Fred Forest. For an Aesthetics of Communication
Previous chapter Next Chapter Back to Table of contents
The role of the artist is to give to others a taste of what, at that moment, they cannot yet perceive. The Communications artist's task is to translate the new reality of the world into a transposed langage, the codes of which it is up to him to establith. Within a new realm of expression, in which there is no place for traditional plastic techniques, he must confront the real problem of devising a system of enunciations to constitute his own language. He must discover how to render legible a language for which there exist no recognisable alphabetical signs, nor an acceptaed alphabetical order. Art history teaches us that any attempt to introduce new signs is always accompanied by the strong odour of scandal. Dada and first neo-Dadaist manifestations of the 60s had to play upon the transgression of taboos and the introduction of new means of expression,in order to explore new fields. As a result of both the wide range of domains encompassed and the " alien " nature of new techniques which are very far removed from the world of plastic signs, artists are now having to invent whole now languages so as to make a different form of creation possible. In order for art to correspond to contemporary perception, it is now that new forms have to be invented. By restricting themselves almost exclusively to the problems of manipulating pictorial pigments, the vast majority of artists today show an astonishing passivity in face of the variety of new media and situations which modern life offers them. They seem perfectly content to follow the well-worn tracks of a predictable tradition and the conventions of their milieu. One wonders if Picasso would have been as passive as this had satellites, video and telephone technology existed in his youth. The insistence on keeping to narrow, well-delineated categories is surprising, particularly ones which are already well-explored. It is not an attitude which is easily compatible with the notions of research, experimentation, adventure and discovery, all of which play their path in other realms of human activity. Realms which display a spirit of renewal, in which the rhythms of change are, on the contrary, constantly accelerating. Such a phenomenon as this deserves our full attention. In my eyes, it constitutes an extraodinary sociological phenomenon demanding clarification. I do not recall this situation having aroused of nourished the reflections or commentaries of any right-thinking commentator. In this milieu, everyone seems to be anaesthetised.
How to understand the reasons behind such a rift with the spirit of the time ? Faced with all the deceptive stability,the astonishing conformity of creators,and the reactionary attitude of the plastic arts, I feel a sensation of vertigo. This situation indicates the great hold which the power of the market, by the power of manipulation, has over the very content of creation. The extremely discreet naure of the circuit, functioning in isolated seclusion, makes this conditioning possible, because a very restricted number of people participate in the taking of decisions. Painting is consequently reduced to latter-day expressionism. The recent productions of " Transavanguardia " and of " Bad Painting ", which we have had presented to us as pictorial " revolutions " of the first order in art, seem to me derisory alongside the innovations and upheavals that have marked our age in other spheres. The spirit of creation is today to be found eslewhere - and this " elsewhere " is where the world of ou awareness finds its bearings, where the aesthetics which will be the aesthetics or our time is being created. From modern physics to the technology of space exploration, via biology, genetics, artificial intelligence, computer technology, communication development and ecological thought, it is there where " modern awareness " is doubtless to be found, rather than in processed art products.
We must then ask the question: " Why is so little happening in the realm of contemporary art and in the micro-milieu of the plastic arts, while there is so much on the move all around us ? " Keep on moving! And, as thousand portents presage, let us hail a new science, a new society and a new culture!
The artistic creation produced and recognised at the present time is clearly no reflection or our modern awareness. Anything which is truly innovatory is still not taken into consideration by the established art circuits. This is also partly due to the fact that both for economic reasons, and because he does not have access to sophisticated and costly technology, the artist must remain on the fringe of modern creation. His work is always reduced to some extent to nothing but craftmanship! He is totally dependent on a mileu and a circuit whose major, not to say sole, preoccupation is short-term profit. From the outset, he is compelled to pitch his perception and his expression in a register determined by the ideological and economic conditions imposed on him by his sleeping partners - who have also " invented " him. Unlike researchers in the scientific disciplines, he does not benefit from a status which allows him access to his own means of creation. If our society is just about willing to put up with artists, it does not yet recognise that their function is a necessary one for the health, the fulfilment an the future of the community. There is here, indeed, a problem of values.
I wouldn't for a moment dispute that there are certain forms of perception which can be conveyed by the established art circuits. My reservations concern the inappropriateness of these productions to the specific and profound awareness of our times. Such products, manufactured by the artist, promoted by the art museums, maketed by the galleries, can be readily seen, whether they are paintings or objects, to transform awareness into merchandise. To become part of the circuit, these works must be capable of being looked at, touched, hung on a wall or put on a pedestal, bought or sold at any time. In the art world today, and by extension, in our society, only objects which meet these criteria are recognised as art. The " Performance " of the " Video " enjoy a much less well-defined status. Frequently they are only seen as being a foil to the other, first-class, products.
There is an insoluble contradiction between economic necessities and the expression of an awareness which cannot be made evident through objects. Paintings, sculptures and other art objects have certain properties which make them more commercial. On the other hand, the very nature of their media is unsuitable for conveying today's perceptible world. Incontrovertibly, this stems from their material structure,and impasible barrier. It unmitigatedly limits their capacity for expression - especially when it comes to reconstituting the forms of awareness derived from Communication Aesthetics. The medium of expression inevitably determines the content of it. In consequence of which, once more : the medium of picture-and-paint is unsuitable for translating this specifically contemporary form of awareness. We have previoulsy seen how the plastic artist finds himself caught up in the irreconcilable contradiction between the way the market functions and his natural vocation, which is to make today's form of awareness apparent. The way it function brings up more than just economic questions. What is much more serious is that it has both founded and directed the systems of cognitive recognitition and of values of our society.
We have no choice but to assert, for the reasons just stated, that what is being produced and is recognised as falling into the category of creation at the present time is not, on the whole, the reflection of a " modern awareness ". This awareness, however, is omniprersent, pervading our daily lives and directing our actions. The situation currently prevailing in the plastic arts rather suggests, through the practice which it generates and subsequently legitimises, an awareness of knowledge that belongs to a past which is quietly fading away. From this point of view, the domain of the arts is behind other branches of thought and human endeavour where people are working on concepts, fundamentals and data which form an integral part of a new present.
It is not surprising, in a context where painting has become nothing more than a tautological game of sterile references, that those who first had sufficient nerve to cultivate akwardness and to exalt well-prepared spontaneity should have been hailed as geniuses. But, once again, there is nothing in it which reflects the specific awareness of our epoch with any relevance. We remain in isolation. I am amazed that this paradoxical situation of contemporary plastic creation has not become the subject of critical reflexcion by those whose job it is to think about art. On the contrary, this very situation is being complacently upheld by a cohort of critics and academics. Surely there can be no other domain of the arts, be it literaure, theatre, architecture or cinema, which is cut off from the reality of our times in such a ridiculous matter.The absurd is king. No child is here to proclaim " Why, the emperor has no clothes ! "
The multi-national cultural machine grinds on, apparently happy with its droning and its profits. Artists are working like maniacs to produce wares and material wich are completely inappropriate to our modern awareness, but the sale of which is assured, at great expense, by the art museums. These museums stage exhibition after exhibition in order to give the greatest possible satisfaction to the ten thousand or so people in the world who feel that they must attend. Ten thousand people (howewer select) can never constitute the " awareness of an age ". But nothing is ever completely lost: three gallery owners and a critic decide, as is their wont, what tomorrow's art will consist of. The investment is made through an exchange of telexes which go via Basle, New York and Milan... What d'you know! The art world has got the idea at last, it has made it into the world of Communication Aesthetics!