Hi Max (& nettime),
thank you for your thoughts! I have to admit that I´m not a specialist for the
era of Leonardo but your insights and the idea of your book sound interesting.
As well your comment about the kinda ‚premodern‘ indigenous view on the
practices we divide into arts and sciences just as forms of ‚doing‘ which
corresponds in a way to the practice turn in western science.
What I was thinking about in a quite speculative way are indeed rather the
differences in circumstances and destination routes between that era of the
awakening of ‚the human‘ and an era when the idea of this specific historical
notion of humanity associated with modernity might blur again (quasi with
Foucault´s image on that in the back of my mind). Just to note that I don´t
think we´re on the way back to Leonardo´s times although it might seem so. Back
then there was still an unfractured conviction of ‚wholeness‘ of the world that
a bit later was considered as describable in mathematical ways and expressible
in artistic forms derived from that domain. At least a bit later that was the
case and Bach´s music you´ve mentioned is an example for that I´d say.
Galileo was sure that god has written the ‚book of the world‘ in mathematical
expressions. Hence it´s all about finding those mathematical relations because
they´re the warrantors of truth and as such also the warrantors of beauty.
Western music theory was convinced of that since Pythagoras. But with Riemann´s
non-euclidean geometries and other mathematical and physical questions this
conviction was gone, so to say. This is i.a. reflected in the fast acceptance
of the term „model“ that Hertz invented in physics/science some years after
Riemann´s discovery. Finally, with Einsteins theories of relativity the three
Kantian notions (possibility of apriori knowledge from maths/logic, apriori
space, apriori time) were deconstructed.
So from Hertz on you can build different models for the same phenomena but you
cannot say which one is the right or ‚true‘ one. You might measure which one
fits better in experiments but that´s not always possible and of course it
doesn´t back the notion of an apriori truth and beauty. However, the ones who
invent those models with their research and creativity are humans, or with
Descartes a special kind of immaterial ‚essence‘ called res cogitans in
opposition to the rest of the material world called res extensa. The mentioned
deconstructions which are a serious problem for epistemology became the more a
boost for the Kantian notion of an autonomy of art and the exceptionalism of
humans within the world (as the creators of models, artworks and so on). The
world itself was still considered to be a machine describable in mathematical
terms.That´s in short the basis of the political and institutional logics of
modernity.
Hence if there is any chance to find a ‚well-ordered universe‘ again like in
the days of old – or in other words: a timeless mathematical apriori truth and
beauty as quasi-metaphysical ‚safety ground‘ – then you have to include human
creativity and contingency within your mathematical/formal descriptions, at
least in this kind of logics and ideology. Or in cybernetic terms you have to
include the observer. No other way to get back to the vision of an
all-embracing unity. Turing by the way has called that special skill of humans
which machines cannot perform ‚intuition‘ in his 1937 paper which is the
blueprint for digital computers. Another term closely related to the arts… If
you succeed in cracking this hard problem of creativity or intuition you would
be able to automate it and hence innovation as well. (In the DARPA there is an
attempt to do so within the development of a special AI system as far as I
know.)
Since Gödel we know that cracking this hard problem is not possible – at least
not in a supratemporal mathematical sense. However a key promise of cybernetics
was nevertheless to tackle that, now with probabilistic models and with regard
to the specific situation and context someone is acting in. For this you best
need feedback loops which allow continuous real-time measurement to then be
able to derive models of creativity on the basis of massive quantitative data.
Neuroscience may be one attempt, big data extracted from social networks, smart
gadgets and so on another. The more people articulate and produce data the
better for attemps to make them computable (and hence controllable). That seems
to be the point where we are right now. And in addition to that creativity
plays a key role in the western societies of our days in an economic sense.
Reckwitz, a famous german sociologist, spoke of the „dispositif of creativity“
which is the basis of the economy in postindustrial societies.
So it is no coincidence that the arts as the representation of creativity are
in focus – there are, as set out above, several reasons for this with
utilitarian backgrounds and those do not always have liberating intentions but
rather its opposite, namely negative post- and transhuman ones. This is a big
difference to Leonardo´s times as I see it. I think it is important to have
this in mind when being seized with questions about creativity and the research
on it.
Of course it is at least equally important to emphasize that there are (and to
the best of my belief will be) many examples for liberating intentions and
examples in art. But as this is usually emphasized strongly I didn´t mention it
in my arguments because I assume we all agree in that.
However, at exactly that point the dilemma which I stated with my question
regarding Denzin´s approach appears on the scene. Because on the one hand under
the conditions of modernity the autonomy of arts was always a guarantee for
these kinds of possibilities and freedom. On the other hand that autonomy of
art is deeply entangled with the conditions of modernity (see Kant) which are
not only under pressure in the light of contemporary technological developments
but which are also not sustainable in an ecological sense and on top of that
tend to reduce humans to social atoms which in the end have to survive as
individuals under the reign of all-pervasive markets.
The role of the artist in this picture can feel a bit like that of a court
jester. In his existence the civic society insures itself traditionally about
its liberty, so to say. And in recent times artists have become more and more a
ressource for the development of new and ‚creative‘ technologies which are
intended to perpetuate the economical and ideological status quo. What I want
to say with that is that the arts may have to reflect themselves more in regard
to the posed circumstances. That is also what Denzin (as a non artist as far as
I know) is inviting us to do as I read him.
To taper it once more: the notion of an autonomy of art has itself a
legitimization function for the conditions of an unsustainable modernity. It is
not an innocent and purely idealistic playground like a sort of detached space.
An example might be the success of Jackson Pollock which was a project of the
CIA who arranged exhibitions in important galleries and so on to show how free
and abstract the western world is in opposition to soviet realism.
But would I have liked a kind of institutionalized Denzin in the form of, let´s
say, an ‚ethics commission‘ that judges my art if it is „ethical“ as related to
the prevailing consensus and norms of their money sources? Of course not! To be
honest I wouldn´t have given a shit on that kind of judgement. The
transgressive and ‚visionary‘ power of art is not least rooted in it´s
self-authorization to do and/or arrange things differently which can mean to
break norms. And if you break norms you might potentially ‚insult‘ people. If
this shouldn´t be allowed anymore within art/PhD projects because it´s
‚unethical‘ then art is wrapped up in cotton wool and looses its visionary
power. It becomes negligible. Of course this is not Denzin´s desire (rather its
opposite) but it may play out like this in institutional contexts. And needless
to say that art should be ethical but this ethics cannot be decreed. Insofar
it´s hard to defend the idea to surrender the autonomy of art like Denzin et al
suggest it (in chapter6/7?).
On the other hand: Do I like the negative examples of artworks mentioned in
Denzin which disrespect human dignity and then usually argue with the autonomy
of art? Of course not! But in an „economy of attention“ (as Franck called the
upcoming logics of the social in consideration of the internet society in the
90s) provocation for the sake of provocation is profitable even if it´s
pubertal in a way. Under that circumstances transgressive powers tend to reduce
themselves to pure effect/affect aesthetics, by all means necessary. Put
together with the modern ‚regime of artist´s subjectiviziation‘ as a court
jester to perpetuate the status quo and its known unsustainability it´s hard to
defend the idea of an autonomy of art.
That´s the dilemma. – But I have to admit that this might be a very Eurocentric
view or question. A short while ago I was on an online conference with artists
from all over the world who make their (communal) art projects not seldom under
the danger of real oppression without any idea about elaborated art markets.
That felt so different and showed the strength of art in a way that really
touched me. Very different situation!
However, all told I had the impression that both ambiguities – the problem with
the Vienna Declaration Florian was writing about and the problem to defend or
reject Denzin´s idea of two forms of art from which only one form is legit in
institutional contexts – point to the same spot, namely that vision of Foucault
that the modern notion of ‚the human‘ might one day blur again like a picture
in the sand when the waves roll over it. Or in more concrete words it points to
the questions of posthumanism, not so much back to Leonardo´s era. In my
perspective Leonardo and the recent developments appear more as outer borders
of an era that gave birth to the idea of an autonomy of art signifying the
modern notion of humanity and its hyperindividualized subjectivization
processes, its ethics and its tendency to develop into a world of all-pervasive
markets. In opposition to the days of Leonardo there are (at least)
perspectives of second order going on today which result from the desire to
find a mathematically well-ordered universe again – the big story of western
metaphysics so to say – and which therefore tend to „bypass“ the contingent and
for any sort of power basically dangerous human experience and dignity in a
technological manner as Adam Curtis might phrase it. The metaphysics isn’t just
there anymore like in Leonardo´s times, we have to instantiate it and
technology is the preferred key. (I write that as somebody who really loves
technology and worked extensively with it!)
If posthumanism is standing on the doorstep let´s not deny but face it. How
could it look like in an ethical way that doesn´t have to be decreed? There
still seem to be different ways of development: on the one side a posthumanism
that is questioning the dualities of modernity (then including notions like the
autonomy of art, its idealizations and remnants of avant-garde thinking and
court jester artists as Denzin et al argue with Barad and others). Or on the
other side a posthumanism that shows up as solutionism and neo-metaphysics with
the attempts to bypass ‚human factors‘ (that is communal sensemaking, embodied
experience and so on) except for the calculable ‚wow-trigger‘ effect of an
superficial affect aesthetics as just another ‚market gimmick‘.
When I thought about my own thinking reflexes I had the impression that one
might intuitively tend to defend modernity in some cases (e.g. in case of the
freedom to be visionary as under the ‚regime‘ of an autonomy of art) while at
the same time disliking it in other cases (all-pervasive markets which govern
the processes of subjectivization to their inner core).
But what about the x standing on the doorstep? And how to deal with it within
institutional contexts? A defence of some aspects of modernity might not be
enough in the long run although it´s surely a legitimate thing to do from an
institutional point of view. (That was the reason why I´ve mentioned last time
that the liberty of the arts in modernity is in fact quite enclosed within
specific institutionalized contexts and social classes. With my education
biography I didn´t belong to those classes and their subjectivization games
felt always a bit strange to me as I didn´t learn them. Nevertheless [well
paid] art was coincidentaly open for me and I’m thankful for that.)
To me that x is a hard question I cannot answer at the moment. When I was
reading Florians posted article (whose texts I appreciate a lot) and your
comment on it I thought I take the chance to state that question in here. Maybe
an artist habit: state the question ; ) But I have to admit that I´ve never
posted something in a mailing list, I even didn´t know how to when I tried
first and I also don´t read along in here for so long. Insofar maybe a bit
overdone. However it helped me to clarify my thoughts.
Regards,
Martin ✌️
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
