View of Aesthetics: Philosophy of Art or Philosophy of Culture?

AESTHETICS: PHILOSOPHY OF ART OR PHILOSOPHY OF CULTURE?

Aleš Erjavec

T h r o u g h o u t its m u ltifa rio u s h istory aesthetics in its various historical, cul­

tu ra l a n d th e o re tic a l fram ew orks has b e e n c o n c e rn e d w ith issues o f co gn i­

tio n , b ea u ty , n a tu re a n d a rt, a n d th e ir m u tu al relatio n s a n d relationships.

H e n c e , ae sth e tic s, as e sta b lish e d by B au m g arten , was in te n d e d to establish th e scien c e o f c o g n itio n as c a rrie d o u t by th e senses (a lth o u g h n o t in o p p o si­

tio n to scien tific ra tio n a lity ); in K ant th e n o tio n s o f th e b eau tifu l a n d the s u b lim e sim u lta n e o u sly re la te to n a tu re a n d to art, b o th in re la tio n to th e p re c o n d itio n s o f h u m a n c o g n itio n a n d u n d e rs ta n d in g , w hile in H eg el aes­

th e tic s firm ly b ec o m e s p h ilo so p h y o f art, a lth o u g h it still re tain s th e u m bili­

cal c o rd w ith th e sen su o u s, for, by b e in g th e “sensuo us a p p e a ra n c e o f th e Id e a ,” by its very d e fin itio n , a r t c a n n o t exist w ith o u t it. A lth o u g h in H eg el a rt is a n esse n tial ste p in th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e self-awareness o f th e A bsolute S pirit, its specific se n su o u s fe atu res p re v e n t it fro m a tta in in g th e u ltim ate p o sitio n o f th e p u re c o n c e p t. T his is reserved fo r p hiloso ph y, w hich deals, in H e g e l’s view, w ith c o n c e p ts only.

H e g e l’s id e n tific a tio n o f aesthetics w ith ph ilo so p h y o f a rt a n d th e tu rn away fro m n a tu re to a r t as th e fu n d a m e n ta l o bject o f ae sth etic reflectio n re p ­ re s e n ts a c ru c ia l h isto ric a l m o m e n t, fo r it n o t only establishes aesthetics as p h ilo so p h y o f a r t b u t, co n se q u en tly , also signals th e dem ise o f its relev ance by e lim in a tin g th e fu r th e r h isto ric im p o rta n c e o f its subject, i.e. art.

As P e te r B ü rg e r n o te s in his Theory o f the Avant-Garde, in H eg el can be fo u n d a sk etch o f a c o n c e p t o f p o stro m a n tic art: “U sing D u tch g e n re p ain tin g as his e x a m p le , h e w rites th a t h e r e the in te re st in th e o b ject tu rn s in to in te r­

e st in th e skill o f p re s e n ta tio n . ‘W h a t s h o u ld e n c h a n t us is n o t th e su b ject o f th e p a in tin g a n d its lifelikeness, b u t the p u re appearan ce (interesseloses Scheinen) w hich is w holly w ith o u t th e s o rt o f in te re st th a t th e sub ject has. T h e o n e th in g c e rta in a b o u t b e a u ty is, as it w ere, a p p e a ra n c e [sem b lan ce (Scheinen)] fo r its ow n sake, a n d a r t is m astery in th e p o rtrayal o f all the secrets o f this ever

Al e š Er ja v e c

p ro fo u n d e r p u re a p p e a ra n c e (Scheinen) o f e x te rn a l re a litie s’ (vol. I, p. 598 ).

W hat H eg el alludes to h e re is n o th in g o th e r th a n w h a t we ca lle d th e d e v e lo p ­ ing au to n o m y o f th e aesthetic. H e says expressly ‘th a t th e a rtis t’s su bjective skill a n d his ap p licatio n o f th e m ean s o f artistic p r o c e d u r e a re ra ise d to th e status o f an objective m a tte r in works o f a r t ’ (vol. I, p. 5 99 ). T h is a n n o u n c e s th e shift o f the fo rm -co n ten t d ialectic in favor o f fo rm , a d e v e lo p m e n t th a t ch aracterizes the fu rth e r course o f a r t.”1 B ü rg e r draw s fro m this p assage th e co n clu sio n th a t H egel h im self foresaw th e s e p a ra tio n o f th e c o n te n t a n d th e form , o r w h a t h e calls “the antithesis b etw e en a r t a n d th e p rax is o f life.”2

T h e re exists a n o th e r in te rp re ta tio n o f th e H e g e lia n thesis o f th e in te r ­ m ediate position o f a r t in re la tio n to ph ilo so p h y , w hich ca n b e f o u n d in H e n ri Lefebvre a n d m o re recen tly in Luc F erry a n d w hich re la te s to c o n te m p o ra ry dilem m as in trin sic to aesthetics. A c c o rd in g to this s e c o n d in te r p r e ta tio n o f H egel (th e sim ilarities o f w hich w ith th a t o f B ü rg e r, a n d h e n c e in d ire c tly with th a t o f A d o rn o , F erry d isputes) c o n te m p o ra ry a r t has lo st its p o w e r o f n eg atio n . It follows from F erry’s theses th a t, b e c a u se it tu r n e d in to p h ilo so ­ phy, a r t b ec am e su b lated a n d by this a c t o r pro cess it was tra n s fo rm e d in to its oppo site, a lth o u g h at th e sam e tim e re ta in in g its n a m e as its e m p ty shell. In th e w ords o f Ferry, “if a rt is sim ply an in c a rn a tio n o f a c o n c e p tu a l tr u th in a sensible m aterial, a rt is d e a d .”3 T h e a r t th a t is re fe rr e d to h e r e is c o n c e p tu a l a rt in its b ro a d e st sense a n d it this a r t th a t in creasin g ly a p p e a rs as th e a r t a fte r m o d ern ism par excellence. It is also this a r t w hich is o n e o f th e causes fo r th e p re se n t re -ex am in atio n o f the re la tio n b etw e en a r t a n d c u ltu re a n d , th e re ­ fore, o f th e re la tio n b etw een aesthetics as p h ilo so p h y o f a r t a n d a e sth e tic s in te rp re te d as p h ilo so p h y o f cu ltu re .

A d ilem m a w hich co n fro n ts us today is as follows: c a n w e tr e a t all c o n te m ­ p o rary a rt as a single entity, w h e th e r it is c o n c e p tu a l o r o th e r, o r d o we have to distin g u ish b etw een (1) co n c ep tu al, (2) tra d itio n a l (classical) a rt, a n d (3) p re d o m in a n tly com m ercial, c o m m o d ifie d a n d , fo r th e m o st p a r t, visual a r t w hich is closely re la te d to w hat used to b e ca lle d m ass a n d c o n s u m e r c u ltu re ? A step necessary fo r answ ering this d ile m m a m ay b e in h isto rically d e fin in g th e initial o b ject o f o u r inquiry.

H ow ca n we d efin e a rt historically? First, we m ay d e fin e it as a sh iftin g fu n c tio n w hich gives a sem b lan ce o f o n to lo g ic a l stability sim ply b e c a u s e we d o n ’t view it from a lo n g term h isto rical p ersp ectiv e. F ro m this v iew p o in t artw orks are tra n sie n t en tities with o n to lo g ic al, cognitiv e, a e sth e tic , id e o lo g i­

1 P eter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde (M inneapolis: U niversity o f M in n eso ta Press, 1984), p. 93.

2 Ibid., pp. 93-4.

s Luc Ferry, Le Sens du Beau (Paris: C ercle d ’Art, 1998), p. 200.

cal, a n d o th e r fu n c tio n s, a n d ard sts a n d w riters are a p p re c ia te d a n d valued fo r a b r ie f h isto rical m o m e n t a n d th e n slip in to oblivion to b e, p erh ap s, re su r­

re c te d years, d e c a d e s o r even ce n tu rie s later. T hey may, in th e m ean tim e, b e c o m e a p a r t o f th e C a n o n , b u t even in this case it c a n n o t b e said th a t they a re a p p r e c ia te d w ith th e sam e in ten sity th ro u g h o u t history. T h e C zech stru c­

tu ra list a e sth e tic ia n fro m th e th irties, J a n Mukarovskÿ fu rth e rm o re suggested th a t e a c h n ew artistic m o v e m e n t o r tre n d - an avant-gardist, for ex a m p le - first o p p o se s a n d subverts th e p a s t artistic norm s, b u t su b seq u en tly b eco m es itse lf a p a r t o f th e tra d itio n a n d h e n c e itself a norm .

In this first h isto ric a l d e fin itio n , a rt is so m eth in g th a t attain s th e fu n c tio n o f art. Its esse n tial fe a tu re c o u ld b e d efin e d in N elson G o o d m a n ’s m an n er:

th e q u e s tio n is n o t w h a t is art, b u t w hen is it art? M ukarovskÿ follows h e re in th e fo o tstep s o f th e R ussian form alists, w ho have alread y claim ed th a t a rt­

w orks - th ey w ere c o n c e rn e d alm o st exclusively with p o e try a n d p ro se an d n o t w ith w orks o f th e visual arts - a ttain ed , lost an d p e rh a p s re g a in e d th e ir artistic statu s th ro u g h history. O r, q u o tin g D a n to from e ig h t d ecades later,

“W e m ig h t d e fin e th e ir h isto ric a l m o m e n t as any tim e in w hich they co u ld have b e e n w orks o f a r t.”4

A c c o rd in g to th e se c o n d histo rical d e fin itio n w hich is a histo ricist on e, a r t follows a h isto rically p re e x is te n t n o rm . In H e g e l’s case (a n d also, b u t to a lesser e x te n t, in th a t o f H e id e g g e r) this is o f course th e G reek m o del. As P e te r S zond i observes, “W hile in H egel everythin g starts to m ove a n d every­

th in g h as its specific p lace value in historical d e v e lo p m e n t... th e c o n c e p t o f a r t ca n h a rd ly d ev e lo p , fo r it b ea rs th e u n iq u e stam p o f G re e k a rt.”5 R o m an­

tic a r t d o es n o t fulfill th o se c rite ria a n d th e ir ideal; to re tu r n to B ü rg er again,

“F o r H e g el, ro m a n tic a r t is th e p ro d u c t o f the dissolution o f th e in te rp e n e tra ­ tio n o f sp irit a n d se n su o u sn ess (e x te rn a l a p p e a ra n c e ) ch a rac te ristic o f classi­

cal art. B u t b e y o n d th a t, h e conceives o f a fu r th e r stage w h e re ro m a n tic a rt also dissolves. T h is is b r o u g h t a b o u t by th e radicalization o f th e o p po sites o f in w ard n ess a n d e x te rn a l reality th a t d efin e ro m an tic art. A rt d isin teg rates in to ‘th e subjective im ita tio n o f th e given’ (realism in d etail) a n d ‘subjective h u m o r .’ H e g e l’s a e sth e tic th e o ry thus leads logically to th e id ea o f th e e n d of a r t w h e re a r t is u n d e r s to o d to b e w hat H eg el m e a n t by classicism , th e p e rfe c t in te r p e n e tr a tio n o f fo rm a n d c o n te n t.”'’

B u t d o es it n ecessarily follow th a t post-rom antic a rt has lost th e h isto ric ro le it p u rp o r te d ly p o ssessed in th e past? W hile a positive answ er is oblig ato ry

4 A rth u r D anto, After the End of Art (Princeton: P rinceton University Press, 1997), p.

196.

5 Q u o te d in B ürger, op. cit., p. 92.

0 B ürger, op. cit., p. 93.

9

Al e š Er ja v e c

if o n e follows H e g e l’s d esig n atio n o f th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e A b so lu te S p irit, a n d m ay even be necessary if we follow F erry ’s a rg u m e n ts, it is also tru e - as A d o rn o claim s an d , later, B ü rg er - th a t a fte r ro m a n tic ism , a rt, especially in th e n in e te e n th an d m o st o f th e tw en tieth c e n tu ry , a tta in e d o r r e ta in e d a very p rivileged social a n d existential p o sitio n , o n e th a t was le ft p ra ctically u n d is ­ p u te d a t le a st u n til th e sixties, w h en th e e m e rg e n c e o f stru c tu ra lism a n d la te r p o ststru c tu ra lism s ta rte d to rad ic ally q u e s tio n a n d a tta c k th e p re v io u sly sa n c ro sa n c t n o tio n s o f th e artw ork, th e a rtist a n d artistic creativity — a p ro c ess w hich co in c id e d with th e c h a n g e fro m th e m o d e rn is t in to th e p o s tm o d e rn is t p arad ig m . W ithin such a c h a n g e d c u ltu re sc a p e th e c o n te m p o ra ry a lte rn a tiv e to the two historical defin itio n s previously d e sc rib e d w ould b e th a t o f A r th u r D anto: “T h e p icture th e n is this: th e re is a k in d o f tra n sh isto ric a l esse n c e in art, everyw here a n d always th e sam e, b u t it only discloses itse lf th ro u g h h is­

tory. ... O n c e b ro u g h t to th e level o f self-consciousness, this tr u th reveals itse lf as p re s e n t in all the a rt th a t ever m a tte re d .”7 T h is essen ce o r tr u th c a n n o t b e id e n tifie d with a p a rtic u la r style o f a rt, c o n tin u e s D an to .

W h a t is th en disclosed th ro u g h h isto ry is th e h isto ric iz e d esse n ce o f art.

A nd D a n to co n tin u es m u ch like B ü rg e r a n d esp ecially Ferry: “ [T ] h e e n d o f a r t consists in th e c o m in g to aw areness o f th e tru e p h ilo s o p h ic a l n a tu r e o f a r t.”” T h e passage o f a rt in to ph ilo so p h y , th e e m e rg e n c e o f in te lle c tu a l re ­ flectio n u p o n art, p u rp o rte d ly signals th e final d e a th k n ell to a r t p ro p e r , b u t while in F erry o r Lefebvre a r t has n o t o nly lo st its h isto ric ro le b u t has lo st its ro le a lto g e th e r, D an to sees in this c h a n g e th e e m e rg e n c e o f a p o st-h isto rical a rt w hich, a lth o u g h n o lo n g e r h isto ric, leg itim ately c o n tin u e s th e tra d itio n o f its p re d ece sso r an d is th e re fo re a c o n tin u a tio n o f a r t as su ch . A c o rre la te o f th e previous b elief in th e im p o rta n c e a n d th e esse n tial tru th -re v e a lin g fu n c ­ tion o f a r t are th e n in e te e n th a n d tw e n tie th c e n tu ry beliefs in creativ ity o f w hich a r t was the p a ra m o u n t in stan ce. T h e view th a t th e ro le o f a r t m ay h av e b e e n d im in ish in g fo r cen tu ries a t least, is obvious also from H e id e g g e r’s q u e s­

tio n in 1950: “ [I]s a rt still an essential a n d necessary way in w h ich tru th th a t is decisive fo r o u r historical ex isten ce h a p p e n s , o r is a r t n o lo n g e r o f this c h a r­

acter?”'1

T his sam e issue was picked u p in th e r e c e n t b o o k , The Work o f Art fro m 1997, by th e F ren ch ae sth etician G é ra rd G e n e tte , w ho n o te d th a t A d o rn o a n d H eidegg er “systematically overvalued a rt,”10 th ere b y e c h o in g D a n to ’s views o n posth isto rical art. Truly, may we n o t say th a t a r t is b u t y et a n o th e r m a ste r

7 D anto, op. cit., p. 28.

8 D anto, op. cit., p. 30.

!l M artin H eidegger, “T h e O rigin o f th e A rtw ork,” q u o te d in D an to , p. 32.

1(1 G érard G enette, L ’oeuvre de l ’art. La relation esthétique (Paris: Seuil, 1997), p. 11.

n a rra tiv e o f m o d e rn ity a n d th a t m o d ern ism was its last a n d p e rh a p s p a ra ­ m o u n t h isto ric a l in stan ce? In o th e r w ords, th a t th e d o m in a n t c o n te m p o ra ry a r t h as lo st its p riv ileg ed social, political, cognitive, even eth ica l ro le a n d th a t it has b e e n tra n s fo rm e d in to its o p p o site, this op po site b e in g th e visual arts a n d , especially, th e ir c o m m o d ifie d p o stm o d e rn version? T h e essential differ­

e n c e a p p e a rs to o c c u r w ith th e d em ise o f th e m o d e rn ist p arad ig m in art. T his d e s c rip tio n is, I th in k , g en e rally a c c e p te d , fo r th e re seem today to b e n o c o n ­ te m p o ra ry d e fe n d e rs e ith e r o f m o d e rn ity as an in co m p lete p ro je c t o r o f in ­ te rp r e ta tio n s o f p o s tm o d e rn ism as yet a n o th e r facet o r in sta n c e o f h ig h m o d ­ e rn ism , as was fre q u e n tly a rg u e d in th e eighties. If, th e n , p o stm o d ern ism a p p e a re d as a relatively h o m o g e n o u s p h e n o m e n o n , w hich w ith its firm an d d is tin c t fe a tu re s c o u ld persuasively stan d u p to m o d ern ism , th e la tte r b ein g ex e m p lifie d by its d istin c t, exclusive a n d easily reco g n izab le p ro p e rtie s, th e n in th e n in e tie s a n d th e re a fte r we seem n o lo n g er capab le o f affirm in g such d i s t i n c t p r o p e r t i e s in p o s tm o d e r n is m . In o t h e r w o rd s , th e c u r r e n t p o s tm o d e rn is m in creasin g ly a p p e a rs as a series o f localized artistic a n d cul­

tu ra l p h e n o m e n a , ex istin g as a series o f local a n d tra n s ie n t events with n o p a rtic u la r claim s to universality a n d h istoric im p o rtan ce . H e n c e H e id e g g e r’s o b serv atio n a b o u t th e p ossible re d u c e d im p o rta n c e o f a r t a n d G e n e tte ’s com ­ m e n t a b o u t th e o v erev alu atio n o f a r t in A d o rn o a n d H e id e g g er correctly an ­ n o u n c e o r d ia g n o se th e c u r r e n t status o f art. N oneth eless, su ch diagnoses are p ossible o n th e b a c k g ro u n d o f a specific a n d o u tsta n d in g h isto rical situ atio n o f th e p rev io u s c e n tu ry , i.e. th a t o f m o d ern ism . As F redric Ja m e so n notes, e c h o in g A d o rn o fro m his Aesthetic Theory, “W hatever th e validity o f H e g e l’s feelin g s a b o u t R o m an tic ism , th o se c u rre n ts w hich led o n in to w hat has com e to b e c a lle d m o d e rn ism are th e re b y surely to be id en tified w ith o n e o f th e m o st re m a rk a b le flo u rish in g s o f th e arts in all o f h u m an h isto ry .”11 It is h e n c e p ro b a b ly also fro m th e v an tag e p o in t o f m o d ern ism th a t th e c u r re n t dim in- ish m e n t o f th e im p o rta n c e a n d th e relevance o f a rt ap pears to b e stark en o u g h to cause a series o f a u th o rs - so m e o f w hom I have m e n tio n e d - to q u estio n th e c u r r e n t status o f a r t a lto g e th e r. M oreover, since the avant-garde p ro je c t o f a r t has b e e n se p a ra te d fro m th e g e n e ra l p ro je c t o f life a n d society as a n a rt p ro je c t, as two in stan ce s o f th e sam e u to p ia n process (th e co n se q u en ce s o f w hich w ere d e sc rib e d w ell in th e case o f th e Russian avant-garde by Boris Groys in his Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin b o o k from 1988), w hat we are c o n fro n te d w ith a re th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f w h at A chille B onito Oliva, C h arles Jen c k s an d Ja m e s o n have a t an early stage, i.e. in 1972, 1975 a n d 1984 respectively, diag­

11 F re d ric Ja m eso n , The Cultural Turn. Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998 (L o n d o n : V erso, 1998), pp. 80-1.

11

Al e š Erjavec.

n o sed as trans-avant-garde, post-avant-garde a n d p o stm o d e rn is m . If, th e n , D u c h a m p ’s ready-m ades a p p e a r today as a n e v e r-re c u rre n t issue o f a e s th e tic a n d p h ilo so p h ic al d ebates, this d o es n o t m e a n th a t this was th e case also in the first h a lf of th e tw entieth c e n tu ry w h e n D u c h a m p was in te r p r e te d vari­

ously as a d ad aist, a su rrealist a n d a c o n c e p tu a list. I t was o nly w h e n a r t c re ­ a te d acco rd in g to o r resem bling th a t m ad e by h im a lm o st a c e n tu ry ag o s ta rte d to b e c o m e the exclusive re co g n izab le d o m in a n t tr e n d o f r e c e n t a r t th a t his w ork b e c a m e an o b ject o f in te n se a tte n tio n a n d was re v e a le d as a n early a n d p a ra d ig m a tic in stan ce o f c o n te m p o ra ry art. M arcel D u c h a m p has b e e n in ­ stinctively re s u rrre c te d as th e p ro to -p o stm o d e rn ist, fo r p o s tm o d e rn is m c o n ­ sists, to q u o te a n insightful o b serv atio n by Slavoj Žižek, “in d isp lay in g th e ob ject directly, allow ing it to m ake visible its ow n in d iffe r e n t a n d a rb itra ry c h a ra c te r. T h e sam e o b ject can fu n c tio n successively as a d isg u stin g re je c t a n d as a sublim e, charism atic a p p a ritio n : th e d iffe re n c e , strictly s tru c tu ra l, does n o t p e rta in to the ‘effective p r o p e rtie s ’ o f th e o b je c t, b u t o n ly to its place in th e symbolic o rd e r.”12 D o e sn ’t this o b serv atio n p erfectly fit th e h is­

tory o f th e early ready-m ades? O f th e “F o u n ta in ,” fo r e x a m p le , w hich tu rn e d , b u t in this in stan ce from a less th a n a m e m o ra b le o b ject, re stric te d m o stly to public toilets, in to o n e o f th e m ost discu ssed w orks o f a r t o f th e s e c o n d h a lf o f th e previous century, with the issue o f h o w m an y h o les th e o rig in a l h a d b e­

c o m in g o n e of th e hig h lig h ts o f th e discussions a n d d isp u te s o f a r t h isto ria n s a n d critics? Isn ’t it also tru e th a t D u c h a m p , since h e was a p re d e c e s s o r o f p o stm o d ern ism a t least in this re sp ect, fitte d o n ly w ith d ifficulty in to th e d e s­

ig n atio n s assigned to h im by tw en tieth c e n tu ry a r t theory?

In a re c e n t article in TheJournal o f Aesthetics a nd A rt Criticism P é te r György a rg u e d th a t “the e n d o f a rt history [w hich György po sits a r o u n d 1984] also signified th e logical collapse o f th e b o r d e r b e tw e e n h ig h a r t a n d n o t-h ig h a rt, a n d is a c c o m p a n ie d by th e re n d e rin g senseless o f th e d is ta n c in g o f a r t fro m n o t a r t.” F u rth e rm o re , “In a sm u c h as th e re ality o f essen tialism a n d in s titu ­ tionalism ca n b e o rd e re d in to p e rio d s, we ca n state th a t th e d o m in a n c e o f essentialism an d fu n ctio n alism was a p p r o p ria te fo r th e h isto ry o f a rt, fo r th e c e n tu rie s o f the g re a t narrative. T h a t e r a lasted fro m V asari to G o m b ric h , o r D anto, we m ig h t say from th e R enaissan ce to a b stra c t ex p ressio n ism . W h a t h a p p e n e d afterw ards a n d w hat is h a p p e n in g now is n o n e o th e r th a n th e p re p a ­ ra tio n fo r th e d e th ro n e m e n t o f h ig h c u ltu re .”13

12 Slavoj Žižek, Looking Awry. A n Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture (C am bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991), p. 143.

I!1 P éte r György, “Between an d After Essentialism a n d In stitu tio n alism ,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57, no. 4 (Fall 1999), p. 431.

D o e sn ’t this p e rio d iz a tio n co in cid e with th e passage fro m m o d ern ism in to p o s tm o d e rn is m , nam ely, w ith th e ad v e n t o f th e visible dem ise o f m o d ­ ern ism , a n d o f th e o rie s o f L yotard, Z ygm unt B au m an ’s analysis o f th e c h an g ed ro les o f leg islato rs a n d in te rp re te rs , as well as J a m e s o n ’s sem inal essay from 1984 — im plicitly s u p p o rte d also by theses by L yotard a n d B au d rillard - o n p o s tm o d e rn is m as th e c u ltu ra l logic o f late capitalism ? It is u n n ecessary to m e n tio n a series o f p u b lic a tio n s diag n o sin g th e visual tu rn in c u ltu re p u b ­ lish e d sin ce th e late eig h ties, a n d it is this sam e visual c u ltu re , o r ra th e r th e g e n e ra l a n d all-p e rv ad in g o c u la rc e n trism , th a t exem plifies m u ch , if n o t all, o f c o n te m p o ra ry c u ltu re , o r is, a t least, its d o m in a n t fe a tu re . W h a t we are p re d o m in a n tly e x p e rie n c in g th e n are basically two re la te d b u t relatively dis­

tin c t fo rm s o f c o n te m p o ra ry art: th e first is the c o n c e p tu a l o n e, th e parad ig ­ m atic case o f w h ich is D u c h a m p , a n d th e sec o n d consists o f the visual arts w ith th e ir c o n tin u a tio n in a p re d o m in a n tly visual cu ltu re.

It was, I th in k , a t this p o in t th a t th e issue o f c u ltu re a n d h e n c e o f the p h ilo so p h y o f c u ltu re h a d , a fte r th re e decad es, re e n te re d c o n te m p o ra ry dis­

cussions a b o u t art. F o r a lo n g tim e - certainly because o f th e c u ltu ra l shock e x p e rie n c e d , a n d so persuasively a n d in fluentially ex pressed by som e o f the a u th o rs o f th e F ra n k fu rt S ch o o l, b e it a t th e tim e w h en th ey w ere still in G er­

m an y (a n d e x p e rie n c e d A m eric an cu ltu re , w h e th e r jazz o r H ollyw ood) o r la te r, d u r in g th e stay o f so m e o f th e m in th e US (w hich obviously only co n ­ firm e d th e ir prev io u s d e n ig ra tin g views), th e p ro fo u n d critiq u e o f mass an d c o n s u m e r c u ltu re severely b lo c k e d - u n til th e p ro life ra tio n o f th e so-called p o s tm o d e rn th e o rie s - any totalizing p h ilo so p h ical attem p ts at its analysis fro m a positive v an tag e p o in t. W h e n these cridcal ideas w ere tran sp o sed back in to E u ro p e in th e sixties a n d seventies they h e lp e d cause c u ltu re to b eco m e an o b je c t o f socio lo gical re se a rc h , b u t only occasionally o f p h ilo so p h ical in­

v estig atio n , e x c e p t in th e ir m o re ideological an d political form s, w h ere cul­

tu re was tre a te d (a n d o fte n still is) as a set o f ideological e m an a tio n s o f vari­

ous class, g e n d e r o r racial issues a n d conflicts. At th e sam e tim e, i.e. in m o d ­ e rn ism a n d h ig h m o d e rn ism , c u ltu re also signified a social realm devoid o f n o rm a tiv e d esig n a tio n s so f r e q u e n t in re la tio n to art, w h e re in m u ch o f the in stitu tio n a liz a tio n o f a r t to o k place via the inclusion o f n o n -a rt in to th e realm o f art, very m u c h in a c c o rd a n c e w ith Mukarovsky’s n o tio n o f th e artistic n orm .

It was th u s th e visual tu r n o f th e eighties, th e rise o f p o stm o d e rn cu ltu re a n d its g lo b alizatio n as d e p ic te d a n d analyzed by n u m e ro u s au th o rs in the eig h tie s a n d , e a rlie r, in th e seventies, also b y je a n B au d rillard in his analyses o f th e sign a n d its ec o n o m y , th a t o ffered first a critical a n d th e n a resig n ed analysis a n d asse ssm e n t o f p o s tm o d e rn cu ltu re , o n th e o n e h a n d , a n d a

1 3

Al e š Er ja v e c

e u p h o ric a l o n e o n th e o th e r, w ith c u ltu re as su ch now b e in g a p p r o a c h e d in an increasingly n e u tra l m a n n e r .14

In his b o o k o n A d o rn o , M artin Jay w rites: “T o sp e a k o f c u ltu re m ean s im m ediately to be c o n fro n te d by th e basic te n sio n b e tw e e n its a n th ro p o lo g i­

cal a n d elitist m eanings. F or th e fo rm e r, w h ich in G e rm a n y ca n b e tra c e d back a t least to H e rd e r, c u ltu re signifies a w h o le way o f life: p ra ctices, ritu als, in stitu tio n s a n d m aterial artifacts, as well as texts, id eas a n d im ages. F o r th e latter, w hich d ev eloped in G erm an y as a n a d ju n c t o f a p e rs o n a l in w ard n ess co n tra ste d with th e superficiality o f co u rtly m a n n e rs , c u ltu re is id e n tifie d w ith art, p hilosophy , lite ra tu re , sch o larsh ip , th e a tre , etc., th e alleg ed ly ‘h u m a n iz ­ in g p u rsu its’ o f th e ‘cu ltiv ated ’ m an. As a s u rro g a te fo r re lig io n , w h ose im p o r­

tance was steadily ero d in g , it e m e rg e d in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry as a re p o si­

tory o f m a n ’s m ost n o b le a c c o m p lish m en ts a n d h ig h e s t values, o fte n in te n ­ sion w ith e ith e r ‘p o p u la r’ o r ‘fo lk ’ c u ltu re , as well as w ith th e m o re m a te ria l ach iev em en ts o f ‘civilization’. B ecause o f its u n d e n ia b ly h ie ra rc h ic a l a n d elit­

ist co n n o ta tio n s, c u ltu re in this m o re re stric te d sen se has o fte n a ro u s e d h o s­

tility fro m p o p u list o r radical critics, w ho alleg e its n a tu ra l co m p licity w ith social stratifica tio n .”l!i

In m ost o th e r E u ro p e an c o u n tries (o n e w ould w an t h e r e to say “c u ltu re s ”) c u ltu re carries a sim ilar m ean in g , w ith a m o re d is ta n t o n e b e in g th e F re n c h , w h e rein th e n o tio n is p robably less fre q u e n tly u s e d th a n elsew h ere. H e n c e , a c c o rd in g to Larousse, th e term “c u ltu re ” re la tes to (1) th e a c tio n o f cultivat­

ing: “th e c u ltu re o f flow ers,” fo r e x a m p le ; (2) th e u n ity o r th e w h o le “o f ac­

q u ire d kn ow ledge;” (3) the u n ity o r th e w hole social, relig io u s a n d o th e r stru ctu re s ch a rac te rizin g a ce rtain society; (4) “m ass c u ltu re ;” (5) “physical c u ltu re ;” a n d (6) a c u ltu re in a b io lo g ic al sense, su ch as th a t o f m icro b e s.

A n o th e r usage, sim ilarly d istan t fro m th e u su al sen se o f c u ltu re , b u t w ith a d iffe ren c e arising from an even m o re d iffe re n t h isto ric a l b a c k g ro u n d , is a Russian in te rp re ta tio n o f cu ltu re , w h e re in c u ltu re is, as th e R ussian p h ilo so ­ p h e r M ikhail E pstein stated som e years ago, d e s ig n e d “to lib e ra te a p e rs o n from th e very society in w hich h e is d o o m e d to live. C u ltu re is n o t a p ro d u c t o f society, b u t a ch a lle n g e a n d a ltern ativ e to society.”11’ C u ltu re is a p a ra lle l w orld, in w hich a rt is “m o re tru e ,” in th e w ords o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry R ussian

14 An outstanding exam ple o f symbolic com m odification carried o u t by postm o d ern ism is first th e w ork and then th e views o f J e a n B audrillard, w hich sta rte d as an all-pervading critique o f p o stm o d ern culture an d in a single d ec ad e e n d e d by b ein g o n e o f its m ain theoretical supports with him becom ing o n e o f its p ro p o n e n ts.

15 M artin Jay, Adorno (London: F ontana, 1984), p. 112.

111 Mikhail Epstein, After the Future (Am herst: U niversity o f Mass. Press, 1995), p. 6.

p a in te r E rik B ulatov, th a n re al life. C u ltu re thus offers a sp iritu al sh elter from th e m in d le ss p u rsu its o f everyday life a n d its chaos.

T h e se d iffe re n t m e a n in g s o f th e term c u ltu re offer various in ro ad s in to th e issue o f a p o ssible p h ilo so p h y o f cu ltu re . It is m ostly th e trad itio n o f th e F ra n k fu rt S ch o o l, c o m b in e d w ith c o n te m p o ra ry discussions o f new te c h n o lo ­ gies, a lte rn a tiv e c u ltu re , p o stm o d e rn ism , p o stm o d ern ity a n d , especially, co n ­ te m p o ra ry visual c u ltu re , w hich a re am o n g th e secon d g ro u p o f reasons for p r e s e n t a tte m p ts to b rin g to g e th e r p h ilo so p h ical aesthetics a n d th e n o tio n o f c u ltu re . T h e r e is a c e rta in a n tin o m y in such an attem p t, fo r c u ltu re was in th e p a s t e ith e r a n o rm ativ ely n e u tra l term or, in th e trad itio n o f th e F ra n k fu rt S c h o o l, o fte n a n eg a tiv e o n e , fo r it was co n ceiv ed as a n o p p o site to th e u n c o m m o d ifie d av an t-g ard e art. T h e views an d theo ries o f W alter B enjam in w ere in this re g a rd ex c e p tio n s w hich g ain ed a u th o rity only w hen th e ten ets o f A d o rn o o r M arcu se b e c a m e increasingly o bsolete in re la tio n to th e re c e n t d e v e lo p m e n ts in a r t a n d cu ltu re . T h e n o tio n o f c u ltu re ap p e a rs to re sp o n d well to its re c e n t n e u tra l o r a t le a st no n -n o rm ativ e n o tio n , to “th e d e th ro n e ­ m e n t o f h ig h c u ltu re ,” to use P é te r György’s p h ra sin g , a n d to th e im p le m e n ­ ta tio n o f th e in stitu tio n a l o r, to use S te p h en Davies’s term in o lo g y ,17 th e “p ro ­ c e d u ra l” d e fin itio n a n d th e o ry o f a rt as theoretically an d practically th e ru l­

in g d e fin itio n , o ffe rin g a p h ilo so p h ic a l fram ew ork in ae sth e tic d iscourse o n art. N o n e th e le ss, it w ould b e w ro n g to assum e th a t n o o th e r defin itio n s an d u n d e rs ta n d in g s , fo r e x a m p le , follow ing Davies again, th e “fu n c tio n a l d efin i­

tions o f a r t,” ex ist any lo n g e r. T h e difficulty with th e in stitu tio n al o r p ro c e ­ d u ra l d e fin itio n s (a n d in te rp re ta tio n s ) o f a rt today is th a t they d isreg ard th e h isto ric a l ch a n g es th a t have o c c u rre d with th e passage from m o d ern ism in to p o s tm o d e rn is m a n d tr e a t a r t as if it was still fu n c tio n in g as it h a d in th e tim e w h e n m o d e rn is m was v ib ra n t a n d exclusive while, in fact, th ey m ostly use as th e ir e x a m p le s c o n c e p tu a l a r t w hich o ften fu n ctio n s as W ittg e n ste in ’s lan ­ g u ag e gam es. If, o n th e o th e r h a n d , th e social a n d existential fu n c tio n s o f a rt have a p p a re n tly su b stan tially d im in ish e d d u e to a series o f reasons (these b e in g analyzed in th e last few d ec ad es by H e n ri Lefebvre, Lyotard, Jam eso n , A n d re a s H u yssen, D avid H arvey, Z ygm unt B aum an, a n d G ian n i V attim o, a m o n g o th e rs ), th e n we m ay possess a g o o d re aso n to ask w h e th e r in th e p re s e n t tim e th e very o b je c t o f su ch theories a n d o f the e n s u in g d efinitio ns is n o t flaw ed a t its very o u ts e t a n d do es n o t - a n d c a n n o t - au th en tica lly re p re ­ s e n t th e ir p e r tin e n t re fe re n c e p o in t a n d th e subject o f its d efin itio n . M ore­

over, even if su c h a tte m p ts re m a in legitim ate, m e a n in g th a t a r t still basically fu n c tio n s as it d id in th e p a st (a lth o u g h p e rh a p s n o t to th e sam e ex ten t, o r

17 Cf. S tep h e n Davies, Definitions of Art (Ithaca: C ornell University Press, 1991).

15

Al e š Er ja v e c

with th e sam e intensity, o r equally fre q u e n tly ) th e p ro b le m still re m a in s h o w to establish the re la tio n o f such a r t to c u ltu re in th e sen se o f m ass a n d c o n ­ su m er c u ltu re - w hich today applies p re d o m in a n tly to th e visual c u ltu re a n d its h y b r i d fo r m s , th e s e r a n g i n g f r o m d r e s s c o d e s , d e s i g n , a n d t h e aesth eticizatio n o f everyday life to th e e n su in g a n a e sth e tic iz a tio n a n d its re t­

roactive co n seq u en ces. C o n te m p o ra ry a r t in m o st cases obviously n o lo n g e r strives to b e partisan, subversive a n d radical. E ven if a u th o rs su c h as T e rry E agleton (in his Ideology o f the Aesthetic, 1990) claim th a t p o s tm o d e rn a r t is b o th ra d ic al an d conservative, m o st fre q u e n tly its ra d ic a l fe a tu re s a re im m e ­ diately co m m o d ified o r carry an d , especially, re ta in little w e ig h t if m e a s u re d by th e ir social conseq u en ces. C o m m o d ifica tio n is o n e o f th e esse n tia l c o m ­ m o n fe atu res o f c o n te m p o ra ry a n d p a st c u ltu re a n d o f c o n te m p o ra ry a r t a n d is the th ird cause fo r th e q u estio n o f how to re la te th e p h ilo so p h y o f a r t to a p h ilo so p h y of c u ltu re so as to avoid s e p a ra tin g th ese two re alm s o f in q u iry w hose subjects increasingly a p p e a r to b e m e rg in g o r a re re v ealin g n u m e ro u s sim ilarities - for h a s n ’t art, by losing o r d im in is h in g its tru th -d isc lo sin g fu n c ­ tion, la n d e d in the b ro a d a n d norm ativ ely n e u tra l re a lm o f c u ltu re ?

M o d e rn ist a rt te n d e d to d istan ce itself fro m c u ltu re : c u ltu re was e th n ic , local, tra d itio n a l o r m ass a n d c o n s u m e r c u ltu re , w hile a r t was p re d o m in a n tly elitist (a n d a p a rt o f “h ig h ” c u ltu re ), b e it in th e tra d itio n a l m o d e rn is t sen se o r th e avant-garde o n e. O n e o f its d istin g u ish in g ch a ra c te ristic s was its su b ­ versive n a tu re , b e it in re la tio n to prev io u s a r t o r to society, as well as its tru th - d isc lo sin g ro le , d e f e n d e d by p h ilo s o p h e r s fr o m H e g e l, N ie tz s c h e , a n d H e id e g g e r to A d o rn o , M erleau-P onty a n d A lthu sser. I t f u r th e rm o re re q u ir e d an effo rt o n the p a r t o f th e a u d ie n c e to achieve a e sth e tic a n d artistic a p p r e ­ ciation. Such m o d e rn ist a rt is today o fte n assim ilated a n d in te g ra te d in to th e rep o sito ry o f c u ltu ra l h erita g e a n d is m o d e rn in th e L y o tard sen se (as is th e th eo ry w hich s u p p o rte d it). O n e o f th e fe a tu re s o f p o s tm o d e rn a r t a n d cu l­

tu re, re la te d o f course to th e ir co m m o d ified n a tu re , is th e ir accessibility, th e ir

“user-friendly” n a tu re w hich, o n th e o n e h a n d , allows b o th to b e g lo b al a n d , o n th e o th e r, to raise th e q u estio n w h e th e r this is still a r t a n d n o t sim ply c u ltu re in its tra d itio n a l c o m m o d ified form . S u ch w orks a re h e n c e o fte n hy­

brids betw een m o d e rn is t a rt (fro m w hich th ey re ta in th e n o tio n o f a rt) a n d c u ltu re u n d e r m o d ern ism (from w hich th ey h ave g a in e d th e ir accessibility an d , th e re fo re , w h at was th e n p erceiv ed as its c o m m o d ifie d fe a tu r e s ) . A p a r a ­ m o u n t ex am p le o f su ch a rt o r c u ltu re is c o n te m p o ra ry a r c h ite c tu re , w h ich is sim ultaneously artistic, aestheticized , m a rk e t-o rie n te d a n d re p re s e n ts a p u b ­ lic space. It is th e re fo re n o t su rp risin g th a t th e issue o f p o s tm o d e rn is m was first raised in a rc h ite c tu re , in w hich th e d e m a rc a tio n lin e b e tw e e n a r t a n d

c u ltu re is o fte n e x tre m e ly d ifficu lt to draw. In m o d e rn e x h ib itio n spaces th e a rc h ite c tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t o fte n carries e q u a l o r sim ilar im p o rta n c e to th e w orks e x h ib ite d in it.

T h e re a so n why an a tte m p t to d esig n ate aesthetics as p hilo so p h y o f cul­

tu re seem s a t first sig h t d o o m e d to failure is th a t aesthetics, n o t only in its fu n c tio n a lis t fo rm , b u t also in its p ro c e d u ra list o r in stitu tio n alist variants, in sp ite o f in n u m e ra b le a tte m p ts to d isru p t th e in stitu tio n o r th e realm o f art, n o n e th e le s s c o n ta in s a n in trin sic n o rm ativ e fe atu re. W hile c o n te m p o ra ry a rt m ay b e lo sin g its re al o r im a g in e d existential o r tru th disclosing fu n c tio n a n d value w hich it p re su m a b ly possessed u n d e r m o d ern ism , th e d esig n atio n o f

“a r t” n o n e th e le s s a t least p o te n tia lly re ta in s artifacts an d o th e r p h e n o m e n a e x istin g u n d e r su ch a d e sig n a tio n w ithin th e unavoidably, i.e. by d efin itio n , n o rm a tiv e re a lm o f “a r t.” T o b e a n artist today o ften desig n ates prim arily o n e ’s self-d esig n atio n a n d only secondly th a t o f th e au d ien c e. I may b e an a rtis t in m y ow n eyes a n d fo r this I d o n ’t re q u ire co n firm a tio n from o th e rs - a fe a tu re w h ich radically d istin g u ish es a co n te m p o ra ry a rtist fro m a m o d e rn ­ ist o n e , w ho re q u ir e d a t least th e a p p re c ia tio n o f a n arro w circle o f sim ilarly in c lin e d ind iv idu als. B ut, o n th e o th e r h a n d , such a d esig n atio n d oes n o t e lim in a te , n e g a te o r re p la c e its n o rm ativ e im plications.

So, how w ould ae sth e tic s, in spite o f th e a fo re m e n tio n e d possible re se r­

v atio n , b e po ssib le as a p h ilo so p h y o f cultu re? I shall c o n c lu d e my p a p e r by d iscu ssin g two su ch a ttem p ts.

T h e first is th a t o f H e in z P aetzo ld w ho has dev elo p ed his views in a series o f artic le s a n d b o o k s p u b lish e d since 1990. (I am th in k in g p articu larly o f his Ästhetik der neueren Moderne fro m 1990 an d his m o re re c e n t b o o k The Symbolic Language o f Culture, Fine Arts and Architecture from 1997.) T h e essential a rg u ­ m e n ts fro m th ese two boo k s have b e e n p re s e n te d an d u p d a te d in a re c e n t artic le e n title d “A esthetics A n d /A s P h ilosophy o f C u ltu re ” a n d p u b lish ed in th e 1999 v o lu m e o f th e IA A Yearbook. I shall th u s lim it m y discussion o f P a e tz o ld ’s views to this essay.

P a e tz o ld ’s in te n tio n is to d ev elo p a critical p hilo so p h y o f cu ltu re. In his w ords, “T h is u n d e r ta k in g finds a histo rical b ack in g in th e stan ce o f th e e a r­

lie r critical th eo ry , o n th e o n e h a n d , a n d in th e p ro jec t o f th e philo so p h y o f sym bolic fo rm s, o n th e o th e r. I am arg u in g - co n tin u es P aetzo ld - in favor o f a synthesis b e tw e e n th ese two stra n d s w hich m oved historically alo n g sep a­

ra te ro u te s .”18 W h a t m akes P a e tz o ld ’s p ro jec t o f a philoso ph y o f cu ltu re inter- 18 H ein z Paetzold, “A esthetics A n d /A s Philosophy o f C ulture,” The IAA Yearbook, vol. 3 (1999); <h ttp ://d a v in c i.n tu .a c .u k /ia a /ia a 3 /a e s th e tic s a n d .h tm >, p. 1.

17

Al e š Er ja v e c

estin g is th e re q u ire m e n t fo r such a p h ilo so p h y to b e critical, fo r w ith o u t this critical e le m e n t it is difficult if n o t o u trig h t im p o ssib le to p ro p o s e a p e rs u a ­ sive p h ilo so p h ic al project. W h a t P aetzo ld th e n a p p ro p ria te s fro m C assirer is his u n d e rs ta n d in g o f c u ltu re as a “pro cess o f m a n ’s p ro gressiv e self-libera­

tio n .” But, for this to b e possible, in c u ltu re two sides h ave to b e re c o g n iz e d :

“All this leads m e to th e c o n c lu sio n ,” states P aetzo ld , “th a t p h ilo s o p h y o f h u ­ m an c u ltu re becom es a critical e n d e a v o r only to th a t e x te n t th a t we g ra sp c u ltu re ’s two sides: Its h o p e giving p ro m ises a n d its th o ro u g h fa ilu re s .”ly S ec­

ondly, argues P aetzold, “th e p h ilo so p h y o f h u m a n c u ltu re h as to d e a l w ith th e p lu rality o f sym bolic form s in a n o n h ie ra rc h ic a l, p lu ra listic way. ... D e­

th ro n in g scientific a n d tech n o lo g ical ra tio n a lity fro m b e in g th e fo u n d a tio n a l p arad ig m o f cu ltu re does n o t m e a n to e n th r o n e th e arts a n d p o e try in p lace o f science as rom an ticism w anted to d o .”2H T h irdly, th e p h ilo so p h y o f h u m a n cu ltu re co n tain s an answ er to th e q u e stio n o f w h a t m akes a c u ltu re d su b jec­

tivity. T his includes bodily a n d som atic c o m p o n e n ts w h ich c a n n o t b e s u b la te d in to p u re rationality.21

A m o n g the early p h ilo so p h e rs o f c u ltu re P aetzo ld fin d s n o t o n ly H e r d e r a n d G eo rg Sim m el, b u t also Vico, R o usseau, C ro c e a n d C o llin g w o o d , a n d places aesthetics w ithin a critical p h ilo so p h y o f c u ltu re as a c o m p o n e n t o f it,22 w h e rein works o f a rt exist as “sym bolically sig n ific a n t ex p ressio n s o f cu l­

tu re .”23 H e ends his essay by explicitly e m b ra c in g a fu n c tio n a l u n d e r s ta n d in g o f sym bolic form s, a rt in clu d ed .

W hile P a e tz o ld ’s p ro je c t o f a critical p h ilo so p h y o f c u ltu re , a s e g m e n t o f w hich is also aesthetics as a p h ilo so p h y o f art, a p p e a rs very p ro m isin g , it lacks, fo r th e tim e b ein g a t least, an analysis o f th e n eg a tiv e sid e, i.e. c u ltu r e ’s fail­

ures. W ith o u t ex p la in in g this side, his p ro je c t seem s to fall u n d e r a sim ilar category as the n eo p rag m atist th eo ries o f S h u ste rm a n a n d R orty th a t P aetzo ld criticizes fo r h ig h lig h tin g only th e a e sth e tic d im e n sio n o f c o n te m p o ra ry cu l­

tu re, i.e. only o n e o f its sides. H e n c e th e p ro je c t o f a critica l p h ilo s o p h y o f c u ltu re rem ain s fo r th e tim e b e in g in c o m p le te .

A n o th e r, m u c h b e tte r know n re c e n t p ro je c t o f a p h ilo so p h y o f c u ltu re , is th a t o f F r e d r ic J a m e s o n , m a n y o f w h o s e w ritin g s a f t e r t h e essa y o n p o stm o d ern ism p u b lish e d in th e New Left Review in 1984 w ere d e v o te d to vari­

ous aspects o f n o t only p o stm o d e rn ism as th e c u ltu ra l d o m in a n t o f th e c u r­

re n t late capitalism , i.e. its m u ltin a tio n a l fo rm , b u t also to b r o a d e r c u ltu ra l Ibid., p. 2.

20 Ibid., p. 3.

21 Cf. ibid., pp. 3-4.

22 Cf. ibid., p. 8.

23 Ibid., p. 9.

issues, th e se b e in g d e v o te d to a n d s u p p o rte d by a variety o f works ra n g in g fro m film s by D avid L ynch, c o n te m p o ra ry p o etry a n d p o stm o d e rn a rch itec­

tu re , to p a in tin g s by A ndy W a rh o l a n d H e d e ig g e r’s analysis o f a p a in tin g by van G o g h . In c e rta in re sp ects J a m e s o n ’s analysis a n d critiq u e o f c o n te m p o ­ rary c u ltu re is sim ilar to th a t discussed in P a e tz o ld ’s p roject, a lth o u g h it rests n o t only u p o n th e tra d itio n o f th e F ra n k fu rt School b u t especially th a t o f G eorg L ukâcs a n d partly o n L yotard an d B audrillard. In fact, m ost o fja m e s o n ’s th e o ry is su rp risin g ly tra d itio n a list, finding, w ith its totalizing ten d en c ies, its p r o p e r h isto ric a l p lace p e rh a p s m o re in th e first h a lf o r th e m id d le o f th e prev io u s c e n tu ry th a n a t th e o u ts e t o f p o stm o d ern ism . By statin g this I in n o way wish to d im in ish its im p o rta n c e a n d in flu en c e o r insightfulness. O n th e co n tra ry , I in ste a d w a n t to p o in t o u t th a t such a totalizing stan ce obviously reveals, firstly, th e c o n te m p o ra ry n e e d fo r such a view point a n d th e privileges it offers a n d , secondly, it avoids th e shortcom ings o f re g ard in g p o stm o d ern ism as a c o m p le te b re a k w ith th e p ast w hich th e n prevents a serio us histo rical co m p a ra tiv e analysis. O n th e o th e r h a n d , J a m e s o n ’s fre q u e n t alm ost in te r­

c h a n g e a b le use o f th e term s a rt a n d c u ltu re an d his tre a tm e n t o f th e fo rm e r as a n im p lic it e x te n sio n a n d p e rh a p s a relatively special case o f th e latter, avoids so m e o f th e pitfalls o f th e desire to establish a clear division betw een th e two, im p ly in g a d e sire to collapse th em in to a single entity. T h e reaso n th a t J a m e s o n ’s a p p r o a c h a p p e a rs successful, be it in re la tio n to realist, m o d ­ e rn is t o r p o s tm o d e rn is t a r t a n d c u ltu re , is in his im plicit in te rp re ta tio n o f a rt a n d c u ltu re as a v ehicle fo r c re a tin g m ean in g , fo r c re a tin g a re p re se n ta tio n a n d s e lf-re p re se n ta tio n o f ourselves as social beings. H e n ce his re q u ests ad ­ d re sse d to a u th e n tic a r t a n d c u ltu re are requests fo r p o litical a n d p artisan views a n d a rtic u la tio n s, fo r su bversio n o f established n o rm s a n d views - an in te rp re ta tio n th a t is h ighly successful w hen aim ed at politically o rie n te d works o r an A d o rn o -ty p e in te rp re ta tio n o f a rt a n d its place in society, b u t w hich falls s h o r t w h e n a p p lie d to ac c la im e d works o f a r t w hich n o n e th e le ss show no c o v e rt o r o v e rt p o litic a l in te n tio n s . T his q u e stio n is fre q u e n tly raised by J a m e s o n him self, as in th e case o f W a rh o l’s works: “T h e q u estio n [is] why A ndy W a rh o l’s C oca-C ola b o ttle s a n d C am p b ell’s soup cans - so obviously re p re s e n ta tio n s o f co m m o d ity o r c o n su m e r fetishism - d o n o t seem to fu n c­

tio n as critical o r p o litica l sta te m e n ts? ”24 It is exactly this q u estio n th a t sets th e lim its to J a m e s o n ’s e n d e a v o r to d e te rm in e th e fu n c tio n o r fu n ctio n s o f a r t in a u n ifo rm way. Yet, a n a p p a r e n t way o u t o f this im passe is o ffered by th e n o tio n o f “co gnitiv e m a p p in g ,” w hich is in fact, as Ja m e so n h im se lf adm its, a

24 F re d ric Ja m e so n , Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (London:

V erso, 1991), p. 158.

19

Al e š Er ja v e c

p a ra p h ra se of L u kacs’s class consciousness. P u t d ifferen tly , th e basic p u rp o s e o r fu n c tio n o f a r t - any a r t o f any e p o c h - is to o ffer a co g n itiv e m a p p in g o f o n e se lf a n d of the society to w hich we b e lo n g , to disclose th e tr u th o f o n e s e lf w ithin o n e ’s place a n d to o ffer c o o rd in a te s w hich h e lp us estab lish o u r h e r e a n d now w ithin a given social, h isto rical a n d m e n ta l sp ace. In 1984 a n d also in 1991 (w hen th e essay was p u b lish e d in a b o o k b e a rin g th e sam e title) h e e x p ressed his view th a t p o stm o d e rn ism h a s n ’t d e v e lo p e d su fficien tly y e t to allow fo r a cognitive m a p p in g w hich w ould b e n o t o nly th e o p p o site o f its e lf - sc h izo p h ren ia, chaos, tem p o ra l d isp la c e m e n t, etc. T o o u r su rp rise th is to p ic is la te r d ro p p e d - so m eth in g th a t m akes us w o n d e r w h e th e r this h a p p e n e d b ec au se it was irre le v an t o r b ecau se in n o in sta n c e an an sw er fo r it h as y et b e e n fo u n d . In o th e r w ords, p o s tm o d e rn is t a r t a n d c u ltu re seem to o ffe r n o clue as how to establish a cognitive m a p p in g sim ilar to th a t o ffe re d in m o d ­ ern ism by m o d e rn ist works as d e s c rib e d a n d e x p la in e d by L ukacs, A d o rn o a n d o th e rs. It thus ap p ears as if Ja m e s o n ac cep ts L y o ta rd ’s views fro m The Postmodern Condition, in the E nglish I n tro d u c tio n to w h ich J a m e s o n o ffers n o way o u t o f w hat, fo r h im , sh o u ld b e a fa ilu re , b u t w h ich is, fo r L y o tard , exactly th e c e n tra l fe atu re o f p o stm o d e rn a rt.25

T h e n o tio n o f cognitive m a p p in g so m ew h a t c o rre s p o n d s to id eas p r o ­ m o te d by H ein z Paetzold, fo r co gnitive m a p p in g d o e s n ’t n ecessarily m e a n only a ra tio n a l en d eav o r, b u t is, j u d g in g also fro m J a m e s o n ’s H e g e lia n b ac k ­ g ro u n d , equally sensuous, re p re s e n tin g in this way a case o f sym bolic form s.

If this is tru e, a lin k b etw een th ese various a tte m p ts to fo rg e a p h ilo s o p h y o f c u ltu re m ay be established, b u t we seem to b e still a lo n g way fro m a relatively co n sisten t a n d theo retically persuasive p h ilo so p h y o f c u ltu re , a lth o u g h so m e ­ th in g o f th e k in d ap p ears, a fte r h a lf a c e n tu ry , to be ag a in a necessity w h ich will h e lp us productively re la te a r t a n d c u ltu re , b u t in a c o n te m p o ra ry h is to ri­

cal setting.

25 Cf. F redricjam eson, “In tro d u c tio n ” inJean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (M anchester: M anchester University Press, 1984), pp. xxiii-xxv.