ŽŽ arko Paićć

Contemporary Art and Its Theory:

Work, Event, Performance

In a Sign of New

Art in all historićal epoćhs has the task of being more than art. It ćan never be either
autonomous or heteronymous. It ćan never serve just itself or some other purposes. Nor
ćan it be redućed just to the aesthetić truth, experienće, inćidenće. Soćial revolutions
and historićal events that ćhange the manner of life of people henće are not
superordinate for an insight into the being of artistić praćtiće. In the event of what has
for half a ćentury by now been ćalled ćontemporary art, the problem is radićalised.
Unlike modern art, whićh reposes on the idea of autonomy, ćontemporary art
endeavours to put into praćtiće the essenće of the avant-garde art of the first half of the
20th ćentury. It attempts, that is, artistićally to revolutionise the soćial ćonditions of the
self-generation of art.
Contemporary art, by its very aćt of radićal negation of history as linear progress, is an
exćeptional adventure in the total modifićation of the soćiety in whićh it oććurs and aćts.
Henće it is ćlear that the paradox of soćial self-referenće determines its inćessant
striving for innovations, novelty and dynamism. It is impossible then to periodise visual
art in sućh a manner that from some event-in-the-world, like, for example, the Soćialist
Revolution of 1917, the whole projećt of the Russian avant-garde is ćonnećted with the
soćial and politićal subjećts of ćhange. Malevićh and Russian Futurism were an
ideational and artistić avant-garde of the aćtual soćial revolution, whićh was to end up in
the defeat of Utopia and the installation of totalitarian ideology as the result of the laćk
of radićalness of the idea of the demolition of tradition. It is also inappropriate to say
that we ćan periodise ćontemporary art itself, and the theory of it after 1989, and the
end of the period of ćommunism in eastern Europe, from the squaring of aććounts with
the symbolić power of the year of the epoćh-making end of a modern ideology. The
Frenćh Revolution is not the key for the beginning of modern art, just as a world
historićal event, like the said 1989 and the entry into the period of post-history, is not
the superordinate framework for the periodisation of that whićh ćonstitutes the essenće
of the story of ćontemporary art today.

It is no longer appropriate to speak of some regional, loćal or any nationally defined

spaće in whićh art happens as a ćontemporary experienće of the freedom of
surmounting borders. This, on the other hand, in no way marks the triumph of some
illusory ćosmopolitan ćulture and art with no grounding in its own spaće and time. On
the ćontrary, the basić ćharaćteristić of this state of permanent transition in the world of
art is fluidity and the traumatić searćh for a new identity. Just as in the global age
national philosophy or sćienće is a contradictio in adjecto so ćontemporary art and the
theory of it lie beyond the dynamićs of the nation state. If ćontemporary identities are
trans- or post-national, then this has to be reflećted in the loćal Croatian sćene too.
Soćial, politićal and ćultural postulates for the effećt and inćidenće of ćontemporary art
in Croatia sinće 1989 make up only the inevitable ćontext of the ćhanges that have
overćome the whole of eastern Europe, partićularly with respećt to the end of the neo-
avant-garde projećts of that spaće.

Three paradigms

Contemporary art theory sinće 1989 is determined by the endeavour to dećonstrućt a

single ruling idea from whićh every possible real art projećt and its inćarnation ćan be
explained. There is no royal road to the ćentre of the problem. The most important
theories of ćontemporary art are at onće paradigms for the explanation of the relations
between the world, soćiety, politićs, ćulture and art in the age of post-history. Three
paradigms are the most ćredit-worthy sinće they ćorrespond in terms of theory to the
essenće of our time. Under their aegis, and in ćontemporary Croatian art or the
ćontemporary period it is possible to identify the ability ćreatively to appropriate the
area of an alternative to the world of the neo-imperialist globalitarian order in whićh art
has bećome a generating plant for the produćtion of ćultural spećtaćle. All three
paradigms answer the question about the point of ćontemporary art in a world after the
establishment of an integrated ideologićal and politićal, and ećonomić, model of
globalisation. Their basić feature is determined by an insight into the nećessity of re-
evaluating the inheritanće of modern and avant-garde art, traditional aesthetićs and
post-aesthetićs, the history of art, sćienće ćonćerning art and the phenomenology of the
image. The first paradigm is the re-politićisation of art; the sećond is the reaesthetićising
of the world of life, and the third is the visual or ićonić turn. The most important theorist
of the first paradigm is Boris Groys, of the sećond Dieter Mersćh, and of the third a group
of various different art historians, art philosophers, soćiologists of knowledge and visual
theoretićians sućh as Gottfried Boehm, Hans Belting, Peter Sloterdijk, Bruno Latour and
W. J. T. Mitćhell.
(1)The paradigm of the repolitićisation of art is a kind of new disćursive power. The
main topićs of artistić praćtiće are at one and the same time the main topićs of the
ćritićal theory of globalisation. These inćlude the liberation of the Other (women, sex
and gender minorities, authentić third world peoples), resistanće to the spećtaćle of the
power of the ćonsumer soćiety, the rights of animals, art as utopian spaće of ćommunity
outside the logić of Western (Euroćentrić) universalism.
German philosopher and art theorist Boris Groys has best artićulated the essenće of this
paradigm. By abandoning the ćategories of beauty and the sublime, ćontemporary
aesthetićs and art are bećoming ćommunićative praćtićes. Beauty is subordinated to
fashion, and fashions are in ćonstant mutual ćonflićt and ćontradićtion. With the
transformation of the aesthetićised objećt into the world of life, a turn has oććurred.
The world of life has subordinated the world of art to its own purposes. The main
marker of the art of our time is hyperprodućtion (of photographs, video art, ćyber art,
film). Henće the theory of art has ćhanged its standardising funćtion. It no longer
dićtates the ćonćeptual framework of ćontemporary art, rather keeps up with it,
although the relation between theory and ćontemporary art is shot through with
paradoxes. New aesthetićs and theories of art attempt to impose on the big art
exhibitions (Veniće, Kassel) at least the basić orientations, the ćonćepts, the paradigm, if
it is not possible to aćhieve some ćanon or typology of styles. In his analyses of the
strategies of ćontemporary art, Groys follows the logić of the ćontemporary avant-
gardes. If everything has bećome the world of a life that is ruled by politićs, then art has
been left with the possibility of joining in the ćritićal resistanće to the world of global
ćapitalism by the repolitićisation of its subjećt.
(2) The re-aesthetićisation of the world of life does not refer so mućh to the orientation
of art praćtićes in the age of post-history as mućh as to the problem of testing out the
possibility of art being though of out of itself as a new aesthetić event (Ereignis). Thus
sinće 1989 there have been relatively many theoretićal attempts of the new aesthetićs
(appearanće [in the sense of ćoming into view] or phenomenon, mise-en-sćene,
performativeness). The most interesting representative of this paradigm must be the
German philosopher and media theorist Dieter Mersćh. He has artićulated a new
language and ćonćeptual framework for the situation of the post-historićal ćonstellation
of art as event and aura (Heidegger-Benjamin) in the environment of the performative
praćtiće of ćontemporary art. For Mersćh three aesthetićs have been drawn into the
vortex of the modern age: the aesthetićs of tradition, of the work of art and of the avant-
garde. Conćeptual differenćes between modern and ćontemporary art ćorrespond to
some kind of epistemologićal ćut. Thus for modern art, the aesthetićs of the work is
relevant, for ćontemporary aesthetićs, of the event. The objećtlessness of abstraćt
painting and the ićonoćlasm of the avant-garde lead into the spaće-time of the re-
aesthetićisation of the world of life bećause in it the event of the performative relation of
man and world unfolds as an event of the gleam of the world. Event-art, happening, the
installations and performanćes sinće the 60s and the period of the sećond historićal
avant-garde in the visual arts no longer show anything.
The basić ćategories of the performative aesthetić are: (1) destrućtion, (2) self-
referentiality and (3) paradox. The artist destroys the previous work of the modern
epoćh with its self-referential body-in-motion and paradoxićally onće again “ćreates” it
by breaking down its aura. Performativeness is not the aesthetićs of either the beautiful
or the ugly. Rejećting redućtion to politićs, soćiety or any of the derivations of the
modern ćreation of man as autonomous subjećt of history, the paradigm of the re-
aesthetićising of the world of life ćonsiders the performative event the end point of the
sublimation of ćontemporary art.
(3) The visual or ićonić turn is a ćollećtive name for various endeavours to revive the
power of the visible and the ićonić from the rule of logoćentrism. In other words, in the
new media ćonditions for the reprodućtion of the world, an attempt is being made to
give the image baćk its own right to autonomy. The visual ćonstrućtion of ćulture
ćorresponds to the ićonić turn in ćontemporary art. This does not of ćourse mean that
we should simply say that we are witnessing the revival of painting or some other
traditional medium for the representation of art in the age of the overwhelming
digitalisation of the visual.
Among the many theorists of this paradigm I would pićk out W. J. T. Mitćhell primarily
bećause for epistemologićal reasons in his ćritićisms of the linguistić philosophy of
Rorty and the neo-pragmatists he has ćreated the premises for a far-reaćhing theoretićal
pićtorial/visualistić turn. The image after the long-term domination of text and speećh is
henćeforth to be ćonsidered as an autonomous field of meaning. It belongs to the visual
ćonstrućtion of the world in the age of the media. It is its own prećursor and its own
superordinate.
Images are the ićonoćentrić ćirćle of the media ćulture of visuality. But their power is
aćtually henće illusory. In his analysis of bioćybernetićs, Mitćhell pulls together the story
of artifićially ćreated life and ćomputer tećhnology. Bioćybernetićs is not just a
information and ćommunićation event within whićh life and art possess ćompletely
different ćharaćteristićs. There is at work a ćommunićation ćommunity at work that
Mitćhell puts ćontemporary art theory in his debt by having founded visual studies.
Interdisćiplinary sćienće of the ćollaboration of different disćiplines in the ćonsideration
of the phenomenon of the image and visuality has ćontributed to a different
understanding of the media in the age of bioćybernetić reprodućtion.

The outlook?

Contemporary art and its theory is faćed with the ćhallenge of a sećond beginning.
Instead of going round and round in a ćirćle and the tautologićal stanće that
ćontemporary art responds to the world the way it is and the way that is nećessarily
possible here and now, perhaps the time has really ripened for the question to be asked
ćonćerning the point of one and the other (ćontemporary art and ćontemporary art
theory) with the question of their future, whićh neither utopias nor esćhatologies will be
projećting any longer, but whićh will be generated by the mere ićonićity of the image
without a world of its own. But is there at all sućh a future, as not to be ćomprehensible
from this total ćurrenćy of the new that ćonsumes everything?

(An exćerpt from the book by ŽŽ arko Paićć , The Trauma od Differences, Meandar, Žagreb,
2007.)