Pi Li
What is, in the context of contemporary art, your vision of a future art?
What is, in the context of contemporary art, your vision of a future art?
It would put one in a very awkward situation, if one would have to answer this question, for there will be so many changing elements to correct your prediction. As for me, when we are talking about the future, the meaning is not really about the future, but more deeply related to the present. It indicates the rational reflection of present context. That's why I will concern myself more with the context of contemporary art than with my vision of a future. If I begin by saying that contemporary art is in crisis, that might sound too strident. Isolated in the society, in a state of genteel dissolution – this might be a more appropriate verdict. Contemporary art now seems more and more like a salon for a certain group of professional people. It happens in the museum, at the biennial and art centre, more like a cultural ceremony than real communication between people. The art creation is an Olympiad-like media competition between artists. The valiant winner, so far, is the great artist. Perhaps the first question to ask is this: Why should contemporary art problems matter? To answer this question, we have to review what logic we usually use to explain the development of contemporary art. The contemporary art has usually been summed up as two logics: the tale of heroic avant-garde, and the movement away from this context towards an art of pure sensation. These two logics have been combined together to contribute to a grand discourse of contemporary art. Within the history of art, the tradition of a topic or narrative belongs to the origin of art: wherever art is bent on religious or political use, a topic and narrative are present. The real function of a topic and narration in art is to imbue it with a higher aim. So the use of narrative at times negates the creative or spiritual development of pure art. Beginning in the nineteenth century, science and technology experienced great developments, and the notion of the self, the individual, became paramount. Against this background, Western art underwent a period of modernism characterised by formalism. The continual exploration of form through creativity served to emphasize the individual self. The result of this exploration was to introduce the artist's personal experience as a major element of art. This evolved as an equation of individual invention and personal experience upon which enormous importance was placed. To substantiate this approach, critics and art writers like Clement Greenberg initiated a defining line between avant-garde and popular kitsch culture. This led to a crisis within Western art in the 1970s as a consequence of the break between the art that was being produced and the audience's ability to view and comprehend it easily. From then on, formalism, or individual invention, has been subject to constant debate and criticism. However, few people have attempted to examine exactly at which point the artists' individual experience can be made public and be publicly accepted. Although contemporary art has turned to dealing with social issues and social/popular images, numerous barriers remain between art and society, art and the audience. But the gap between art and the social masses, which is caused by the emphasis on pure sensation, has not disappeared; it has become wider and wider because of heroic avant-garde logic. Even now, as it seems that the trend to emphasize sensation is returning again, the gap is still there. Even in these years when, forced by technical and scientific development, contemporary art begins to represent individual experience and sensation or personal ideologies, art is still like a recycling game of the ideology and sensation on the other side of the gap, far away from the social masses, composed of millions of individuals. However, this is only on the surface of contemporary art's context, the appearance of the crisis. The real reason is the vicious circle between art and other realms of contemporary society. There is no doubt that contemporary society is driven by economic development. Since the era of modernism, the worship of ancestors and past authorities has been deconstructed by economic impulse. In this context, the self in art became less and less limited, which indicated the elimination of context in art, step by step. The economic impulse not only makes everything loose its holiness, but it also leads to the phenomenon of blasphemy in contemporary art. Basically, the economic realm is ruled by the principle of profit, which requires a constant order. Consequently, in the contemporary era, the economical impulse eliminates worship of the ancestors and past authorities and leads to a sharp conflict between culture and economics. On the other hand, driven by the longing for culture, or the subconscious, the entire society attempts to use art to replace religion, which has been deconstructed by economic impulses. Nevertheless, in the conflict between art and economics, art can never be strong enough to hold individuals together and fill the vacuum left by religion. So we only have the worship of the contemporary art which is very similar to idol worship. Such worship is shown in the different ways of purchasing art. The economics of purchasing result in the individual being placed at the centre of attention. This is the real reason for the isolation of contemporary art in the social context, and should not be simply considered the consequence of the heroic avant-garde logic. Even though we have hundreds of biennials, art centres and art foundations in the world, these should be read more as the hypertrophy of official diversions or cultural ceremony rather than the effect of the significance of art for contemporary society. This increase will never counter the isolation of contemporary art unless we can find a way to avoid the vicious circle between the development of art and society. The way we understand history decides how we behave. When I state two logics, heroic and sensitive, it is not to say that they are boring or false, but that they are fragments of real stories, yet not the whole story. At least, in the current context of contemporary art, following these two logics, we cannot see the future of art. On the other hand, within contemporary society, technique, science and reason have become increasingly important, driving out faith and belief resulting in diminished significance. Although this is the present situation, is it possible that we can control the relationships in art between desire and reality, individual and society, individual and individual? According to my understanding and education of art and culture, this is the basic function of art. We can see the future of art only if we can reduce or avoid this vicious circle. Or we can say, to reduce and avoid this vicious circle is the future of art. Pi Li China |
