speach held in University CarlosIII, Madrid, July 4th, 2005
PD Dr.phil.hab. Dipl.-Psych. Eckhard Neumann

contact: osomoumou@hotmail.com

Copyright: Eckhard Neumann

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

The subject of my paper:

Psychodynamic aspects of the image of the artist in industrial societies.
(Functional conditions and functional formations of the arts in western industrial societies from a systemtheoretical point of view.)

(Aspectos psicodinámicos entre la imagen del artista y la sociedad industrial).

Let me first comment on my starting position of this paper. Based on systemtheory and socialpsychology this concept is focusing on the functions of aesthetic productivity in the whole developmental process of society.
This means that art and more general the aesthetic productivity are considered as essential functional parts of the whole cultural system. These are part of a continous process of interaction with the whole system of society and its corresponding historical conditions.

Essential for my own approach is to see the cultural system not only as a reflection of economical processes as it was the case in numerous marxistic concepts. There the economical basis is always primary and the cultural system is only secondary and is passively mirroring the economic conditions. Based on artscientific and anthropological studies my own approach is emphazising on the interaction which also recognizes self-supporting and even autonomous developments of the artistic productivity within the cultural system. This autonomous part of creative processes is influencing the cognitive potential of human beings within their specific historical conditions and and by this it can even affect the basic conditions of society. In the marxistic cultural perspective art was nothing more than the aesthetic superstructure reflecting the basic economic conditions. In in my approach this separation between basis and superstructure is seen as an interaction. Moreover the aesthetic cultural productivity especially in industrial and knowledge societies is viewed on the one side still as a mirroring system but on the other side also as an active steering system which is generating social perspectives, values, and complexity. Therefore the cultural aesthetic productivity including the so called arts, is here regarded as an important basic phenomenon of the whole productivity of society.
Strongly influenced by the media the late industrial societies in transition to knowledge society is generating an abundance of aesthetic productivities. The aesthetics have become a keynotion of modern philosophy because they appear to be an important key for the understanding of our contemporary society

Parting from this perspective the three following functions seem to be of special interest, because they clear up the interactional processes in the whole process of society.

1. The social localisation and intensification of subjectivness through art.
2. The aesthetic productivity as a medium of emotional and sensual experience and cognition.
3. The aesthetic productivity as an essential medium of social complementation and integration.

Let me explain these assumptions with some historical remarks:
Our present culture is still under the impact of the cult of genius and artist which firstly flowered in the Renaissance culminating in the adoration and deification of Michelangelo. In the medieval time the artist and his identity was still part of the tradition of craftsmanship. In the Renaissance the identity of the artist is notably subjectivistic emphazising the uniqueness of the genius. After a long phase of falling into during the time of absolutistic reigns of power the cult of genius suddenly flowers again after the French Revolution, especially in the german "Sturm und Drang"-movemen . On this basis the idea of liberation of the human being as a subject is growing rapidly in the civic society. After the end of the "ancien régime" the so called "free arts" develop a radicale and examplary function as Avantgarde up to our times.

Without the material protection of the traditional employer like aristocracy and clerus an artmarket is developing for the first time. Here the artist can represent his work to the public comparable with a free "entrepreneur" and independent subject. As a result an increasingly marginalized community of artists was developping, the so called "bohème". They despize the burgeois values and way of life stylizing themselves as antagonists. The main idea of a counter-culture, as a subculture of the burgeois world, was not only flowering in the bohemia where the material misery and marginalization were at home. In the philosophy of Nietzsche after the middle of the 19th century up to the tragic novel heroes of Thomas Mann the irreconciliable conflict between artistic and burgeois world is always noticeable. Marginalization, melancholy and the suffering about the world are being understood as the inevitable destiny of the genius-artist - even to the point of mystification of artistic martyrdom and prophetic convictions as common parts of the identity of the artist. Far into the second half of the twentieth century occasionally decendants of this cult of genius can be recognized. But in the middle and the late twentieth century this role of the suffering and tragic heroe more and more changes towards a socially integrated and celebrated person. Creativity, avantgarde and innovation are increasingly recognized as basic values in an open, democratic market-society, and this gives new impulses to the role play between artist and society.

A perverted offspring of the cult of genius is the modern cult of the "star". Artists like Warhol and the celebrated heroes of popmusic are shining in the stardom promoted by the markets of the media-society. Of course the mediastar is not the opponent but a leading image of youth culture, a cleverly staged product of cultural industry, appropriate to the dreames of the public. Here we might raise the question if and how far aspects of stardom have reached already the art business in general. But before we get into such questions we should clear up the functional conditions for such changes in the artworld.

Since the germinating of the civic society after the French Revolution the separation between the "free arts" and the traditionally employer bound arts is sharply developing. The socalled "applied arts" which were once highly appreciated ,as for example the craftsmanship of a ebonyworker or a stuccoartist in the time of Baroque, are now getting more and more depreciated. No longer bound to aristocracy and clerus the "free arts" are celebrating the cult of the artist-genius and the bohème despising craftsmanship which is bound to orders and commissioners. By this concept of the "free arts", untouched by the restraints of mechanized industrial labour, the arts create a unique sphere where human authentic potentials, individuality and the spiritual and sensual developments of life were expected to be preserved.

In this separation from the conditions of the early industrial world the arts were gaining their central meaning as the cultural location of compensation. Consequently they gain an essential meaning as a social medium of supplementation and integration. The early development of the industrial age created ways of production where the human being was only a part of the machine. Human ressources like creativity, subjectcentered relations, personal developments and challenges faded away and were regarded as disturbing. The arts and literature were regarded as preserving this human, subjective, emotional and creative world where the freedom of selfreflection and self-development should be be given . The artist seen as a free subject played on the stage of the free-arts world this unslaved role permitting the flowering of personality, creativity, emotionality and sensuality.

Lets us turn here back to the starting point and that is the perspective of a functional concept of corresponding supplementation of part-systems for the maintenance of the whole system of society.
In this concept the irreconciliable oppositions, the harsh controversial battles between burgeois society and the artistic avantgarde appear as sham-war (Scheinkampf) , as a functional unity and as ideal reciprocal supplements.This antagonism serves at the end to stabilize the system as a whole. The totally different and irreconciliable concepts of values, cognitions, and social behaviour appear as a perfect match according to the model of lock and key where the oppositions join to form a functional whole. In a socialpsychological perspective this oppositional pair is totally depending on each other. The artist takes over the role of the representative of a way of living which is not compatible with the industrial production society. By supplementing itself with an opposing artistic avantgarde and its opposing value concept the industrial society was gaining an internal equilibrium.

After the middle of the twentieth century a change of these traditionally opposing roles can be recognized.
The former opponent gets embraced and is radically utilized by the power of the markets. But this was much more far-reaching than mere coexistence and supplementation. The market promoters in general are working with the tools of innovation pressure, the aesthetic wear and tear of goods, aesthetic renovation, the image of being avantgarde and the radical utilisation and marketing of youth-subcultures. We may ask: what would have become out of the artmarket, the mediamarket, and the fashionbusiness without the permanent innovations of their avantgarde?!

However reminiscents of the old tragical identity of the artist, martyr lamentations, and prophetism are still preserved. An incorporated prophetism up to a clear criticism of society, including the self presentation as a healer of civilasition, can be found even in the action arts, the happenings of the seventies, mainly in the work of Joseph Beuys, Mühl, Nitzsch, Vostell, and many more. From than on the "extending of consciousness" and the therapeutically glorification of "cognition processes" are taking place in the field of the arts, just to mention only two main slogans ot that time. Parallelly the artistic realism becomes a field of criticism on the media- and the consumerism society. About the beginning of the nineties the shift of these remaining critical interests of the avantgarde into the realm of aesthetic philosophy becomes evident. On the one side many artistic messages compare themselves more and more with philosophies and cognition processes. On the other side the philosophy of aesthetic is uprising again and gaining special attention. Artists and philosophers of the avantgarde appear like brothers with the same goal. Both are trying to achieve knowledge about the world and the living conditions of human beings, yet with different means. At our present time there seems to be no philosophy which is not dealing with aesthetics as a basis of societal perception, just to mention Baudrillard, Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault.

As we have mentioned already in the 19th century the artists identity is bound to the theme of un chained subjectivity, individuality, and the border-crossing,, free exploration of new horizons by the means of aesthetics.
In the arthistoric perspective these themes are condensed in two main aesthetic concepts, namely the "Avantgarde" and the "Autonomy of the arts". However this aethetic viewpoint does not contain a social-psychological meaning. It overlooks that the avantgarde always had a double meaning and function. One of course has always been aesthetic but the other one has been a very meaningful and moving power in the development of society. Not only avantgarde aesthetic were later on incorporated into the mainstream of artistic culture but as well their concepts of human life, their warnings and visions, values, and attitudes towards society and culture. The idea of personal freedom, subjectivism and individuality has become a deeprooted basis of all democratic societies - the avantgarde has always been in the long run the enemy of all authoritarian, supppressing, and fascist governments. Let us not forget that after the second World War the free artistic expression, mainly in abstract art, has been for long time a symbol of the freedom of the individual in western society in contrast to communism.

However from the perspective of the aesthetics of the media in our present times some doubts are coming up questioning if the avantgarde with this background of meaning and function still exists. Where and to which extent can a change of function be seen ? Do the notions of "autonomy" and "avantgarde" still contain the traditional meanings ? Do the original concepts of the "Avantgarde" and "Autonomy" still exist or do we have to dismiss the original meanings like myths from ancient times ?

The following analysis of the changes of the concept of the avantgarde is concentrating on the notion of "Assimilation". This notion describes a process of the cultural integration of the avantgarde detaching the original antagonistic concept. In this context we shall have a closer look on the following interwoven aspects.

1. the assimilation of the new and the shock
2. the assimilation of marginality and protest as fashion and a factor of economic innovation.
3.the assimilation of the revolutionary by means of superficialisation as a mere aesthetic phenomenon.
4. the assimilisation of the critical potential by trivialisation as a trend.
5. the assimilation of the imago of the artist.
6. the assimilation of the potential of subjectiveness of human beings by the means of "simulation" and the "selling of aesthetically stylized roles".

With the beginning of the second half of the 20th century eyecatching changes in the roleplay between artist and burgeois can be recognized. A new relationship between avantgarde and society is developping. Its main characteristics are the efforts of integration and utilisation. The strategy consists mainly in the seizing and marketing of the avantgarde and subcultural aesthetics, symbols and values up to the simulation of roles of identity. Subjectivity, Individuality and the protest against masscultural mainstream, which were once the essential parts of the artists imago, were now discovered as compensatory models with attractive potentials of identification. They rendered the possibility of the projection of needs and desires which could not be lived in a widely organized and mechanized professional and everyday reality. These identification processes of the mass public were often attained by one simple formula: splitting the content from the aesthetic appearance. Thus the aesthetic surface became utilizable as a mere style innovation used for popularizing and marketing of new products.

As it can best be seen in the imitation of the fashion codes and acessoires of the popular music stars the marketing of the aesthetic of a new style functions like a kind of mask by which the image of the idol can be simulated. With the propriate outfit one can nowadays easily change the role. In postmodern times there exist a lot of marketed identity-offers in the sense of personality simulation - achievable by the purchase of a corresponding aesthetic product. Thanks to Nike, Puma and Adidas everybody can become an instant sportsman. With a hipp-hopp outfit and graffitti signs every high-school student can become an instant-ghetto-kid, with a Harley Davidson and a leather outfit, every normal citizen can change to the role of a bad boy with the personality of a rock'n roller or an Easy Rider just to give some few examples. The common principle behind is the purchase of an aesthetic appearance, that promises a kind of new Pseudo-Identity by means of a masquerade. The authentic self, the core of true subjectiveness of the person is disguised by the image of a group role. The splitting of the original content from the aesthetic surface and its popularisation as fashion is so farreaching that the pigtail of Karl Lagerfeld can even be found in a football stadium. And the bald head of former mediastars like Yul Brynner, Teddy Savalas and even the star philosopher Foucault has become a part of a braod and progressive youthmovement but also a fashion the rightwing radical political scene flirting with Nazi ideologies. Often content and form are son radically splitt off from each other that by means of the mass distribution of such aesthetic products even protest movements are banalized. When the hippie- and flowerpower-look were sold as mass products in the department stores it was evident that the protest has lost ist power and was led into the absurd. How can protest function as protest when the markets are impatiently waiting for it because a new tendency, a new style in youth culture is going to move gigantic market and promises new economic growth.

The history of the graffitti is a good example. From an authentic life- and action-form of New York street gangs it came into galleries and museums. About 60 New York galleries lived quite well for roundabout two years from graffitti art. Afterwards the phenomenon was weared out and exhausted. All graffitti galleries dissappeared and only the followers of Keith Harings Pop Shop reminded by some t-shirt prints and posters of the late glory of an art wave that vanished as quickly as it was praised by the media. What remained is the concept of radically marketing and selling a subculture, which is always promising to give new and attractive impulses for a mass product, may it be the fashion of Hipp-Hopp, Rap-music, the basketball- and gym-shoe cult. A big part of fashion industry is living today by finding new trends , ideas, behaviours, preferences, values, ways of living in subcultures transforming them afterwards into new products. The protest, the content, and the originality of the original subculture are being perishing. Yet we could ask ourselves if in our times a protest movement is conceivable without the immediately marketing of its forms of appearance thus banalizing its contents.

Throughout the second half of the 19th century up to the 70ies of the 20th century the artist and literate was a serious opponent who was attacked and despized. The paintings of the early Impressionists were spitted at the vernissages and the first Dada exponats were assaulted and had to be replaced sometimes. Soon after the middle of the 20th century this polarisation is changing. Some processes of idealization and imitation of the image of the avantgarde can be recognized giving notice of a change in function. The former opponent is from now on getting more and more assimilated. Nowadays the integration of the avantgarde into society has so widely progressed that the notion avantgarde in the original oppositional meaning does not make sense any. It should be dropped or defined in a new way.
The so called avantgarde has become today an important part of the cutural "spectaculum". It is courted, celebrated, fundedand medialized. It is impatiently awaited for confronting us with some sort of innovation and aesthetic shock. But the shock of ancient times, as for example when Yves Klein was burning canvases, does not seem to succeed any more. The public has been used to artistiv shocks long enough. And finally shocks are much easier to achieve by movies. The shocking through the arts in comparison to the possibilities of filmmaking appears like confronting Micky Mouse with an Alien or Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former opponent has been hugged by suciety since long time ago and this is much more than mere coexistence.

Economically viewed the celebration of the so called avantgarde is not taking place any more in some marginal cultural niches of society but it is staged in front of the broad public with all means of media. A worldwide mediashow of the avantgarde like the "Documenta" in Kassel, has become long ago to a substantial economic factor for the town and the region. Even smaller though special exhibitions, as for example the cycle of the arts in the 19th century, organized by the Hamburger Kunsthalle, attracted averagely 200 000 visitors. In February this year the City of New York approved the Central Park project of Christo and Jeanne Claude argumenting that this cultural high light would attract half a million visitors more to the city. Likewise it was reasoned that such an event could bring back optimism to the city and serve as a symbol of the liveliness and openmindedness of New York thus refering to the image of the city before September 11. Obviously the once marginalized avantgarde has not only found a mass public but it has become an economic and an image factor of the modern metropolis. In order to increase the attractivity of town and region and thus alluring investments and highly qualified jobs the city of Frankfurt created not only a significant international art faire in competition with Cologne but also some admirable new museums just mentioning the museum of architecture. In the postmodern service- and knowledge society cities and regions are competing with life quality, culture and the arts as parts of modern life quality, and apparently also with the image of modernity attached to the image of ancient and present avantgards.

Evidently the avantgarde has become involved into the strategies of the markets. As an example among many others we shall only mention the marketing of the shock and of protest. Since the time of Yve Kleins publicly burning of canvases prints of painted female bodies on canvases in front of a sensation seeking public, a process becomes apparent where the staging and utilizing of the shock of the new has become a conscious strategy of attracting public attention. The action arts of the seventies, like the happenings, can be understood not only as restaged Dada art forms but in addition also as clever media of self-staging, promotion and marketing.
Would Joseph Beuys and Wolf Vostell have ever become so popular without this sort of Media ? Would Christo have become so famous if he had concentrated on minor object as Meret Oppenheim did for instance with her famous fur-cup ? Just the pßublic controversy the pro and contra in the media and in the envolved political parties promoted such symbol loaden projects like Pont Neuf, the Reichstag in Berlin and made them familiar with a worldwide mass public. After all this we can ask ourselvers if there is any artmarketing conceivable than that of Christo and Jeanne Claude ?

Christos brilliant success as artist and self-made marketing promotor even outperforms the fame of Andy Warhol. Among other things his stardom can be traced back to the copying of industrial productionsmeans like using photography and silk screen printing. Therefore it is a persisting and unresolved problem in the artmarket which of his silk screen printed paintings were really authorized by himself or even signed by himself, which of his works can only be subscribed to his factory and which one might be produced even after his death. Regardless which answers we shall find, beginning with Warhol the so called avantgarde starts using here and there in a consequent way the means of massproducting and marketing. Warhol renounced consciously the aura of the romantic artist, the one of the prophet, the martyr and antagonist. He eliminated as well the language of a self recognizing subject as all traces of authenticity. His slogans: "I want to be a machine" and "the biggest art is the art of making money" speak for themselves and nothing needs to be added to them.

Warhol and popart mark the essential beginnings of the decay of the traditional subject-identity of the avantgarde and its antagonistic role in society. The artist literate as opponent of mainstream culture., as a critic, a prophet and martyr, as sufferer and unrecognized forerunner of a new aesthetic world is loosing signification.

In this change the art market plays an essential role. In his basic strategies he is behaving in the same way as any other market in liberal industrial societies. One of his most significant elements is innovation pressure as the leading factor of all growth oriented economies. The result is the cult of the new forcing all producers to continuously searching and promoting aesthetic innovations and trends competing with offers that make obvious differences to other market participants. The reverse side of this medal is of course the rapid change of attention that shift to the new thus depreciating the existing and the old. As markets cannot always increase to bigger dimensions the consequence has to be a wear out of aesthetics. Within the artmarket this dynamic causes a real boost of productivity and enormous growth. Considering the two sides of the same coin we find a rapid acceleration of aesthetic productivity on the one side and on the other the decay of aesthetic values at the same time. Characteristicly this development results in the existence of not only one main style expressing the aesthetic cultural values of an époque. Instead there can be found many parallely existing, sometimes very short living aesthetic trends. Within these trends, as can best be seen in the popular music market, there is a continuous search for new talents and faces keeping up the steam of the music industry. Within the arts style can thus become a kind of fashion up to the point that aesthetics can be seen even as a part consumerism and the cult of innovation with an audience that is always waiting for the next kick. What the world is talking about today is already forgotten the next day. Style in art has become the event of one season, a Documenta exhibition, sometimes of a year or only a quarter.
The times are gone where style as a cultural connecting expression of a time could impress on a whole epoque like Roccoco, Classizism, even Art Nouveau and Art Deco or Bauhaus International Style. Since the seventies of the 20th century we are observing a formerly unknown flood of parallely promoted styles all struggling at the same time for attention at the art market. The original avantgarde concept flattens more and more and seems to become a cultural ritual for shortliving novelties. The former shock of the New, which still could be aroused by the avantgarde in the second half of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, has become a self-evident and integrated ritual of the cult of innovation. By getting used to it the shock lost the reason of existence and retired from the arts world.

Quite often promoters, gallerists, and curators are pretending something new which in reality is mainly a sort of reinvention. The praised innovation than appears from an arthistoric viewpoint as a mere variation of a once revolutionary invention. We are speaking here about the phenomenon of art-recycling. The art of Rauschenberg, Julian Schnabel, Jeff Koons ....is actually purely Neodadaistic. The idea and techniques of collage, assemblage, objet art, environment, event, action, happening and so on are nothing new but a variation of the dada-background, whereby Koons is additionally variing Warhol. In fact besides Dada all the other significant revolutionary art inventions like abstract painting, surrealism, constructivism, fotorealism and so on can be traced back to the first quarter of the 20th century. Actually also Anselm Kiefer and Joseph Beuys owe their fame to a great extend to Marcel Duchamp and Dada. In a more generalized way we can make the statement that the arts of the second half of the 20th century are developping the genius of the first quarter of the century. However these origins are often denied or concealed as they are not fitting into the promotion and media concept of the cult of the new.

The tempo of the abundance of style innovations finally led to the phenomenon of "style-inflation", causing the phenomenon of "anything goes", which has become the slogan of the markets of our present times. This caused "instant-art" for speedy people in speedy times allured by the quick money that could be made in a short time.
The dissipation of the arts is a striking phenomenon and it is not allowing anymore a typical aesthetic expression of our times. Maybe it is this sort of anything goes which can be acknowleged as our "Zeitgeist".

The question arises whether all these styles are really necessary, if they are really representing the essence of our times and avantgarde or if they are only existing because they had been made by the longings of hungry markets. A new style is for new galleries one of the best chances, maybe the only one, to get established in a short time and to obtain market share against already established aesthetic values thus making points against the market power of the art establishment. Putting this into a more economic language it means that only the new product can compete successfully against existing markets in a short time with small funding. And only the still underestimated new product can promise the rapid gains that attract the bussiness type of a collector. However from the perspective of arthistory, quality, significance and value we might ask ourselves whether this or that art is really necessary or nothing more than shortlived anything-goes phenomenon. With other words: is this market nothing more than a part of our media culture which is always searching news to entertain the public ? Has the avantgarde artist of our times become already someone like an entertainer of our cultural industry as it is abvious since long ago in the world of popmusic and the movies?

The significant and time-enduring aesthetic inventions cannot be made everyday. Albert Einstein, Arnold Schönberg and Marcel Duchamp cannot be repeated or recycled again by giving the message to the public that each time it is something new or revolutionary. Instead we could admit to be followers within the streams of cultural heritage admitting it could take decades or even a century to digest the milestones of our cultural history. A personality like Picasso, Klee, Kandinsky, Dix, Max Ernst, Pollock and Kiefer cannot be found everyday even if the markets would liketo welcome a new star everyday.

A parallel to this development in the arts can be found in architecture. Of course there is a very original high-tech aesthetic in contemporary architecture founded by Rogers, Pei, Foster, Gehry or Nouvelle and others. And it is their contribution to architectur and design that could lead in the future to the opinion that this language is much more than art the real expression of our times. On the other side we cannot overlook an abundance in historical quotes of passed styles making believe many architectural critics that we are living in an age of "eccleticism" and "historicism". The quoting and recycling of ancient architectural codes contains a mix of western architectural history, like the broken gable-tops of the baroque, the even and steplike pyramide, the renaissance arcades, the column positioning of Palladio, the patterns of Art Deco, the helms of the Chrysler- and Empire-state-building, and the elements of the Bauhaus international style. Again we can see that recycled and quated aesthetic elements are totally deprived of their former cultural meaning and used as a mere fashion language. But at the same time we can acknowledge the enrichment of architectural aesthtetics after the purisms and the uniforming codes of the Bauhaus tradition. And actually we can interpret this postmodern ecclectism sometimes also as convincing bridging between the traditions and roots of our culture and high-technology society. The phenomenon of quoting and recycling of aesthetic codes seems to be one of the general characteristics of our times as it can be found in all parts of our culture where aesthetics are playing an important role, mainly in the huge markets of Popmusic and fashion.

But what happened with the imago of the artist as outsider ? From the 19th up to the middle of the 20th century it was very common for an artist to reflect his marginality and outsider-role in his entire habitus, his aesthetic appearance and behaviour. The burgeois world was firmly keeping to strict rules of moraliy and conduct, to the valuation of the outer appearance and did not tolerate any deviation from the stiffness of its everyday aesthetics. This compulsion of adaptation corresponded with a society used to obedience and authority which turned towards a more liberal and openminded society after the second world war. In the course of this development stiff clichés of roles dissolved as well as many chains of behaviour and everyday aesthetics.
For instance after the second world war the aesthetic cliché of the marginal, unconventional artist was mainly influenced by existentialism, just remember the cult of black as fashion colour, the turtle neck pullover, beard, and euskadi-cap. In the early sixties Robert Rauschenberg once told he was only recognized by a taxi-driver as an artist by the slight smell of terpentine. Since those times the fashion accessoires and aesthetic appearances of artists and musicians were so oftenly and radically copied that ironically in our times one could believe that the whole industrial culture had generated nothing but artists personalities. On the background of these cultural changes it is almost impossible to appear marginal as an artists.

After this short review let us look in general at the consequences of the phenomenon of assimilation for the artist personality. Which are the possibilities for an artist in our postindustrial society to find a personal and a professional identity ? Is it today at all necessary to look for an answer ? Does it still make sense to raise such a question or is the answer only a matter off success and how to keep on it ?! The concept of the avantgarde contained orientations and values for about 150 years. After its decline by assimilation are there signs of a new definition of the identity of the artist and role-play between artist and society?

If we agree that the traditional function of the avantgarde concept has extensively lost its influence we could ask if a new avantgarde with new contents, and new cultural values could appear. Which roles can artist devellop nowadays in their dispute with culture ? With other words : how can the relation of a new avantgarde towards the cultural system be settled and which ways of identity orientations can thus develop

Looking at contemporary devellopments it is almost impossible to recognize more than individual concepts. Whoever is trying to find an answer will probably find the most divergent and subjective concepts. For making a general statement in this situation it seem to make sense to keep the general cultural conditions in mind which have an impact on the devellopment of identities. Among the main factors the relation between innovation-pressure and aesthetic wear and tear within the art-market seems to have an extraordinary influence. This market functioning does not only have a impact on our ways of cultural consumerism but as well on the self-recognisation of the artist himself.

Decisive is the very quick distribution of innovations by the means of media and the rapid falling into oblivion of the existing to give way to a new trend, a new face and new names. Apparently only to a very few "classic" aertists have been devoted by retrospectives where the life-long developmental process of the work and the personality are appreciated. The main stress is laid upon the actuality of trends, styles, concepts which are rapidly replacing themselves on the market and in the media. Once recognized and representated by curators, media , galleries, and collectors such trends like "individual mythologies", photorealism", "pattern-art", "Eatart", the market gets saturated and the public interest is diminishing rapidly until the phenomenon is replaced and has fallen into oblivion. Except of the very few main representatives of such styles no other names are kept in the memory of the public. Each of these artists knows that he has to forge the iron a long a it is hot. The media and the market success are taking place in a very short time frame and they have to be used therefore as extensively as possible. An artists who is for example still working in a photorealistic must be either one of the very few "classics" , that means a former "trend-leader", or an anachronistic, marinal outsider who has not taken the chance to jump on a new train. But even if the artist is changing horses to keep on to the newest trend the market is keeping him consequently out. The rule here is the same as in the music-market. A new horse needs always a new jockey, a new style needs new faces. Or can anyone image that the Rapper Eminem or Snoop Dog could change to Heavy Metal to survive on the market - for sure this would be regarded as ridiculous and as the end of the whole music-career.

One result of this spiral of innovation and wear and tear is that only a very diminished circle of "classic" artists can be permanently represented at the market and in the media whereas the big mass of artists is given no chance or only a short time to be at the top of interest. Collectors and museums like Lugwig in Cologne seem to be less interested in collected the work of a certain artist personality - in contrast for example to the swiss collector family Bürgi which collected Paul Klee continuously and supported him like a member of their own family. Modern collectors are much more interested in representing the wide range and the diversity of styles. Some private collectors and many of the collecting institutions do not even know the artists personally. They are collecting by agents, advisors and galleries. If the artist is not one the outstanding "classics" he is recognized more or less as the representative of a style which has to be presented in the collection. There is nothing comparable to former relations founded on personal contacts, respect, faithfulness, care, or even aristocratic employer relations.

Taking all this into account it is difficult for a contemporary artist to believe in the continuity and the authenticity of his own lifelong work. This is of course much easier for the very few famous classic leaders of a trend or outstanding innovators who are not touched by the innovation-games of the markets and who have all the freedom to develop their work as they like. Such a continuous life-work appears like a stroke of luck. Maybe there is only a handful of artists getting to know the honour that the public is interested in their personal development, in their early and late works, in their processes of development and even in their less important artworks. In contrast to them the absolut majority of contemporary depending on the market have sooner or later to ask themselves if they can continuously be faithful to themselves and their own approach to aesthetics, to their own lifework and self development. But even if he finds true galerists and collectors he will often be surprised about the limits of his own aesthetic freedom. The collectors community very often demands and purchases the typical stylistic and personal codes and themes and it is not prepared to respect changes. One of the consequences is that many artists are copying themselves on demand of gallerists and collectors because this seems the only way to keep along with them and to make their living. Some life-works therefore look like a standard pattern or a scheme.

Preview:::

At this point we are finishing the short review of the position of the avantgarde in our times. Summing up the outcome we could speak in general of a paradigmatic change of the functional relationship between avantgarde and mainstream culture. Whereas the old avantgarde, in the words of of the philosopher Adorno, has been the protector of truth and the antithesis to cultural industry, it has become nowadays to a great extent one integrated basic element of the art- and media-markets and thus of the whole cultural industry.
Of course the fate of the avantgarde is not the same everywhere and there are still concepts of art and the artists identity respecting the original concepts of the avantgarde movement. Probably a revival and renewing of the old avantgarde concept is only possible in consideration of the two former core-values of identiy, namely personal truth and authenticity. The former avantgarde received its unrivaled strenght from the beginnning out these two sources and the inner independency to be obliged only to be true to oneself. In this freedom and faithfulness to oneself the avantgarde cpuld accept even deprivations and the lack of appreciation. Following their own revolutionary art was equal to follow the own inner voice, the own inner world, the own explorations, and the own truth of personal artistic expression. In short, it meant to be true to oneself. In this dignity, in this freedom and faithfullness to oneself, and not to serve the taste of the markets and the public, the concept of the avantgarde received ist special power and its cultural impact. These values were the basis of the proud concept of the freedom of art. Without this consciousness of freedom and its consequent protection the great aesthetic revolutions in the second half of the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century would not have been possible.

However instead of mourning the loss of values and the fate of the tiny elite of the avantgarde we should focus on the process of clarification for the huge number of persons working nowadays in the different fields of the arts. It is a matter of potentials of identities of the countless professional, semi- and unprofessionell artists, who will probably never reach a broader public or material recognition. What does art mean to them ? In which way do they live their own comprehension of art ? Which ways are they trying to go to combine their art with material security ? How are they gaining recognition and what does it mean to them ?

Of course these are always matters of personal conviction influenced by the personal circumstances of life and my point of view is no exception. What matters in my point of view is above all, even in times of success, to keep an inner freedom from the recognition of the market and the public to keep authenticity. The lack of public and material recognition is for many artists mostly a disillusion, sometimes accompanied with the loss of self esteem and latent mourning. It can be felt like a fading dream of life. For some artists the lack of recognition can even be like a narcistic never healing wound. What happens, we may ask ourselves, to an actor without a public and a stage, to a painter without a gallery, and a musician without listeners !

Perhaps much could be gained if we could liberate ourselves from the illusion that the arts are a success promising way for satisfying narcistic needs and dreams. Instead we can put emphazise on the conviction that it is always a privilege to take part in the world of arts, to enjoy it, to integrate it into our lifes, and to shape it wherever possible with our own ideas on the bsais of our own aesthetic values and convictions. There exists, without any doubt, a precious authentic world of arts beyond the gratifications of fame. To recognize this world within ourselves and to live it means also a gain of freedom in the sense of independency of the cult of public recognition and fame.

In a world impressed by the cult of stardom like ours it might be difficult to see or even admit also the shadows of fame as a widespread cultural value-concept as well for the identity of a single person as for the whole cultural system. It could be quite revolutionary to demasque the concept of the media promoted concept of stardom, the worship of fame and ist linking with the mechanisms of the markets by unveiling ist irrationality and cultural negativity, as a kind of ideology and belief-system. Those who are partaking in this beliefe-system without critical distance are probably endangered by the pressure of suffering from not to belong to the very few successful market participants. On the basis of such an attitude of expectation the experience of suffering is already progamized.

The departure from this system of values could put a new emphasis on another main concept of the early avantgarde, namely the concept of " l'art pour l'art", which was superficially understood and misinterpreted. In its pure aesthetic interpretation it only relates to the freedom from restraints of artistic representations, the opening of the arts towards the abstract and the departure from naturalism and realism. But in contrast to this understanding of l'art pour l'art, we can regard it also as the expresssion of a self conscious revolutionary art concept where art is only obliged to itself. Like truth, it is not the markets maid and it is not the vehicle for fame and the servant of our narcistic self. Much more it could be, as we can see it already quite often in music, a unifying and open territory of mankind, where the freedom of cultural and personal expression can be shared. Such a view of the cultural role of the arts is again identical with the concept of freedom and it is analogous to play as the creative basis of the homo ludens.. In this sense the l'art pour l'art concept contains the aesthetic productivity of human beeings as a common cultural value, open to everyone, as well for the experts and cultural leaders as for children, disabled or even schizophrenics. All their ways of expression have their own dignity and value like the person who is creating. In this respect for the homo ludens in each one of us the concept of l'art pour l'art is a part of a human concept of the dignity of personality and the respect of subjectiveness.
L'art pour l'art means that art is mainly relating to itself and the creator. We say l'art por l'art and not l'art pour le marché, l'argent, success, le public, la reputation, le consume.....I am convinced that each future avantgarde which is worth this name is reaching above aesthetic innovations to values, images of identity, renewing cultural contents in order to be more than media noise but of profound cultural meaning. The future is unpredictable, we might be curious and surprised. My hope for a concept of the future avantgarde is that human beings find ways to discover their own subjectiveness in the mirror of their times which is reflected in their own aesthetic truth and faithfulness to themselves. I am hoping that the authenticity of the creative person gains importance above fashion and shortlived aesthetic innovations. I am hoping for a concept adequate to the dignity of the creating person, the personal developments in the process of life. I am hoping that in the accelerating globalization of the world the human heritage of the diversity of cultures and thus of human subjectiveness is not damaged or lost under the pressure of global monoculture. A worldwide market orientated monoculture ruled by globalized aesthetic languages could mean a great loss of human diversity and subjectiveness. I am hoping that the future avantgarde is recognizing this danger and is giving a protective home to the expression of human authenticity, the richness of subjectivity in relation to the heritage of its cultural expressions.

Thank you very much for your attention

multilingual Directory of Alternative Medicine, Directory Alternative Medizin, Directory medicina alternativa

spain-holiday

Ibiza Walking Ibiza Biking Radfahren

Ibiza Yoga, Ibiza Psychotherapy: www.ibizahealingretreat.com