It’s always been a divisive force; dividing the good from the bad, the beautiful from the ugly, the orderly from the chaotic, the calculated form the ecstatic, or as Schelling put it (as popularized by Nietzsche) the Apollonian from the Dionysian. Art has always created higher access barriers to tropes and motives than everyday life – through metaphors and other poetical means, by employing specific forms, simply through its (monetary) value, etc. And where it concerned itself with everyday life (and not the metaphysical) directly or mimetically it even implemented more barriers therein. Extracted its sujet further from the everyday experience into the realm of the speculative, formal, simplistic, etc.
Contemporary Art perfected that notion: It no longer concerned itself with the beautiful, the mathematically correct, the symmetric, the colorful, the realistic, the artistic – in the sense of finesse of ability – it has become about the concept, the theoretical, the abstract, the specific, the concrete, the systemic and so forth. In theater this trend is ever more visible, the strategies of division are more tangible. Theater – and its performative descendants have perfected this – divide humanity radically into the present and the absent. Performances drive a wedge between the past and the future – we call it now.
This time is where at least (theoretically) every piece is situated; it seizes upon the moment hic et nunc.[1] And now is an awfully complex time to be in.
Since the beginning of ‘postmodernity’ the subject has been no longer theorized as a fixed individual or finite identity that would be rooted in biological dependencies, its upbringing or background alone, but rather it has become a nexus of ever changing discourses that arise at a certain time and space and dissolve at times equally quickly. The ‘postmodern subject’ partakes in any number of these discourses, establishing a broad variety of roles in the process. It becomes a prism of contemporary life simply by being and certainly this is even truer since (capitalist) globalization with all its side effects – good and bad (see!) – has come to fruition when history ended[2].
Where humanity in its entirety is part of our – whoever this we may be – plurality, this entire humankind needs their representation. Institutions such as art and its sub institutions (schools – figuratively and literally -, museums, galleries, theaters, paintings, sculptures, performances, concerts, and so forth) no longer need to address everybody (perhaps maybe with the exception of the state?!)[3], but must flat out fail to do so.
They rather need to form a diverse landscape of nexus’ of flows (of discourses and people - this time) themselves. They need to offer anchor points for representation of some sort that one or preferably more ‘subjects’ (can) engage with.
What (art) institution(s) should we – humanity – call for at this time? Do we really need one that encompasses all, all anyone could wish for? Do we need kaleidoscopical utopias everyone participates in – if possible equally? Do we at last yearn for the great unifier?
I, i.e. the nexus of these discourses, suggest we rather aim for a myriad of institutions, each offering their individually well profiled points of identifications for us individuals, groups, flows of discourses. I call for institutions using multiple places at the same time and specific places at multiple times (or parallely). I suggest we built a network of institutions to satisfy all pluralistic needs ensemble; not one monolith to simultaneously fulfill them all. A multitude whose parts individually offer varying positions to negotiate: Constantly. Parallely. Here and there. In the future. Yesterday. Now!
[1] Theoretically this of course also holds true for any piece of visual art, when we think of the ‚literalistic’ and individual aesthetical experience.
[2] Fukuyama famously and mistakenly stated that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union history had ended. As there was no longer going to be any doubt that capitalism had prevailed and was going to rule the human evolution for the years to come and into eternity.
[3] Something clever about the nation state. The ridiculousness of its renaissance, maybe? Or an attempt of explanation, why it is returning and maybe should.
