Why art lost its taste

[LCR]

Have you already had the opportunity to become acquainted with at least one opus Olivier Sen, one of the most prominent French art critics (I translated his article about the exhibition in Paris, Russia Sots Art, views on which, remember, split). I offer him another story. In truth, the problems it is very similar to the subject of articles by Philip Dejean, but it seems to me that she successfully completes it, and besides, it has things interesting in the light of the recent controversy over the award of Kandinsky. In short, here's the text.

Why art lost its taste

Olivier Sung
"Telerama»

At the last international fair of contemporary art in Paris (FIAC) London gallery White Cube has exposed the work of brothers Jake and Daynosa Chapman, two British artists known for their provocations. The basis of the exhibited works - eleven watercolors produced by Hitler during World War II. These watercolors depicts bleak landscapes and types of cities affected by the bombing. Chapman pririsoval them the rainbow and the bright spots in the spirit of post-hippie. This series was purchased by major European collectors for 815000 euros directly to the opening of the fair.

Читать дальше... 

Chapman, belong to the broad family of artists, manipulators - is a necessary, if you want to be present in the list of 50 most influential artists of modern art. Already in May 2008, the UNP was sold in the same gallery White Cube, with whom they work, a series of thirteen watercolors of Hitler, which they signed and titled: "If Hitler was a hippie, we would be happy» (If Hitler Had Been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be). Under the guise of humor of the absurd, they seek to provoke from the audience reaction of indignation, which in turn will not fail to cause protest the so-called defenders of freedom of art, be honest, this outrage is doomed by definition, since any criticism of creativity Chapman from the standpoint of morality would amount to censorship.

But what actually are products that are so successful selling these English troublemakers spirit? This watercolor, indistinguishable to the naked eye from many products sold in old-clothes shops and at flea markets. They show that Hitler was able to draw пейзажики, banality which did not allow him to enter the High School of Fine Arts in Vienna, but would ensure him a decent career as an amateur artist. As for the "brand" additions Chapman brothers, they are on the same level of mediocrity. And here arises a real question: how "large private kollekuionery Contemporary Art" - we are quoting a message galleries - could buy at this price such minor items?

Let's not belittle our British creators either hypothesis, that their work was acquired only because of the name of the author of "refined" their works, as well as pointing a would have thought of fetishism rather repulsive properties, nor approval of, that the reason for the success of the sale were the names of artists, "finalized" these works, as this would be a manifestation of snobbery customers, nor, finally, the assumption of the speculative nature of this purchase, as such behavior would show the vulgarity of the behavior of these "major collectors". We take on faith that this purchase - a matter of personal taste. "Large private collectors" have seen these works, and they liked nm. They saw in these studies the properties, which caused them the desire to possess them. They bought them with pleasure. What explains this fun? Of course, not the aesthetic qualities of his works, and their uniqueness - as if we were talking about rare antiques. And in general, it is difficult to say what is the beauty of the work, it is not easily defined. Since the end of XVIII century, the Platonic ideal of perfect beauty is irrelevant: "Beauty is not a quality belonging to things in themselves, it exists only in the perception of the individual, sozertsayushego work of art, and every individual is inherent in his perception" - wrote Kant in his Critique of Judgment (1790). That from the time of beauty no longer say, in an extreme case - and whisper furtively. Sometimes it goes so far that the quality of the product to justify the opposite of beauty - ugly - though that word does not particularly like it, because it contains a moralistic (contrasting good and bad) and elitist (some of it is inherent, but not others) nuances. The term "ugly" to define as bad as the term "beauty", and also causes a general suspicion, because all are convinced that both terms neveryaka insufficiently democratic for our era.

In his "Essay on the taste for natural phenomena and works of art" Montesquieu wrote: «The soul of our contemporaries tend to enjoy the three kinds of pleasure: the pleasure of its very existence; pleasures which arise from its union with the body: pleasure, resting on certain customs, rules, habits. In the case of our "further elaborated watercolors" we are clearly dealing with a third type of pleasure. Based on this classification, we can assume that the reputation of the gallery has a value - either because of the high competence of its leaders, either because of snobbery, its customers-collectors. The names of prominent gallery owners - not more than fifty in the world - are functioning as logos major brands they carry the added value: this is the artist-collector with a capital letter only buys into such a gallery. Then we can assume that the tastes of known gallerists shape the tastes of the public, but can we imagine even for a moment that his superiors White Cube loves Hitler watercolors, modified Chapman brothers? And here, incidentally, a counter-question: Is it possible to imagine that Aimé Meg ( Aimé Maeght, the famous French gallery owner, founder of Meg, a patron of contemporary art and poetry until his death in 1981. In his gallery exhibited Matisse, Chagall, Miro, Bonnard, Braque, Calder, Giacometti, Tapes, Bazin, Aleshtnski ...) did not like a sculpture by Giacometti and Miro painting? Here it is, a fundamental gap in the history of the art market, and it occurred quite recently: in our time gallery owner not necessarily have to like Exhibiting their works. They may even feel disgust for them. The sense of taste is no longer present.

But the sense of taste is lost for them because they are do not need it. Indeed, why the art market should behave differently than all other economic markets and, in particular, the financial markets. He lives only a short-term perspective, looking for an optimized profit, all while introducing new trends. By art money rules - like all the others - and the rule alone. In this respect, our society seems to society the second half of the XIX century, born as a result of the industrial revolution - in both endured finance, both inherent frivolity, love of kitsch. But the bourgeoisie of the second half of the XIX century to imitate the aristocracy, she had just pushed to the fore, and most of all she wanted to adopt "an aristocratic good taste," which she was terribly jealous. "Good taste - wrote historian Jean-Louis of Flanders - is the primary social virtue, which characterizes both the inner life of the individual, and his appearance. The notion of "good taste" appeared in the XVII century. Before the Middle Ages, it was important to "hold well, Hatem, in the Renaissance -" well-expressed. However, since the XVII century, the most important was the ability to judgment - about art, literature, music, clothing, gastronomy, in short, everything. Taste was a sign of social affiliation. And the bourgeoisie came to power in the late XVIII century, tirelessly shows and proves that it possesses not only the castles, lands and sostoyaniemi, but these famous "good taste".

Of course, this change (or that the change of power) could not have done either without confusion, without any face for. Newly rich people often put themselves in a ridiculous position. So, Mr. Walter, a wealthy banker, described in the Maupassant story "dear friend", who bought the mansion razorivsheegosya aristocrat who organized a magnificent reception on the occasion of the acquisition of giant paintings that the author of the story fun with great wit. For example, Proust, Ms. Verdyuren generously offers Baron Sharlyusu provide certain needy Duchess former concierge room in his luxurious mansion, the Baron replied: "But madam, in this sluyachae, your guests will never reach your apartment, they are all stuck in the room, concierge !. The behavior of this new bourgeoisie is something naive, touching-her desire to rise, samoobrazovatsya, closer to the ideal model. It is no accident that at this time there is a figure of free hkdozhnika, romanticism contrasted with industrialization, as if these two beings - the bourgeois and the artist - could not find a common language, as though between them was inevitable and fatal problem of taste.

In 1912, the Russian poets and artists of the Futurist manifesto published under the title "Slap in the Face of Public Taste». The word "society" here refers to those decision makers who owns and is imposing his own taste, as if it were a standard. The whole history of modern art - the history of Fauvism, the history of German expressionism, the history of abstract painting, Duchamp, Dada, Bauhaus, in short, the entire history of avant-garde - was based on a rejection of bourgeois it poses (bad) taste, his vulgarity, his irresistible love of kitsch. That era ended in the 60's. The twentieth century with the advent of Pop Art, which opened a new era - an era that is based, as in the nineteenth century, the scientific progress tehnichestkom (movies, television, etc.). But if the first industrial revolution marked the transition from the factory (needs) to the factory (capacity requirements), the second was characterized by the transition from popular culture to culture media. The viewer-reader-listener, this revolution has turned to the consumer, and because, as it revealed Hannah Arendt, in his "crisis of culture, popular art can not exist, the product is transformed into a product.

On the theory of Abraham Moulza, when this type of society there is an abundance of surplus funds compared with up to date requirements, bourgeois civilization imposes on the artistic production of its norms. So she enrolled in the nineteenth century, which caused a strong reaction from her contemporary artists. But while the bourgeoisie was the ideal - the aristocracy, the "good taste" which it sought to emulate, while the bourgeoisie of our time is like a child with a foundling, she had no ideal or model, moreover, it seems that few descendants of the aristocracy who have lived to our own era tend to copy this bourgeoisie. This lack of ideal helped her lose all of complexes - the idea of elevation, it totally self-characteristic, it is like all other members of our society: our bourgeoisie democratic, individualistic, and most importantly - it consumes tirelessly, without peredyhu without presyschniya. It is difficult to understand what, in the words of Montesquieu, "the pleasure of her soul form its taste, but it does not matter: social differences are determined in our time is not culture, but money. Bourgeoisie owns the material goods, more importantly, it demonstrates that she possesses them, demonstrates to fall, obscene - Kierkegaard would say that it is triumphant. The fact that many artists, it was possible to buy what they have agreed to comply with the prevailing taste for decoration and kitsch - not news, such sales hudozhnikm existed in the past, many of them will be in the future. Chapman Brothers and the like, the authors of what the philosopher Gilles Deleuze calls "nichtoezhnymi discoveries" to belong to this category of creators.


So in the case of our "major collectors of contemporary art" we are not dealing with a love of art and not even taste. Psychoanalyst Daniel Sibony sees this as a manifestation of some kind of narcissistic game. "Taste is one of the variants of the pleasure principle. If this principle is changing, and taste. Perhaps it should change the definition of the principle of pleasure? Previously, it was a search for solace, the fall of excitation. But this assumes that there is excitement in need of comforting, and people begin to look for phenomena that can cause this arousal. Here, the principle overdozy - former pathogens are no longer active, so they have to change all the time. " Indeed, one could say that it is - to search for originality, but this search is the other way, but in the same blind alley in which society has gone a century ago, it leads to the same confusion (can not buy freedom), to the same inherent conflict between the bourgeoisie, stemyaschimsya adopt your own taste and rebellious artist who knows that an obedient art - the art of the dead.