H istory and Everyday Life
In tim es o f m o d e rn ism , o n e o f th e m ost a c c e n tu a te d , u sed a n d ab u sed po ssib le fu n c tio n s o f a r t was its ability to p ro d u c e m ean in g , give sense an d p ro m o te social values. In a way, since a rt has b e e n fu n c tio n a liz e d b efo re m o d e rn is m to give th e m etaphysical w orld som e p ercep tiv e existen ce fo r a re lig io u s p u rp o se , in m o d e rn tim es a rt was ex p e c te d to p ro d u c e persuasive a n d m o b ilisin g im ages o f th e historical d im en sio n o f u n e n d in g progress, e m a n c i p a t io n a n d h o p e . T h is le d to so m e o f th e d iv isio n s th a t w e re p re su m a b ly o v erco m e by th e p o st-m o d ern a p p ro a c h , su ch as th e division b e tw e e n a r t in m ass c u ltu r e a n d a r t as an e x p re s s io n o f t r u th , o r th e d istin c tio n b e tw e e n h ig h elitist a r t a n d low p o p u la r art. Som e p h ilo so p h ers specifically stressed th e d iffe re n c e betw een th e a rt w hich has b ec o m e lost in th e a lre a d y e x istin g reality, a n d th e a rt w hich o p en s n ew perspectives o f a d v a n c in g h u m a n p r o g r e s s .1 K a n t in tr o d u c e d in h is th ir d Critique th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n h u m a n h a p p in e ss a n d h u m a n c u ltu re as th e two en d s ( causa fin a lis) o f n a tu re , w ith this d istin c tio n b e in g u sefu l fo r a rt as well.
W e m ay also c o n c lu d e th a t in m o d ern ism h u m a n h ap p in ess was associated w ith everyday life as its Lust, w hile h u m a n c u ltu re d e p e n d s o n h ig h e r an d su b lim e p rocesses o f h istory as its driving force a n d enthusiasm . T his featu re o f th e d istin c tiv e a n d o p p o s e d q u alitie s o f h isto ry a n d everyday life was acknow ledged by tho se artists w ho su b d u ed th eir a rt to history, an d th erefo re p ro c la im e d th a t love, e v e n in its n o n -ro m a n tic av a n t-g ard e im ag e, a n d lyricism as such, have to b e a b a n d o n e d for th e sake o f th e a rt o f revolutionary e n th u s ia s m . T h e case o f M ayakovsky a n d his p o e tic e x p re s s io n o f this necessary sh ift is well know n. If we envisage this fe atu re fro m th e side o f the p u b lic , we sh o u ld also re m e m b e r th a t L en in said th a t d u rin g revolution , in his o cc asio n al a n d ra re sp a re tim e, h e could n o t allow h im se lf to enjoy the
’ B esides th e well-known case o f A d o rn o an d his insistence on tru th as an essential characteristic o f art, th e re is also M arcuse who wrote in 1977: »The nomos which art obeys is n o t th a t o f th e established reality principle, b u t of its negation. B ut m ere negation would be abstract, th e ‘b a d ’ utopia. T he utopia in great art is never the simple negation of th e reality principle, b u t its transcending preservation (Aufhebung) in which past a n d p re se n t cast th e ir shadow on fulfilment. T he authentic u topia is g ro u n d ed in recollection.« (H e rb e rt M arcuse, The Aesthetic Dimension. Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, B eacon Press, B oston 1978, p. 73.)
Lev Kreft
b e tte r p a r t o f his artistic favourites b e c au se th e ir w orks m a d e h im to o soft for m ak in g th e revolution.
F or a lo n g p e rio d o f tim e it was b eliev e d th a t th e b u sin ess o f th e a rtis t a n d a rt is to p ro m o te history, a n d th a t all th e o th e r d im e n s io n s o f a r t a re o f low er im p o rta n c e a n d value. In th e h isto ry o f p a in tin g we c a n fin d a typical ex am p le o f such a view. I have in m in d L eo n B attista A lb e rti w h o b eliev ed th a t h e in v e n te d th e c o rre c t way o f r e p re s e n tin g N a tu re . As C ecil G rayson c h a ra c te ris e d th e aim o f this th r o u g h th e w in d o w o f r e p r e s e n t a ti o n a l
»realism «: »It does n o t follow fro m this m e th o d o lo g ic a l re a lism th a t th e sp e c ta to r sh o u ld see a scene o f ‘re a l life ’. T h e id eal A lb e rtia n p a in tin g will have as its su b ject w h at h e calls a ‘h is to ria ’, in s p ire d m o st p ro b a b ly by th e re a d in g o f lite ra tu re ...« 2 H e re , ‘h is to ria ’ is still m o re o r less a story, a n d w hat is new is A lb erti’s »insistence o n th e ‘h is to ria ’ as the o b je c t o f p a in tin g , a n d o n th e c h o ic e o f th e subject, its o rg a n is a tio n a n d e x e c u tio n , as th e g re atest ac h ie v e m e n t o f th e artist.«3 ‘H is to ria ’ is still n o t a H istory, b u t it b e c a m e t h a t la te r , a f te r th e fa m o u s c o n f e r e n c e s o f th e F r e n c h R oyal A c a d e m y ,4 a n d r e a c h e d its a p o g e e in D a v id ’s p a in tin g s o f th e F r e n c h rev o lu tio n a n d N a p o le o n . Still, in his p ra ise o f th e p a in tin g , in w h a t was a t th e tim e th e well-known literary fa sh io n o f lauda, A lb erti a lre a d y know s th a t th e skill o f p a in tin g history has s o m e th in g to d o w ith th e divine p o w er w hich elevates objects, ac tio n s a n d p e rso n s fro m everyday life to e te rn ity . T h is d im en sio n is show n a t its b e st at th e e n d o f his essay: »This is all I h a d to say ab o u t p a in tin g in this book. If it is such as to b e o f som e u se a n d co n v e n ie n c e to p ain ters, I w ould especially ask th e m as a re w ard fo r my la b o u rs to p a in t my p o rtra it in th e ir ‘h isto ria e ’, a n d th e re b y p ro c la im to p o ste rity th a t I was a stu d e n t o f this a rt a n d th a t they are m in d fu l o f a n d g ratefu l fo r this favour.«5 T h e d iffe ren c e b etw een history a n d everyday life is n o t a p ro p e rty o r n a tu re o f objects, events o r persons. It is th e d iffe re n c e o f im p o rta n c e a n d p ra ise we a ttrib u te to th e m , a n d the actually u s e d g e stu re o f a ttrib u tio n c o u ld b e
th a t o f artistic touch.
Dissatisfactions with the o u tco m e o f histo rical processes, especially w ith
2 Cecil Grayson: » In tro d u c tio n to The Art of Painting«, in: L eo n B attista A lberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, Ed. by Cecil Grayson, P h aid o n , L o n d o n 1972, p. 13.
3 Ibidem, p. 13.
4 T he developm ent o f historical p ainting with all th e necessary texts fro m this process is well shown in a rec en t and still u nfinished p rese n tatio n o f history o f d ifferen t genres in painting, w here historical genre is presented in its first volume (Eine Geschichte der klassischen Bilggattungen, Vol. 1, Historienmalerei, Eds. T h o m as W. G aethgens a n d Uwe F lec h n er, R einer, Berlin 1990.
5 Leon B attista Alberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, P h aid o n , L o n d o n 1972, p p . 105- 107.
th e re su lts o f re v o lu tio n a ry c h a n g e s w hich afte rw a rd a p p e a re d as g re a t e x p e c ta tio n s b e tra y e d a n d g re a t illusions lost,6 b r o u g h t to th e su rface new visions o f th e h isto ric a l fu n c tio n o f art, o n e o f these also b ein g to invade, o ccupy a n d colonise everyday life as a decisive terrain fo r the victory o f beauty o v e r th e u g lin e s s o f in d u s tr ia l p r o d u c tio n a n d u r b a n is a tio n , a n d fo r u n c o v e rin g th e a e sth e tic d im e n sio n o f m ean in g , sense a n d h o p e . T his did n o t m e a n th a t everyday life h a d b e e n a d o p te d , re co g n ised a n d in a u g u ra te d as su ch . I t was p ro m o te d in ste a d as a decisive b attlefield fo r h isto rical goals a n d e n d s . A rt a c c e p te d th is a r e n a o f c o m b a t, s h a r in g a b e lie f th a t th e h isto rical c h a n g e , re d e m p tio n a n d salvation have to b e g in a n d b e w on h e re a n d n o t o n th e g ra n d io se historical scenes. This ten den cy is especially p re sen t in artistic m o v em en ts fro m th e e n d o f th e 19th ce n tu ry o n , with aestheticism a n d av ant-garde b e in g th e ir typical representatives. T h e d ifferen ce betw een th e usual aestheticization projects such as those found in j o h n Ruskin, William M orris o r o u r J o _ e P le O n ik , a n d avant-garde p ro g ram m e s w hich critically follow ed th e m , was th e avant-garde id e a th a t A rt as a m o d e rn is t in stitu tio n h a d to b e d estro y e d , its id e a o f beau ty a b a n d o n e d , a n d its usual m a n n e r o f d e a lin g w ith h isto ry a n d everyday life o v erthrow n b e fo re it co u ld h e lp to c re a te new c o n d itio n s o f everyday life. T h ese su p p o sed ly new co n d itio n s in c lu d e (a) n ew univ ersal lan g u ag es th a t only a r t can b rin g to life; (b) th e subju g atio n o f a rt to m o d e rn technical m eans, industrial discipline a n d useful p u rp o se s as its new c rite ria in stead o f old larp o u rla rtistic a n d aesth eticist c r i t e r i a ; (c ) r e v o lu t i o n a r y p r o p a g a n d a as th e m a in ta sk o f a r tis tic e n g a g e m e n t, to g e th e r with such trivial, b u t nevertheless difficult civilisational steps as le a r n in g how to use a to o th b ru sh ; (d) th e o p e n in g o f new spiritual d im e n sio n s o n th e way o f h u m a n k in d to attain p erfec tio n , etc. T h e n , as in la te r p e rio d o f th e 2 0 th century, everyday life becam e an im p o rta n t category a n d field o f re s e a rc h in p h ilo so p h y (H usserl, H e id e g g er, Lefebvre, H e lle r
6 A gain, Jacques-L ouis David is th e best exam ple o f both enthusiasm and its afterm ath.
H e was a radical follow er o f Jacobinism and an enthusiastic ad m irer o f R obespierre, an d exclaim ed on July 26, 1794, a m om ent before the fall o fja c o b in s to R obespierre w ho th re a te n e d the C onvention th a t he would com m it suicide if h e did n o t succeed in his historical mission: »If you d rin k hem lock I will drink it with you!« T he nex t day, David escaped from Paris an d thus escaped certain death as one o f the m ost exposed su p p o rters o f a to ta litarian regim e (as we would characterise it today). In May 1795, w hen accu sed o f h aving b e e n a follower o f R o b e sp ie rre’s bloody dictato rsh ip , he replied: »Since this p erio d , w hich has o p en e d my eyes, I have m aintained a reserve and circum spection in my co n d u ct to the p oin t of timidity. L earning from a harrowing ex p erien ce to m istrust th e appearances o f patriotism , freedom , an d good faith, I have b ro k e n every c o n n e c tio n with th e m en whose com pany I k e p t before my d etention.«
(B o th q u o te d in: W a rre n R o b e rts, Jacques-Louis David. Revolutionary Artist, T h e U niversity o f N o rth C aro lin a Press, C hapel Hill & L ondon 1989, p. 94).
Lev Kreft
a n d o th e rs ), sociology (S chütz, B erg e r, L u c k m a n n , G a rfin k e l, G o ffm an , C icourel a n d o th e rs), history (especially in th e F re n c h N o u v elle H is to ire school an d its analyses o f th e history o f everyday life), psychology (b e g in n in g w ith F re u d ’s fam ous Zur Psychopatologie des Alltagsleben fr o m 1901) a n d o th e r d isciplines o f studia humanitatis.7
P ost-m o d ern co n d itio n s, with all th e ir am biguity, w ere c la im e d to b e the e n d o f all such historical an d artistic projects, b e g in n in g w ith D aniel B ell’s p ro c la m a tio n o f th e e n d o f ideology to F u k u y am a’s s ta te m e n t th a t h isto ry has com e to a n end. In philosophical discussions late L yo tard ’s a n n o u n c e m e n t o f th e e n d o f g re a t narratives has b e e n u s e d a n d ab u se d q u ite fre q u e n tly . T h o se w ho em b ra ce with d elig h t su ch fin al c o n c lu sio n s a b o u t h isto ry a n d its e x p ire d licen ce, a n d speak a b o u t p o s t-m o d e rn c o n d itio n s in te rm s o f e m a n c ip a tio n o f a rt from servitude a n d o f lib e ra tio n o f everyday life fro m ideology, histo rical d e m a n d s a n d political b u rd e n s , a re o fte n a c c u se d a n d c o n f r o n te d as re a c tio n a rie s , c o m m e rc ia lise d th in k e rs a n d in te lle c tu a ls w ithout an ethical dim ension. Still, attem p ts to in tro d u c e p u b lic e n g a g e m e n t a n d histo rical p ath o s in c o n te m p o ra ry a rt, as in th e Kassel Documenta 8 by S c h n e c k e n b u rg e r in 1987, w ere usually n o t successful, lack e d th e su b lim e power o f form er works an d initiated conflicts arising fro m m isun derstand in gs.8 In socialist co u n trie s th e re c e p tio n o f p o st-m o d e rn issues to o k p la c e u n d e r social con d itio n s o f totalitarianism in its last b re a th . As th e d im e n sio n o f h isto ry a n d o f everyday life c o lo n ise d by h isto ry was th e b a ttle fie ld o f em a n c ip a tio n , q u ite a n u m b e r o f artistic m e a n s a n d te c h n iq u e s d ev e lo p e d which d ea lt with the desanctification o f history a n d d eco lo n isatio n o f everyday life. T h e ir o rigins w ere in avant-garde a rt, a lth o u g h n o t in th e p a r t w h ich e m b ra c e d political rev o lu tio n a n d co m m u n ism , as th e a lre a d y -m e n tio n e d
7 F or a good review o f th e contem porary m eanings o f »everyday life« as a th e o re tic al category in the humanities, cf. M iljana N astran Ule, Psychology of Everyday Life (Psihologija vsakdanjega življenja (ZPS, L jubljana 1993).
8 In an interview for Documenta Press No. 4 (August 1987) S chneckenburger stated: »Strong reactions ( ‘shameless theatricality’) were caused by Robert Morris’s work of art. A general mood of the end of the world was stated, also concerning Merz and, in any case, Beuys. There were critics who sarcastically spoke of a ‘funeral - parody’. Is the necromancy intended? - M a n fre d S chneckenburger: I have n o th in g against sarcasm . C o n c ern in g M orris, m ost critics m ake it too easy fo r themselves. His pictures are m anifestoes o f th e re tu rn o f arts to th e d iscourse o f th e ex tre m e b u rd e n s a n d tr a u m a ta o f o u r past, a n tic ip a tin g an apocalyptic future. W hen today artists cease seeing lin e ar p a tte rn s o f d evelo p m en t, but merely a coinciding o f beginning and end, then it is h ere th a t th e best philosophical b rain s are m e etin g . F o u c a u lt p re d ic ts th e fall o f m a n k in d , a n d re a d u p o n th e controversies, starting with G ü n th er A nders o r A n d ré G lucksm ann! W ho m e n tio n s necrom ancy, in spite o f th e so com plex an d subtle vision by Beuys, c a n ’t be in th e ir right mind.«
M ayakovsky, as w ell as p ro d u c tiv ists, p ro le tk u ltists a n d som e o th e rs d id.
In ste a d , th ey p ro m o te d cosm ic an arch ism w hich p u t rev o lu tio n ary c h a n g e o n a sy m b o lic a n d s p iritu a l level a n d n o t o n th e lev el o f m a te ria l a n d o rg a n isa tio n a l re v o lu tio n . T o ta lita ria n a rt a n d ideology w ere e x p o se d a n d ab u se d w ith o u t d ire c t confrontations, b u t by using their m eth od s an d im agery in a m anip u lativ e way. T his k in d o f a rt did n o t offer any im m ediate p arod ical sense. Its b a ttle fo r th e u n o p p re s s e d ae sth etic d im en sio n avoid ed lan g u ag e a n d fo rm s o f d i r e c t c o m b a t fo r o r a g a in s t p ro g re ss in a rt, as c o u n te r re v o lu tio n a ry a r t o r ra d ic al a r t did befo re. Russian form alists a n d B akhtin u n d e r s to o d p a ro d y as a stru g g le b etw een new a n d o ld discourse, a n d saw in p a ro d y a m ean s o f p ro g re ss in artistic language. W h at they d id n o t have in m in d was th e k in d o f artistic p ractice w hich often allows fo r am biguity a n d sp e c u la tio n s.9 O th e r o rig in s o f this k in d o f critical a rt o f th e eig hties w ere in witz, w hich is m o re th a n ju s t a jo k e , especially u n d e r a u th o rita ria n o r t o ta lita r ia n r u le w h e n s o m e tim e s it is th e on ly m e a n s o f s h o r t a n d v ic to rio u s e m a n c ip a tio n o f everyday life fro m m u c h b ig g e r a n d in s u r
m o u n ta b le forces o f h isto ry .10
Witz is a r a th e r d iffe re n t m eans o f struggle for everyday life a n d against its o c c u p a tio n by h istory, as p a ro d y is, fo r p aro d y is b ase d o n a stru g g le b e tw e e n th e o ld s u rp a s s e d la n g u a g e a n d a new p ro g ressiv e o n e w h ich e lim in a te s it fro m d isc o u rse . Witz, o n th e contrary, c o n fro n ts th e ru lin g
9 S uch sp e cu la tio n s o c c u rre d in th e case o f th e im agery a n d m ethods o f th e N eue Slowenische K unst g ro u p from Slovenia, for exam ple, w here it was n o t (an d fo r som e is n o t even now) clear w hat th e ir attitude was to totalitarianism in its fascist, Nazi and co m m u n ist form s. T hey them selves proclaim ed totalitarian artistic m anip u latio n as th e principle w hich enables art to free itself from totalitarian politics which m anipulate art. T h eir signs taken from Malevich were seen as Nazi signs, as in the case o f Malevich’s black cross, w hich was re fe rre d to by politicians, the police a n d th e general public as a Nazi swastika.
10 T h a t witz can becom e a work o f art is well known, b u t proven also by Jaroslav Hasek an d his influential an d e tern al The Brave Soldier Svejk. Jokes a n d anecdotes o f th e really existing socialism often show th e ir ability to diagnose and n o t only to alleviate the p erso n a l b u rd e n , like in those two which explain th e basic m ethods o f L eninism in term s o f th e revolutionary suppression o f lust. T he first relates th a t L enin always had a wife and a mistress, so that the wife thought that he is with his mistress, and the mistress believed him to be with th e wife, while he was then free to study, study and study. T he second tells o f a painting at an annual exhibition on the them e o f L enin’s life, sponsored by th e g rea t Stalin. T h e re was a p ain tin g en titled ‘Lenin in S m o ln i’, an d Stalin said:
»This is very good, I re m e m b e r seeing him there!« T h ere was a n o th e r one called ‘T he Y oung L e n in ’, an d Stalin said: »It shows how high can a m an com e if h e follows the Party!« B ut th e re was also o n e called ‘L enin in Warsaw’, a n d Stalin said: »I can see K rupska in bed , an d a young gardiste with her, b u t w here is Lenin?« »Well, in Warsaw, o f course.«
Lev Kreft
ideology o n its own term s with lau g h ter, b u t do es n o t in tro d u c e new o r m o re progressive discourse. T h e strategy o f witz is also lin k ed with th e c o n fro n ta tio n o f th e su blim e, a n d g ra n d e u r w ith b a n a lity a n d triviality, th u s e m p lo y in f im ag es o f h is to ry a n d everyday life in te r tw in e d in a s u rp ris in g ly s h o r t em b ra c e d u rin g w hich basic p ro p e rtie s slide fro m o n e sid e to th e o th e r , with history perceived as so m eth in g b an a l, trivial a n d a p a r t o f a ritu a l tu rn e d into an em pty routine, with everyday life as s o m e th in g p ro fo u n d , m ean in g fu l, lib e ra tin g a n d sublim e.
In th e 20th c e n tu ry a r t h a d to c o p e w ith h isto ry a n d everyday life m o re th a n ever b efo re, a n d in v en ted o r re p e a te d m o re strateg ie s a n d tactics th a n ever b efo re. I t m a rc h e d in to b attles u n d e r all p o ssib le b a n n e rs ; it e s c a p e d from th e b attlefield w ith all possible o r im p o ssib le excuses; it s h a r e d a n d instigated enthusiasm a n d fanaticism alike, c o n d e m n in g th em ju s t a m o m e n t afte r, like omne anim al triste, it h e lp e d to p ro d u c e a n h isto ric a l m e a n in g successfully o r as an obvious fa ilu re .11 A t th e e n d o f a c e n tu ry it a n n o u n c e d th e final arm istice. H istory b ec am e j u s t o n e o f th e po ssib le topics, everyday life b e c a m e j u s t o n e o f th e valu ab le p e rsp e c tiv e s o f reality , w h ile re ality to g e th e r with history a n d everyday life w e n t th ro u g h processes o f total, global an d universal aestheticization and, at th e sam e tim e, th ro u g h a process w hich den ied reality its privileged an d certain status o f m easure fo r o th e r dim ension s o f possible a n d im possible w orlds.12 It a p p e a rs th a t th e e x p re ssio n »virtual«
reality isju st an u n necessary co m p licatio n , fo r all possible realities a re m o re o r less v irtu al, w ith th e ex c lu sio n o f th e u to p ia n re a lity as th e o n ly o n e com pletely b a n n e d fro m th e g ro u p o f possible realities, a n d fro m po etically in te re stin g worlds as well.
11 As the career of David is typical for historical art from the tim es o f revolution, Picasso’s tries to b rin g it into life again an d is typical fo r 20th century. W hile his Guernica really m ade history and p ro d u ce d history, his Korean War rep rese n ts a false a n d em pty self
m annerism .
12 R e fe rrin g to L eib n iz’s p h ilo so p h y o f p o ssib le w orlds, I have in m in d esp ecially B au m g arten ’s aesthetical explanation o f th e artistic use o f u to p ia n an d h etero co sm ic worlds. First, it is im p o rtan t to note th a t in his view th e artist is »quasi factor sive creator«
and the artw ork » quasi mundus«, which m eans th a t art can b e o f h e lp in p re p a rin g th e second b irth of the hum an being, his first b irth as imago Dei is physical, a n d his second spiritual (§ LXVIII). In this quasi mundus vie fin d fictions, i.e. fictitious en titie s an d th eir rep re se n te d objects th a t are possible o r im possible in th e existing w orld, which tran sfo rm s th e m in to real fictions, a n d fictio n s alo n e. T h o se fictio n s w hich are impossible ju s t in the really existing world are heterocosm ical, while those im possible in all possible worlds, the real world in c lu d ed , are u to p ian ; h eterocosm ical fictions are poetic, while utopian ones are unsuitable for any kind o f represen tin g , a n d ca n n o t be poetic (§ LI). Cf. A lexander G ottlieb B a u m g a rte n , Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus, bilingual Latin an d Serbo-Croatian edition, ed. by Milan D am njanović, BIGZ, Belgrade 1985, pp. 56-57 & 40-41.
H ow ca n an a e sth e tic ia n as a p h ilo s o p h e r d e te rm in e w h e th e r such a fram ew o rk o f a r t’s ideology is th e final stage a n d o utco m e o f a story o f history a n d everyday life in a rt, a n d o f a r t as th e m ak er o f history a n d everyday life?
It m ay b e th a t it is a fin al stage, as in th e ae sth e tic iz atio n o f everyday life w h ich , c o n tra ry to all e x p e c ta tio n s, lacks any h ig h er a n d su blim e m e a n in g a n d follow s n o e n d . It m ay b e th a t it is a final stage as in a re v o lu tio n o f everyday life w h ich d id n o t p ro d u c e new a n d adv anced h u m a n b ein g s, a n d is, o n th e c o n tra ry , su s p e c te d to b e p arty to to ta lita ria n atrocities. T h ese q u e stio n s a re sim ilar to th o se tre a te d by A ugu stin e in his fo u r b o ok s On Christian Doctrine a b o u t th e in te rp re ta tio n o f the S cripture, a n d in tro d u c in g th e d iffe re n c e b etw e en th in g s a n d signs.13 His ex p la n a tio n o f w hat signs are is c o n n e c te d w ith his id e a o f h istory a n d its m ean in g , nam ely, o f histo ry as w h at actually h a p p e n e d ( res gestae) a n d o f history as a sign for w hat we can h o p e for. H is p ro b le m in De civitate Dei we can fo rm u late as: »Is H istory a k in d o f S c rip tu re ? « A n affirm ativ e answ er w o u ld m e a n th a t we ca n see th r o u g h th e h is to ric a l p ro c e ss in to th e essen ce o f th in g s. W e m ig h t ask o u rselv es in a sim ila r way: »Does a r t today show any signs o f an ep o c h a l m e a n in g , b e it in h isto ry a n d / o r in everyday life?« Follow ing th e ex am p le o f A u g u stin e, this do es n o t m e a n th a t we ask for the m o m e n ts w h en H istory m ak es its g re a t steps tow ards lib e ra tio n a n d em an c ip atio n . Such steps w ere a n n o u n c e d re c e n tly as fu lfilm en ts o f n a tio n a l dream s. W e c a n n o t d o this, even if we w o u ld wish to, b ec au se th e re is n o g re a t n a tio n a l a rt p re c e d in g , p re s e n tin g o r follow ing th ese events, as th e re h a d b e e n in th e 19th century, a n d th e re is n o G re a t A rt o f H istory any m o re, n o t even o f such a fake k in d as in th e tim es o f G e ra ssim o v .14 W e are also n o t in te re s te d in th e a r t o f ev ery d ay life w h ic h follow s th e p a th s o f a e sth e tic iz a tio n o r av a n t-g ard e re v o lu tio n . Even if we w o u ld wish to d o so, th e m eans fo r these effects, if they c o u ld still b e possible (a n d mostly it is said th a t they c a n n o t b e achieved any m o r e ) , w o u ld n o t b e typically artistic. Everyday life is today co lo n ised by c u ltu ra l p ro d u c ts w hich c a n n o t be d iffe ren tiated in to artistic a n d no n -
13 »All instruction is e ith e r a b o u t things or abo u t signs; but things are learnt by m eans of signs. [...] No o n e uses w ords except as signs o f som ething else; and h en ce it may be u n d ersto o d w hat I call sings: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate som ething else... F or to enjoy a th in g is to rest with satisfaction in it for its own sake.« (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2 D A ugustine: City of God, Christian Doctrine, H endrickson P ublishers, P eabody 1994, p. 523.)
14 In reality th e re w ere even two Gerassimovs, A lexander and Sergei, constantly praised for th e ir skill o f m aking L e n in ’s an d Stalin’s portraits, other scenes from the historical victory o f h u m a n k in d , a n d scenes from everyday life o f the new species called th e new Soviet h u m a n , th e m ost collective anim al o f all.
Lev Kreft
artistic ones, the consequences b ein g th a t th e re is n o a r t o f everyday life w hich co u ld b e an y th in g m o re th a n m erely c u ltu re .15
Follow ing A u g u stin e’s exam ple fro m The City o f Godwe sh o u ld e x a m in e the special m om ents in tim e w hen h isto ry stum bles, falls a n d collapses, w hile everyday life is in d e e p tro u b le as a re su lt. T h e se a r e tim es w h e n h isto ric a l decisions are re a c h e d o n the level o f everyday life a n d as a p a r t o f everyday life necessities, a n d w hen the an a rch y o f G re a t H isto ry reveals th e p ro f o u n d a n d n o t a t all b an al o r trivial d im en sio n s o f everyday life, fo r w ith th e fall o f H istory all ritu al, h a b itu a l a n d o th e r o rd e rly p a tte rn s o f th e d ire c tio n a n d decisions o f everyday life lose th e ir pow er. S u ch m o m e n ts w ere th e basis fo r M aurice M erleau-P onty’s p h e n o m e n o lo g y o f h istory , w ith th e h e lp o f P éguy’s d iffe re n tia tio n b etw een p e rio d s a n d ep o c h s. H e n c e in H um anism and Terror. A n Essay on the Communist Problem fro m 1947, h e states: »F or we to o have lived th ro u g h o n e o f th o se m o m e n ts w h e re h isto ry is s u s p e n d e d a n d in stitu tio n s th a t are th re a te n e d w ith e x tin c tio n d e m a n d fu n d a m e n ta l decisio n s fro m m en , w h e re th e risk is to tal b e c a u se th e ir fin a l o u tc o m e d e p e n d s u p o n a c o n j u n c t u r e n o t e n t i r e ly f o r e s e e a b l e . W h e n t h e c o lla b o ra to r m ad e his decision in 1940 in term s o f w h a t h e b eliev e d to b e the inevitable future (we assume h e was d isinterested) h e co nflicted with those w ho d id n o t believe in this fu tu re n o r w a n te d it a n d th e re a fte r b etw e en th e m a n d h im it was a m a tte r o f force. W h e n o n e is living in w h a t P égu y c a lled an histo rical p erio d , in w hich political m a n is c o n te n t to a d m in is te r a re g im e o r an estab lish ed law, o n e can h o p e fo r a h isto ry w ith o u t v io len ce. W h e n o n e has th e m isfo rtu n e o r th e lu ck to live in a n e p o c h , o r o n e o f th o se m o m en ts w h ere the tra d itio n a l g ro u n d o f a n a tio n o r society c ru m b le s a n d w here, fo r b e tte r o r w orse, m an h im s e lf m u s t re c o n s tru c t h u m a n re la tio n s, th e n th e lib erty o f ea ch m an is m o rta l th r e a t to th e o th e rs a n d v io le n c e re a p p e a rs.« 16 It is a special fe a tu re o f o u r tim es th a t o n e p a r t o f th e w o rld lives in a p e rio d , w hile th e o th e r lives m o re a n d m o re in a n e p o c h , a n d w hat was a history o f socialist re d e m p tio n b e fo re is now j u s t a stru g g le to e n te r fro m th e re alm o f an e p o c h in to th e re a lm o f a sim p le p e rio d .
T h e fall of R om e in 410, w hich in d ire c tly in s p ire d A u g u stin e to w rite his City o f God, an d th e fall o f the B erlin W all to g e th e r with th e Soviet e m p ire cru m b lin g a n d Yugoslavia falling into ruins, may b e a far-fetched co m p ariso n . Still, we m ay ask how can a rt artic u la te su ch m o m e n ts w h e n th e re is really n o t asc ertain ed , ready a n d o ffered m e a n in g , p u rp o s e o r e n d , a n d h o w can
15 M arcuse w ould m ost certain ly use th e e x p re ssio n » o n e-d im en sio n a l« fo r su c h a situation o f art in everyday life.
16 M aurice M erleau-Ponty, Humanism and Terror, B eacon Press, B oston 1969, p p . xvi- xvii.
it m a n a g e to p ro d u c e a m e a n in g , a p u rp o se o r an e n d from its own aesthetic pow er?
F ro m th e h isto rical ex a m p le o f th e fall o f R om e, we know th a t it can a c c o m p lis h th is. B esid es A u g u s tin e ’s answ er, w h ich is well k n o w n , it is im p o r ta n t to m e n tio n th a t a sp iritu a l a n d artistic an sw er was ready even b e fo re th e fate o f R om e was accom plished, by the so-called tu rn o f eyes from th e visible to th e invisible w o rld .17
H as th e Fall o f th e B erlin W all b e e n artistically d e p ic te d as a g re a t h isto rical event? W ere en th u siastic im ages o f victory over th e totalitarian rule o r g a n is e d in e p ic s p e c ta c le s ? A n d h o w was th e g r e a t lib e r a ti o n a n d e m a n c ip a tio n o f everyday life p re sen ted ? It has all b e e n d o n e in th e m edia, in c u ltu re , a n d n o t by art. T h e artistic p re p a ra tio n for th e fall has b e e n very involved a n d im p o rta n t, a n d now we h e a r d e p lo rin g voices from everywhere th a t a r t is n o t o n th e h isto rical level any m o re. Evidently, because history has c o m e to an e n d this does n o t d em o n strate th a t history has any e n d ( causa finalis) a t all.
W h a t we c a n fin d in a r t to day are signs sho w in g th a t th e in te rp la y b e tw e e n h isto ry a n d everyday life fo rced individuals to g e t in to tro u b le, to feel d esp a ir a n d to c o m m it violent atrocities o r subject them selves to violence o f a tra n s itio n fro m a p e r io d to an e p o c h , a n d from an ep o c h (som etim es unsuccessfully!) b ac k to a p erio d , i.e. norm al life. In post-com m unist a rt th ere is s o m e tim e s ( th r o u g h th e fall o f H isto ry a n d th ro u g h th e p ro b le m s o f everyday life, w ith th e a id o f very special artistic strateg ies a n d tactics w hich m ay p ro d u c e m e a n in g , sense a n d p u rp o se even today) a w indow o p e n in g o n to tra n s c e n d e n t a n d m etaph ysical heterocosmic w orlds, a n d th e w orld o n th e o th e r sid e o f this o p e n in g becom es accessible for a m o m e n t D n o t from th e v iew p o in t o f history, b u t ju s t from the perspective o f everyday life.
17 In philosophy, this tu rn has b e e n developed by T ertullian who n o t only cond em n ed R om an spectacles a n d w rote rules for the everyday life o f a C hristian, b u t concluded his b o o k o n th e spectacles th a t th e best ones are those which were never seen by any eye, h e a rd by any ear, an d do n o t even live outside th e h u m a n hearts D those o f the struggle betw een faith a n d non-faith, those o f the final ju d g e m e n t, and others which may b e seen only if we tu rn o u r eyes inward. (Tertullien, Les spectacles:, a Latin D French ed itio n , ed. by M arie T u rc an , Les Éditions d u CERF, Paris 1986, pp. 216-329.) M artin Jay acknow ledges this p h e n o m e n o n as »the visionary tradition D based in p a rt on a theatricalized in te rp re ta tio n o f th e injunction to imitate God (imitatio Dei) and in p art o n th e neo-P latonic search fo r th e colourless »white ecstasy« o f divine illum ination a n d finds its re p e a tin g te n d en c y in th e w aning o f the E n lig h ten m e n t’s reliance on sight, as »the revival o f a neo-P latonic desire fo r an ideal beauty th at could n o t be perceived with th e n o rm al eyes o f m u n d a n e observation,« while the »third eye« o f insp ired revelation could still arouse enthusiasm (M artinjay, Downcast Eyes, University o f C alifornia Press, Berkeley, 1993, pp. 39-40 and 106-108.)
Lev Kreft
A g o o d illustration o f this thesis is th e C zech film »Kolya«, b u t we co u ld m e n tio n w h at has now already b e c o m e a genre, i.e. th e film s c o n c e rn in g th e trag e d y o f th e fo rm e r Y ugoslavia a n d th e B alk an w ars o f tod ay , s u c h as Underground, After Rain, a n d even Nice Villages B u m Nicely. I stress »Kolya«
because it is a sum m ary o f all c o u n te rc u ltu ra l strategies o f th e C zech c in e m a d e v e lo p e d from th e sixties o n . A t th e sam e tim e , it re so lu te ly o p e n s this m etaphysical d im ension accessible th ro u g h everyday life ex p e rie n c e s, u sin g m e th o d s a n d te c h n iq u e s w hich e n a b le us to »see th ro u g h « h is to ry a n d everyday life, an d to tu rn o u r eyes inw ard, b rin g in g a m etap h y sical a n d an ethical d im e n sio n to th e surface in tim es a n d c o n d itio n s w hich a re m o st u n frie n d ly to such an e n d e a v o u r. B o th ways h e lp us to sen se th e h ig h e r m e a n in g a n d p u rp o se w hich em erg es even in tim es o f th e Fall o f H isto ry a n d th e C haos o f Everyday Life, p e rh a p s even as a last re s o rt o n w h ich we may rely u p o n .
At th e tim e o f the fall o f history a n d th e collapse o f everyday life ro u tin e , a rt grasps its o b ject differently. T his d iffe re n c e is sim ilar to th e d iffe re n c e betw een n ak e d n ess a n d n u d ity .18 W hile in m o d e rn is m h isto ry a n d everyday life w ere n u d e , i.e. on display, u n d e r p o s t-m o d e rn c o n d itio n s th ey a re j u s t th e re , w ith o u t any special re aso n fo r display. It is p o litica lly in c o r r e c t to d isp lay h is to ry a n d everyday life o b je c ts i n s p ir in g e n th u s ia s m , as it is politically in c o rre c t to display n a k e d b o d ies as o bjects in sp irin g lu st a n d still call this art. In post-com m unist p o st-m o d ern co n d itio n s, w ith th e ir m a n ifo ld a n d m u ltip le tra n sitio n fro m a p e r io d to an e p o c h a n d vice v ersa, so m e artw orks show successfully how h istory a n d everyday life ca n be sh ow n in th eir n akedness, forced to reveal them selves, a n d by d o in g so o p e n a w indow to a tiny, delicate a n d definitely h e te ro c o sm ic ro o m o f m e a n in g , p u rp o s e a n d e n d w hich does n o t serve h isto rical e n th u s ia s m o r everyday lust, b u t tran sc en d s b o th by a force o f ae sth e tic vision.
In post-m odern conditions o f post-com m unism , w ho co u ld ask fo r m ore?
18 T he now already classical text on this differen ce is jo h n B e rg e r’s Ways of Seeing based on th e BBC television series and published by BBC a n d P en g u in Books first in 1972:
»To b e n ak e d is to be oneself. To be n u d e is to be se en n ak e d by o th e rs a n d yet n o t recognized for oneself. A n aked body has to be seen as an o bject in o rd e r to becom e a nude. (T he sight o f it as an object stim ulates th e use o f it as an object.) N akedness reveals itself. Nudity is placed on display.« (P. 54 in th e 1981 edition.)
