THE MAECENAS SAW THE LIGHT FLICKERING - A PLEA
In the poker game of culture, all the aces seem to have been dealt to the visual. The media have won the fight for cultural hegemony, but only by making up the rules to suit themselves. Time and distance, necessary for original ideas to develop, are eradicated. 'Innovation' has more to do with speed and connecting fragments appropriated from a host of various 'originators'. Hence 'innovation' seems to have become the territory of curators, media producers, and other 'predators'. However, as long as humans sticks to their primeval need for form and content, it will eventually become clear that this 'innovation' occurs on only one level - the appearance of form.
A good example is the revaluation of the 50s, or rather, the speed with which revaluations succeed one another. Mondrian-esque embellishments on shampoo bottles or cheap frocks provide a sense of recognition. It makes us feel a little bit more in control of our over confusing present. This visual recycling makes it easier for designers to create new trends year in year out. The same can be said of the other 'predators', falling back on the past when devoid of new ideas. Even the young benefit, they don't have to bother to explore what happened 10, 20 or 30 years ago. In 1983 the recycling of the past extended over a period of about twenty years, now I wait with anticipation for the year 1995 - when the revaluation of 1995 simultaneously takes place.
This must be one of the most exciting periods in history. Could it be hat the artist lost absolute power over his work, and now answers directly to the commands of culture? He is likely to be judged on terms that apply in other fields. The ever-increasing speed with which 'new' trends come and go is simple proof. The creator is dismissed as quickly as he arrived. Thank God I love B-movies. Their perpetually recurring love stories serve as a genuine antidote to the accelerating innovation machine.
The audience has also changed. All we have now is one stratum - the omnipresent middle class. But even this audience can no longer be taken for granted. Sometimes they grow so bold as to denounce the shenanigans of the art circus. The artists who disguise their lack of talent are easier to expose. However exciting they appear, and even the use of labyrinths is an attempt at disguise, it is only by allowing yourself to get lost that you get a chance of detecting the quality of a work of art. Whether or not the image is visualised is no longer of importance.
That said, to avoid disappointing the audience with the artist's failure, his guilt or, even worse still, his penance, it is intrinsic that an artwork of art be visually appealing. But the appeal opposes direct contact with the image, leading the viewer astray.
Like the shock of a kiss without seeing a face.
Meaning seems to dissolve.
The mirror no longer reflects, but receives