Subversion of Status-Quo
To quote Aristotle, all art and literature are imitation. In the context of the creation of new art, all artists will draw upon his or her own personal experiences, education, and values; a lens. Although each artist’s lens is different, it is nonetheless a filter through which their own new creations must pass. While many factors come into play in the creation of this lens, none are more important than the role of historical precedents. What artists and poets have done before always influences where art is going next. This is simple to discover when analyzing the work of a particular era. There would be no basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore without The Pantheon, gothic and post-modernist movements draw from baroque and modernist respectively, and Phillip Johnson’s glass house clearly draws inspiration from Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House. The question remains whether new works of art are successful emulations of their originals, or subversive copies. While our instincts may tell us to follow the path of “good copies,” I believe there is far more work to be done subverting the status-quo.
As previously stated, old art produces new art. There will always be an original and a copy. However, there are issues with the effectiveness of these copies, whether they remain a true representation of the original, or a false copy. In Gilles Deleuze’s essay, Plato and the Simulacrum, a distinction is made between the successes of said copies. He describes Platonism and its model for the creation of new art and literature. According to Platonism, the original work of art shall serve as the model. The successive copies of this model are then divided into two groups: copies and simulacra. Platonism would have the simulacra buried away; hoping it never reaches the surface of mainstream society. Deleuze sees this differently. A simulacrum serves to subvert its own model. When simulacra become so successful at destroying its own institutions, it becomes a new model of itself. Over the course of time, copies may become simulacra, and simulacra will become models. This cycle is described by Deleuze as eternal return. When simulacra become copies of copies of copies, there is a cycle of creation and destruction of once heralded ideas and thoughts that becomes very hard to stop. Deleuze also tells us that in the eternal return, the simulacrum becomes the new lens under which new copies must be judged, and that subversions of subversions are not allowed to return. While this may work in theory, there will always be artists who either disagree with the status-quo, or simply want to make a statement against the establishment. Either way, there will always be new art that is influenced by what came before.
Clement Greenberg sets up a similar, yet arguably different model for this situation. While kitsch and simulacra have more differences than similarities, it is the comparison of the two systems of original and simulacrum, and avant-garde and kitsch that follow traceable patterns. In Greenberg’s essay, Avant-garde and Kitsch, avant-garde serves as the model to be upheld, and kitsch is a cheap imitation. Kitsch achieves subversion by default, as it is meant to appeal to the masses. As kitsch began to pacify post-industrial, newly literate bourgeois, those left curating “sophisticated” art began to dwindle in numbers. Before the recognition of avant-garde art, all art was meant to appeal to the masses and largely be used as religious propaganda. However, as culture advances and ideological confusion takes root, avant-garde aims to keep culture moving. Greenberg states that avant-garde attempts to ‘imitate god by creating something valid solely on its own terms,’ and that what is created ‘cannot be reduced to anything but itself.’ This is an example of the creation of a new model that will inevitably be copied, according to Platonism. How then can avant-garde be unbiasedly successful as a new form of art when it undoubtedly draws inspiration from what has come before? Avant-garde may be an idea, but a god-like idea created by men. While I disagree with the standards of avant-garde as described by Greenberg, the creation of an idealistic school of thought has flaws from its inception.
Those who agree with Dave Hickey and his thoughts put forth in his essay, Formalism, will likely disagree with what I have to say. While Hickey makes agreeably profound statements about the recognition of patterns in being able to understand unfamiliar art, his fake-it-til-you-make-it attitude doesn’t allow for the creation of truly cathartic works of art. He is speaking to the masses in an effort to coral those who would prefer kitsch to prefer something more sophisticated. From the artist’s perspective, this not only sounds like a fascist ploy, but aims to cheapen art that was created to mean something. This should not suggest, however, that I support pastoral art and its values. The creation of subversive simulacra to dismantle the model is where I believe art to be most effective. Traditional and religious art, as well as kitschy, pastoral landscapes say nothing to me about myself and my experiences. This type of art tries to show its viewers what they should strive for. Flemish painters, although highly skilled, represent picturesque landscapes that value “nature;” this bears little relevance on modern society. Norman Rockwell attempts to represent the perfect American family, but Finch family Thanksgivings are hardly picture-perfect. Simulacra is the best approach to art because it uses its original as a model to mock.
The use of historical precedents in the creation of new work is unavoidably necessary, it is next to impossible to create something original that draws inspiration from nowhere. The importance lies within the type of precedents artists choose as inspiration. Whether these new works of art aim to accurately represent its model, or choose to subvert it is within the hands of the artist. We cannot as a society continue to accept outdated models at modern art. While some images are technically beautiful, they rob the viewer of thinking and discovery that is very much prevalent in subversive and meaningful art. It is also unfair of a society to not question the notions of art that is presented to them. Although Dave Hickey would have us believe that pretending to understand art until one actually does understand art is the best chance the masses have at changing mainstream art, I believe that certain art has the potential to make such an impact on the norms of the art world that its ripples will be felt across all media and schools of thought. Artists have the potential to change the way people think-hopefully this tool can be used for the betterment of humankind.
Kevin Finch
2014.10.02
References
1.) Deleuze, G., & Krauss, R. (1983). Plato and the Simulacrum. October, 27, 45-56. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from Jstor.
2.) Greenberg, C., & O'Brian, J. (1988). Avant-Garde and Kitsch. In Clement Greenberg, the collected essays and criticism (Pbk. ed., pp. 5-22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.) Hickey, D. (2013). Formalism. In Pirates and farmers (pp. 83-89). London: Ridinghouse.
