Neo-Art
By Slawomir Marzec
How we look at art differs from one age to another. It’s possible to examine the history of art in terms of a series of paradigms that periodically undergo transformation:
Art (sensu stricto), is a sphere of autonomous values, self-referential and answerable only to its own aesthetic rules (at least since the 18th century). It is a paradigm based on metaphysics and canons of beauty, which later found an apogee in the slogan, "art for art’s sake."
Anti-art, was initiated by Dadaism, which, in the name of authenticity and freedom, negated the traditional definiteness of art
Post-modern art, has been identified with some neo-avant-garde tendencies (so called shock art, critical art, etc.), that deny any art any special distinction and only become ‘art’ by intruding on and exploiting the stuff of everyday life.
At present, these paradigms coexist, alternately intermingling and competing, but all lumped together under the umbrella of ‘art.’ Each time the inception of one paradigm has transformed the aesthetic rules upon which the earlier paradigms were based. Artists, in the name of freedom, authenticity of expression and depth of thought, cast off forms, conventions, and techniques.
However, as it turns out, there is precious little "depth of thought" in evidence these days; art reduced to pure content doesn’t differ too much from banal, everyday slogans, or catchy advertisements.
Things have gotten even more confusing with the addition of a new kind of formalism. This time, though, the new formalism, ironically, is not concerned with form at all, but rather with the meaning of a work. (Read: political correctness). Whereas freedom of expression–initially understood as a direct communication that transcended cultural conventions–was once espoused as the highest goal, this ‘freedom’ was eventually transformed into quasi-sociological interpretation of the world in which artistic "authentically" was defined in terms of its context. Now, the artist is seemingly driven by political, ethnic or social concerns (take your pick) that actually negate the idea of creativity.
Today, freedom and creativity are inextricably bound up in the idea of art — you can’t have one without the other. Art is seen in terms of how open or ‘free’ it is. However, it seems to me that it is time to raise the following question: Does art, devoid of any rules and any commonly accepted definitions, really embody freedom? Just because there are no rules — or no rules that everyone can agree upon — doesn’t necessarily mean that there are voids waiting to be filled in the way we interpret reality. On the contrary, the old discarded rules have been replaced by a new set of proscriptions, though they do not intrude into our consciousness. It isn’t enough to stop thinking to become free. As the great German philosopher Odo Marquard has said, "we are free not so much because we are constrained by rules, but because there are too many rules and they contradict one another. Freedom is not a state of no-action, or a license to do as we wish, but rather it is a challenge, a mission and a task, Freedom requires courage and discernment of thought."
Art, deprived of any rules or concreteness, does not represent freedom. Quite the contrary, art has become a means of subjugation by the mass media and commercial interests. Today’s artists are almost exclusively perceived through the categories of marketing and public relations. We already know the consequences: they strive, at all costs, to attract public attention, to provoke scandal, and to acquire celebrity status (and make lots of money in the process). Under these circumstances, artists are placed in an untenable position; they are forced to become fundamentalists or extremists — even extremists of banality
So, what are we to do? I believe that we should consider another paradigm of art which would restore some concreteness (meaning definite rules) to the way in which we look at and create art. That way, we would be putting more backbone into the idea of art, making it much less vulnerable to whatever interpretation any critic, or artist, for that matter, feels like slapping onto it. I am not arguing for the restoration of traditional canons. That would be impossible anyway. Tradition cannot be created overnight; it can only evolve over a long period. Instead, I would like to propose the paradigm of Neo-art, which should be based not on formal rules or the content of a particular work of art, but on the quality of its influence. In my view, quality of influence entails insight, criticality of thought, authenticity of feeling and processing of experiences. These factors cannot be separated, since they all act in concert with one another. There are several other aspects of this proposed Neo-art that should be noted:
-Neo-art is concerned with the human being and is irreducible to cultural constructs such as codes, contexts, technology or to "rights of nature".
-Neo-art is concerned with different aspects of what it means to be a human (reason, body, sensuality, emotions) rather than regarding human beings in general or as abstractions.
-Neo-art is concerned with complexity, so that the art piece initiates a movement through various discourses or sensibilities rather than exemplifying a particular attitude.
– Neo-art directs us not towards oppositions (the "either — or") but towards poles, seeking a happy medium.
-Neo-art initiates dialogue and reflection rather than indiscriminately advocating a cult of novelty or tradition.
-Neo-art seeks to emphasize our optimum human potential; being an artist is not an alternative to being a human being.
-Neo-art grows out of our understanding that the complexity of human relationships (such as solidarity, care and compassion), cannot be reduced simply to an expression of spontaneous creativity.
-Neo-art encourages an attitude of moderation and a belief that human potential can be optimized.
What it comes down to is this: Why should we be satisfied with a form of art that denies or gives short shrift to our individuality, or defines us by anomalies or extremes?
