ART
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Art
“Progressist”
art
Antitheocratic
“aesthetic”
Art
What certain ideologists
present as the acme of free individuality or call “genius”, “talent” or
“art" - and their correlative absence in the innumerable masses ? are the
historic corollaries of the inclusive
theocratic apportionment of social appropriation which has concentrated
the alienated direction
and attribution of the pseudo-playful use of the means of communication
in a minority of leaders and specialists (artists and other professionals
of the spectacle) ; consequently, this minority has the monopoly of “the
right to freedom of expression” which in fact is only the right of all
to not have any real - material - freedom of expression. Art is intrinsically
related to the modern forms of the property.
Art is not perennial
or natural. It emerged eminently only with the relative separation of religion
and art in and by the advent of theocratic inclusivity. Art is correlated
with the reign of bureaucratic capitalism. To the domination of the sacred
spectacle of the ritual succeeded the profane ritual of the spectacle of
which art is the paragon.
Art is the good
conscience of a world based on enslavement. It is the image which the
private property of the material means of all communication wants to give
of itself. Terrain of the alienated qualitative and individuality par excellence,
it wants to pass off as autonomous or alternate to society but this sub-theology
of separate mystical creativity is but a sub-copy of the fallacious religious
paradise. This lamentable expedient is entirely conditioned by the
fact that it cannot nor wants to think its own material-practical base
in the modern inclusive theocracy. What remains unavowable for artists,
is that they thrive on misery. Culture is the ideal commodity, the
one which makes one pay for all the others. Art is the finished form of
the dictatorship of desire. The language at the service of domination
does not solely come out of the mouth of cops, politicians, priests and
bosses ; it also exists in any language which does not explicitly prepare
the revolution of everyday life.
“Progressist”
art
The “freest” art is
only “free” as spectacle of a freedom which men are dispossessed of everywhere.
Accomplice in the dictatorship of contemplation, when it wants to be “critical”,
it is but the theological criticism of theocracy. The mystifying theophiles
of “art by all”, “life is art”, “everything is art”, “anti-art” art, “non-art”,
“avant-garde”, “subversive”, “engaged” or “revolutionary” (laughter) art
have only been at the avant-guard of the transformation of dissatisfaction
into a commodity to be
contemplated. “Progressist” art is the prototype of this buffoonery that
art is. The “progressist” artist fills his mandate by providing - in the
form of a illusory opposition - established art or society with new, marginal
or alternate artistic contents or forms. Thus is perpetuated the ideology
of freedom through harmless oppositions of contents: non realism / realism,
figuration / abstraction, narration / non-linearity, identification / distanciation,
symbolism / formalism, simplicity / complexity, monomorphism / polymorphism,
materiality / imaginary, individual / collective, passivity / activity,
contemplation / participation, signature / anonymity, fragmentation / transversality,
uniqueness / plurality. These contents or oppositions considered "in themselves"
do not have any political significance. Examined in their effective artistic
or spectacular "progressist" manifestations, they implicitly imply an adhesion
with the established order because of their intra-theocratic limitations
and their incorporated harmlessness in and by their form of art or more
generally of spectacle.
Antitheocratic
“aesthetic”
Once endorsed the refusal
of art, the form or “aesthetic” of the antitheocratic revolutionary activity
and theoretical-practical content is not solved by itself. Antitheocrats
must adopt an opportunistic attitude in this matter. If the theory aims
to elucidate and the practice to create an autonomous society, the form
or “aesthetic” of the activity aims at a maximum distance from the tolerated
and awaited codes; it must apostatize the marginal, the alternative, the
original and the allegorical at the exclusive profit of the inadmissible
and the scandalous - the latter can conjunct with the abjured attributes
only incidentally, superficially and secondarily ; the unacceptable and
the unbearable must be systematically and knowingly looked for relative
to precise receptions and contexts. Since no form of “esthetics”, symbolism
or play is subversive as such or in the form of art, this relative negation
of the theocratic order by an “aesthetic”, formal, symbolic content is
valid only simultaneously in and by an explicit and patent revolutionary
theory-practice.
The social mode of
articulation specific to inclusive theocracies - in technique, economic,
legal, political, religious, artistic - is only one particular mode of
social institution, it is not the only one possible or the only one which
ever existed. In an antitheocratic
society, there are no more painters or artists but, at most, men who, among
other things, sometimes apply pigments on surfaces or whose activities
sometimes have similarities with trivial aspects of artistic disciplines.
In the councils the people will make decisions on all the aspects of their
life but that will not make a president of the republic or a Prime Minister
out of each individual ; that will neither make an artist out of each individual
because the new political conditions - the new social articulation - will
eliminate the need for such alienated roles.
We do not defend one
art against another, we purely and simply want the abolition of art.
