisionären Menschen ist retrovisionäres Denken, Handeln, Fühlen und Wollen eine Frage der Grenzüberschreitung. Retrovisionäre sind Grenz- und Weltengänger zugleich.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Speicher. Versuche der Darstellbarkeit von Geschichte/n. Ausstellungskatalog zur gleichnamigen Schau, herausgegeben von Offenes Kulturhaus des Landes OÖ, Linz 1993, S. 73–82. Hier in einer leicht korrigierten Fassung als Nachdruck verwendet und im Sommer 2013 vom Autor mit einem Vorspann versehen. Mit freundlicher Genehmigung des OK Offenes Kulturhaus Linz und des Autors.

1.) Friedrich Nietzsche: Morgenröthe, zitiert nach: http://www.friedrichnietzsche.de/ (Zugriff: 23.6.2013).
2.) Julia Voss: Die Welt, wie sie sein soll, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1. Juni 2013, zitiert nach: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/kunst/biennale-von-venedig-die-welt-wie-sie-sein-soll-12203445.html (Zugriff: 25.6.2013).
3.) Knut Ebeling: Wilde Archäologien 1: Theorien der materiellen Kultur von Kant bis Kittler, Kulturverlag Kadmos, Berlin 2012, S. 16f. Mit „wild“ bezeichnet der Autor archäologische Projekte außerhalb der klassischen Archäologie und verweist auf folgende Autoren respektive Schriften: Sigmund Freuds „Archäologie der Seele“ (1896–1937), Walter Benjamins „Archäologie der Moderne“ im Rahmen seiner „Urgeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts“, des „Passagen-Werks“ (1928–1939), Michel Foucaults „Archäologie des Wissens“ (1969), Immanuel Kants „Archäologie der Metaphysik“ (1793), Friedrich Kittlers „Archäologie der Medien“ (1985–2005) und Giorgio Agambens Essay über die „philosophische Archäologie“ (2009). Anzufügen ist hier noch die „ästhetische Archäologie des Abfalls“ (2003–04), von Paolo Bianchi in der Zeitschrift „Kunstforum International“ thematisiert sowie im Weiteren: „Archäologie der Gewalt“ von Pierre Clastres (franz. 1980, dt. 2008) und „Zur Archäologie der Prominenz“ von Thomas Macho im Buch „Vorbilder“ (2011).
4.) Giorgio Agamben: Signatura rerum. Zur Methode, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2009 (italienisch 2008), S. 134 (im Kapitel: Philosophische Archäologie).
5.) Vgl. neuere Literatur zu Beuys, so etwa: Hans-Peter Riegel: Beuys. Die Biografie, Aufbau Verlag, Berlin 2013. Und: Paolo Bianchi und Christoph Doswald: Gegenspieler: Andy Warhol und Joseph Beuys. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2000.
6.) Ulrich Look, Pressemitteilung vom 1. März 1993 zur Ausstellung von Serge Brignoni, Dorothee Sauter und Leopold Schropp in der Kunsthalle Bern.
7.) Mario Erdheim: Heimatboden. „Heimat“ und „Fremde“ als Orientierungskategorien, in: Schweizerischer Werkbund (Hrsg.), Überall ist jemand. Räume im besetzten Land, Museum für Gestaltung, Zürich 1992 (Buch zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung), S. 16–25, hier zitiert nach S. 25.
8.) Vgl. Jürgen Habermas: Vergangenheit als Zukunft, herausgegeben von Michael Haller, Pendo Verlag, Zürich 1990, S. 89.
9.) Alexander Lurija: Der Mann, dessen Welt in Scherben ging, Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1991 (auf russisch 1968 und 1971), S. 21.
10.) Oliver Sacks: Einführung, in: Lurija, a. a. O., S. 7–20, hier zitiert nach S. 14.
11.) Christopher Lasch: Das Zeitalter des Narzissmus, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag dtv, München 1986 (englisch 1979), S. 16.
12.) Vilém Flusser: Entdecken/Verdecken, in: Entdecken/Verdecken. Eine Nomadologie der Neunziger, Verlag Droschl, Graz 1991, S. 7ff., hier zitiert nach S. 7 und 11.