Page 27 - The MoMA/ Guggenheim issue of World of Art magazine (2003)

that is absolutely extraneous to knowledge in and of itself.
arT = VuLGariTY
in art, producing time is a negation of the concept of time itself.
the executing procedure of the ‘author-demiurge’ is an attempt to
i . art and science are free, and their teachings are free. realize and steer the idea (that he possesses) ‘from’ – ‘to’, but this
. man must not impose either limits or boundaries on art and
iiscience; they must be allowed free rein. if limits are imposed, movement in fact debases the nature or the ideal of the idea. idea is
an entity that makes sense only in that it ‘is’. it does not ‘represent’.
art and science become filiations of man’s ego, an ego predisposed realization of the idea is therefore inferior. the ‘author-demiurge’
by internal unease and social disquietude and, as such, they become commands, with the ability that he is convinced he possesses,
the fall of faust ‘reflection’ and ‘subject’ and therefore inferior. and leads the idea to an equally lofty or intense (expressive!) level.
iii
. to impose is to oppose.
whatever the final result, the level is always lower because the
. art and science are entities of a higher expression
iVand maintain a propulsive force such that they can result is always the end result of imitation. the ‘author-demiurge’
must be absolutely aware of this, otherwise he would not only
never be subjected to the dominion of man. anyone who imposes be an imitator but a deplorable liar. he ascertains, in this failure,
limits and boundaries on art and science are doing nothing more tragedy itself - the tragic end of an idea and the tragic end of the
than imposing limits and boundaries on him/herself. author of the transformation (from idea to realization) who thereby
. the limits and boundaries of art and science (as ‘entity- becomes an ape. by imitating the idea, the author even debases the
Vsubject’) must be searched for in their autonomous freedom ape, he kills the idea in order to give life to an image, but the image
and existence. is a mirror, a mere aberration of the idea. the ape is the ‘mirror-
. it is necessary for man to place himself dialogically before aberration’ of the author. it is the author himself who is incapable of
Viart and science, respecting the dignity and the essential attaining any other knowledge, or rather the knowledge of himself or
existence of these entities.
his tragic simian performance.
. aberration is borne out of the effects and accidents of the what allows us to differentiate the ‘vulgar’ from ‘art’? what do
Viispecies (nature) including mankind. aberrations are none we mean by vulgar? is nature vulgar? never. what about man? man
the less necessary. is often, perhaps always, vulgar. art is therefore the highest level of
. art and science intrinsically harbour a force of rebellion vulgarity, ergo what is vulgar is art. it is the same thing. however,
Viiiwhen man commands them without ‘knowing’ them. this this is evidently contradictory, as art is different from vulgarity, or
becomes a destructive force when man covets and abuses them. at least we think there is a difference between the two. if nature
. consensus is only a quantitative appreciation - the expresses itself through us, via art, what detaches and distances
iXadherence of many to one. man from nature is technique. thus, technique is undoubtedly vulgar.
. it is possible for one to consent to an effect or thing without art and philosophy are identified with freedom of thought,
Xnecessarily feeling that it is a part of oneself - to consent only
thought that is free to err through necessity. art does not evolve!
because that effect or thing is marvellous. this kind of appreciation technology evolves. those who speak of the evolution of art and
happens as a response to taste or pleasure but what one is actually proclaim its death are vulgar. it is purity, ingenuity, and honesty that
recognising is the nuance of something that promotes a need for save us from vulgarity. however, it is difficult to ‘find’ ourselves in
satisfaction, something that fills the desire of the instant. times that smell of death, corruption, and rot. but reality does not
whatever the question, if it is heard from outside our ‘being’ have a stench; it is corpses that smell and the cities are full of them.
Xi it should not to be judged at all, because it has not been in the hands of these corpses everything is vulgar, even nature itself.
understood. i suffer immensely from having to see nature made vulgar, and even
k nowledge, ego, being. more so from having to admit that this is possible. “bodies, indeed,
s ubstance. must be disposed of more than excrement itself.” heraclitus
s earch. by exasperating the greek concept of art, modernity has
r eality. rendered the concept of creation an absurdity. creation is an
n on-ego. knowledge (whether of the many or absurdity as ‘ex nihilo nihil’, meaning nothing is created from

Xii the few makes no difference) is an nothing. the modern artist, like the ‘author-demiurge’, is a
presumptuous madman as he is devoid of the sense of necessity.
incommensurable force, often non-existent.
he is an ungainly ape - a tragic ape. the tragedy is underpinned by
fixed, insurmountable canons: the subject of deciding is the subject
the ‘author-demiurge’ is a tragic entity in that he does not that must be decided. this is the revelation of its comic nature. the
create, but rather realizes himself only temporarily, or put another ‘author-demiurge’ becomes a mad, pathetic clown, aping himself; a
way, he produces ‘time’ - a time that is represented, vis-à-vis the tragic ape persuaded of the fact that the being is nothing. faced with
work, as a ‘phase-of-knowledge’. he tends to attain knowledge
necessity he seems to be limited in his movement, stupidly haughty
or at least to possess a part of it. in truth, this coincides with the about something that does not belong to him. because he has been
limitations of the author, his individual deficiencies and the paucity of persuaded of the fact that he creates his own works he is firmly
his intents. he only ‘follows’ the idea of knowledge, an absurd idea
convinced he is the author of these works.
on The characTer oF arT

art (and hence literature) has no gender; it is neutered and ambiguous. more than a ‘being’ it is a ‘being-able-to-be’. eugenio montale
was one of the first to say as much. it is a perennial question that never gives an answer. it always asks questions, putting in doubt the
sensitivity of those who would question it. it is ungraspable, unspeakable, a suspension, an altering of the logical rules proper to the kingdom
of paradoxes - a contradiction that cannot do without itself. it lives through imitation, simulation, and fiction. the only form of sincerity that
can be gleaned is that it does not deny the drama of existence, the tragedy of human life, precisely when it is called on to give an answer to
these questions. but even if it managed to propose solutions, these would be impossible to realize in reality, because art is always a fleeing
from real time, a temporal negation that, in order to affirm itself, annihilates the concept of art itself.
andrea Pagnes

WORLD of ART 25