Art as Self; The Modern Degenerative Process
(an exploration of concepts)
Introduction
This was a short writing during when I was bedridden with a cold, and therefore is very disjointed, inconclusive, non-linear, etc. You may find that lines of thought and reasoning end very quickly, vanish into nowhere, or simply go on for painfully long..
In short, this piece serves as a memento for future writings, in the hope that I’ll come back and write more about it (only time will tell). I found these observations interesting enough to share, and so here it is.
If you have any criticism, new ideas, additional concepts, revelations, dreams, etc. please tell me — i think that’s super cool and i would love to hear anything you have to say (even if it’s madness)
I
The goal is this: to what end, and what means, does modern communicative technologies degrade, enhance, or alter the experience with all forms of art? How is the viewers perception changed? How is culture at large changed? Is, most horrifyingly, the radical aspect of art neutered in this new digital age? These are the questions to which one must lend a keen eye within the modern era — as art reflects our souls, so too do our souls reflect an artistic outpouring. The threatening of this elementally human process must be analyzed in order to diagnose the modern man’s condition as art critic and subject.
Let us go now, as explorers to answer the question: “Is art dead, dying, or damned?”
II
The first task is to identify, if you will, a ‘process’ of the transformations which art now undergoes in relation to new digital platforms and interfaces. In analyzing both personal experience and broader cultural diffusion, the process can be simplified as such:
1. Art enters the social field or community; Has a solid message and identity; Imparts or seeks to impart upon the artistic subject a mood, feeling, etc. Has power as a “force of change”.
2. Art begins the degenerative process. The art is spread out, increasingly thin, across the social field, divesting itself into previously unexplored territories; “Identity” begins to be diffused and distorted beyond it’s interpretative limits; The art is discovered by the users of social platforms (both digital and real); The art begins to fade as a “social force” which can impact change.
3. Art fully enters the degenerative process. The art is spread out over the entire social field, to the point where most have no clue of its origin; The original “identity” is completely lost, replaced instead by thousands of “created identities” (using the art as a narcissistic medium); The art becomes a tagline, motto, or “aesthetic”, (i.e an easily distilled idea or concept for the lowest common denominator of narcissistic appropriation — e.x “sad”, “happy”, “oriental”, “retro”, “depression”.
4. The art concludes the degenerative process. The artistic piece loses relevancy within the social field and is discarded, seen as “dated” or “overproduced” by the social mass at large (in internet terms: “cringe”); The art becomes a cultural artifact, which, either returns to a place of artistic valuation which can once again impart meaning to a subject (the process of “discovering again” — in which case, the whole process begins again) or becomes “dead art”, something forever tainted by the previous process which cannot be forgotten by the social mass — art stripped from its ability to impart meaning.
Obviously, this is by no means a total explanation of the process. There are many more subtle aspects surrounding the general degenerative process (such as brand engagement, social trauma, etc.) which can profoundly alter the social field’s response to the art in question. However, it serves as a useful outline for later reference.
III
The main problem posed by the degenerative process is this: How can art remain in an impactful state, especially the art of “pop culture” — that is, the defining art of an era or generation — when it is constantly engaging in this process of degeneration? Furthermore, due to the rapid increase in this process due to new digital social platforms, what is the “fallout” of this new era where (as we shall discuss) art is becoming increasingly a ‘narcissistic medium’?
In the myth of narcissus, the young boy dies by the reflection pool, enchanted to stare forever entranced by the gods. Let us consider the mind of narcissus, just like the modern narcissist — all things within his head are directed through his ego and only his ego; His dreams, images, emotions, conflicts — all of it is directed through the self-importance he lingers in, unable to escape. Art could fall neatly into this as well — “the Mona Lisa? Why, she is merely a means through which to direct myself! Van Gogh? Surely not — Starry Night shall suffice to tell my story and you all are forced to listen!” Such is the modern mind, a downward spiral that cannot help but redirect art to tell a narcissist’s story, not the artist’s.
IV
This is, however, not a bad thing, however. Art is often meant to be a means through which not only the artist can communicate to the subject, but a device through which the subject can discover something deeper about themselves. While narcissistic in nature, there is a healthy process of “self discovery” that often occurs in art museums, and man is better off for it. It is a natural thing to see oneself in art, a natural thing to see your own life reflected upon the canvas.
However, the issue posed by modern social platforms is twofold; Firstly, that the process of degeneration is accelerated due to the increased rate of communication provided by these platforms, and secondly, that the art is broken into pieces. Art on the plane of the internet is tumorized. It is injected into the social field, and then shattered into a million different reinterpretations, re-investments, restructurings, re-framings… Often, the art itself is spliced and broken to make a unique statement about oneself which was not accessible from the art before. A common example of this is “splicing” songs in order to fit the desired result.
V
And here, we can see the crucial difference between the narcissist in a museum and the narcissist online; The art is broadcasted through the lens of the self. The narcissistic process of seeing oneself ‘upon the canvas’ is a private, internal development. On the other hand, the digital social field encourages one to bastardize the art in order to reflect it through one’s own experiences, memories, feelings, etc. It is used as a way to easily communicate (and often in a more entertaining way) oneself across the broader social field. Art in this environment is turned into a letter or telegram, used as a vehicle to almost say “look at me, look at how I am!” Furthermore, there is an expected reaction in this usage of art — it is art being used as tool to receive (hopefully) positive self-feedback, adoration, but most importantly, attention.
VI
This is where things start to get concerning. When art becomes the vehicle for one to receive attention, when it becomes the ego-vehicle, when it no longer serves the positive role of “oneself upon the canvas”, a variety of effects happen to the art, chief among them the “dumbing-down” of the art. This is the stage of the process where emotional complexity is removed from the art, where nuance is purged and where, (“dear mother of god!”) actual emotional connection to the art is destroyed. The artist, one could say, is murdered at this stage.
A clear example of this stage of the process can be observed in the cultural perception of The Great Wave. Once a warning to the Japanese people of the threats that European imperialism posed, the art nowadays has become nothing more than (though, luckily, the ability to appreciate the real content remains) an “aesthetic”. It has become entrenched in American pop culture as an “oriental” fixture, symbolizing an ideal Japonic or eastern ‘asceticism’ that many wish to identify with. Symbolically, it has become, within modern internet culture, ‘lumped in’ with the rest of the Japonic culture here in the United States (anime + manga + sushi + great wave = western perception of idealized Japan?).
Simply, The Great Wave has become nothing more than a visual signifier for ‘Japan’. Even more worrying is the way in which consumers and companies use this signifier to signify a simple “Eastern aesthetic” in appearance. While the possibility to “just like the art” remains, it becomes a difficult process when the overall social field uses the art to signify some simple value or emotion, while also personally trying to reinforce a critical eye within oneself to see the nuanced complexity within such pieces. In short, the social field demands one consciously or unconsciously accept the “eastern aesthetic” of The Great Wave, even if one personally understands that it oversimplifies and reduces the art to no more than a product.
VII
Let us return to the fourth stage of the process, and focus intently on the relationship between art as narcissist-vehicle and art as a product sold to the social plane via the productive forces which satisfy consumerism’s needs. We know, that due to man’s isolation from the productive process, and the general alienation that the modern person feels due to the separation from “meaningful labor” and actual life purpose that manufactured desires arise in order to satiate the restless individual. When a consumer begins to question, for example, “Why am I sad?”, the market responds “Because you need our product — buy our pills!” But how does this relate to art?
At the fourth stage of the process, we see art become bastardized to the point of the generalized commodity — Tshirts, coffee mugs, tacky cards, etc. The art becomes nothing more than: 1. a way in which to satisfy a personal urge or perceived lack; 2. a way in which to signify one’s identity. Via this process of mass production, the art becomes overproduced, and begins to become devalued at a constant rate (especially concerning mass culture). For every million Star Wars shirts one disassociates from the original Star Wars; It becomes nothing more than a signifier of attachment, some vague brand or collection of experiences. It muddies the waters in a way, so to speak. This is not to place a moral judgement on this process, it is only to say that this devaluation and disassociation of the art from its original concepts and meanings is solidified by the production process. (Furthermore, some brands and art become so glutted in collective culture that they become a joke in themselves). Pop culture, indeed.
We now enter our next elevation, our next plateau: when the art as product elevates itself as a transcendent entity above the original art. Assorted collages of artistic thought are brought forward here; One only need imagine how distraught Banksy feels when his pieces are ripped off the building, the paint from the wall, the idea from the paint — “watch the circus, dear! Look how it goes so quickly!” Artist to wall to paint to capture to extraction to reproduction — what an insane process! Banksy-as-Tshirt somehow commands more armies than Banksy-as-artist, Banksy-as-rebel, Banksy-as-Anarchist. The whole social field dominates over him now, he becomes through what his unintentional commodities wish him to become (artist-as-wish-fulfillment). Let us not forget, in our ramblings, Andy — Oh yes, Warhol! The god-artist who tired to weaponize the very process we describe here. The mad scientist of pop art, who spoke as though his creations were ballistic missiles right into the very scene of art “if i connect this here … what if advertising is used against itself … a soup can shall do nicely … Marilyn Monroe!” But it all failed. He became a parody of himself, an endless pretentious joke that still resonates in the halls of good-for-nothing upstate New York ivy league art schools. Let’s not forget Basquiat either — the modern liberator, the radical visionary, the street-scrawling rat-painting revolutionary who got captured by Sotheby’s and killed himself before he could become commodified, before becoming another sign in an endless game of signifiers. The list goes on, and on … Debord, Fisher, Cobain, Elvis, Artaud, Deleuze, Van Gogh, Paalen, Gorky, Hendrix (the whole 27-club!). The endless game, the nowhere-maze (no escape).
Mr. Burnham looks on in horror …
…Incredibly derivative political street art
A dreamcatcher bought from Urban Outfitters
A vintage neon sign…
Is this heaven..?
VIII
It’s nearing doomsday. We are now in the land of the uncertain, the mysterious, the ghost-art. Those cultural relics which have died, we shall now go visit them in the dusty graves. The internet, really, is one ever-expanding graveyard of signifiers, dead art, dead communication. This graveyard is no monument — no, this is no Arlington Cemetery, there is no honor here, just lost voices and painful memories, discarded speech. This is a cupboard-graveland, a hidden place, “off the beaten path”… less an Arlington and more so Pere-Lachaise or a Hollywood. Let us go then — come on, hurry up, the usher is waiting to show us the dead!
Entering the land of the forgotten, or the Phantasma (lit. “Phasma”, from ancient Latin) … those souls which inhabit the land of the lost language and broken signs, the disjointed communicative lines. This is the land after stage four — this is the no man’s land. Here we find the trashed, the discarded, the murdered. Here is the great wasteland of cultural relevancy. I sound ridiculous, out-of-touch, even to utter their names; This is the land of the Tramp Stamps, Cocomelon, Dark Academia, Tumblr, all of the cultural trashbasket. SNL and Jimmy Fallon and the Pauls and Jeff Bezos and Hyperloop and Y2K and Cottagecore and Nirvana and Edgy Book Titles and Wicca and … and … and …
This land has one simple rule of what enters and what leaves (and yes, some things here can be resurrected — always the eternal return of Nietzsche). “Qui huc instrasti omissa spe” — “Abandon all hope, ye who enter!” We see the cultural glut come to this place, when a song falls out of fashion, when a joke becomes cliche, when a meme becomes enraging, when a style becomes tired. They all come to this place, the past-place, the graveyard of once-was. How does one enter this place? Rarely do people enter here, only the ideas, the signs, the signified. “Doja Cat and Charlie D’Amelio and Trump’s shoes and 1000 Gecs and Death Grips and Traditional Conservatism and … and … and …” so goes the thought process of this graveyard. When the cultural signifier, the idea, becomes so overproduced to the extent that it is seen everywhere upon the social-digital plane, it becomes tired (unless continually refreshed … another half-ass sequel anyone?) and it is willingly forgotten, rejected by the mass at large. “Don’t show me any more of that!” The Kars 4 Kids commercial is a good example of a sign entering the graveyard … we willingly murdered it out of our cultural relevancy because it haunted us, followed us, stalked us everywhere we went. Constantly communicating to the point where it became pure liquid drivel and we shoved a dagger down the gut of that commercial.
Too much of anything can lead to an overdose — even cultural signifiers can be overdosed on. One could say this land is where the cultural opiates which infect our minds go to die after a little unintentional rehab, a little time away from the noise. Addicts are most certainly children, the young people. We have a hard time disassociating from our favorite pills, our continual streams and flight-paths of information and artistic noise. Image-scroll-video-scroll-text-scroll-down and down we go, like Alice into Wonderland. At some point down the well the rabbit becomes tiring for us. We leave momentarily, discard the well, and all the images with it, and collectively on the social plane decide to leave certain ideas behind (Kars 4 Kids!). As they say, “…all the psychotic has left are representations of words”(D&G).
This is the lost-land, this is the desert-land, the out-of-touch, the antiquated, the culturally despised. Let us now go to the land of the resurrection, the second coming, the land of speeds.
“…What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and Manless in Moloch! …”- Allen Ginsberg; Howl (II).
IX
Speed is the word of our generation, this historical era. A tendency of increasing speeds is the rule or guideline to modern life (speed of communication, exchange, creation, engagement, warfare, etc.). A good guideline to follow is the internet, and more so the whole digital social plane has created a demanding urgency of the moment within the whole social plane (at least where the two intersect and interact). To stay relevant, the artist must produce faster, quicker, better, or else risk being forgotten in the torrential downpour which is the information waterfall of the digital plane.
What we intend to discover when addressing this tendency of increasing speeds and artistic development is that the cycle mentioned in II , while existing formerly in history (first appearing at the rounds of Kaptial) has now begun to accelerate at a rate in which art, content and the predominant cultural signifiers become to muddy. It is as if the cultural sphere is a young child with a tendency to talk fast — it wants to say too much, all at once, and so it breaks down and sputters, its words and ideas bump into each other and muddy the waters, and the overall impression of the content presented becomes a misty fog of confusion. Simply put, the increasing speeds of this era have lent themselves to an acceleration of the degenerative process, increasingly muddying the pond of ‘culture’.
Where does this leave us? Well, as for the author (and probably many more) — profoundly lost, confused, and always feeling uniformed and incomplete. Everywhere around oneself there are references, signs which one has not internalized yet. “What’s that? … and that? … and …” The information stream, one could say, is too fast to process for most, there is a profound overload of cultural information. And when art does connect on a large cultural level, it (as mentioned) completely shatters into a million different individualized pieces reflected back through different selves, different memories, different lives. What a world!
In short, the primary observation is this: we note the existence, both historically and presently, of the degenerative process of art that exists, as a natural baseline, within the system of capital which overproduces as a tendency (both economically and culturally). This process has been increased rapidly with the introduction of a tendency of speeds generated by the continually renewing and revising machine of the internet. Thus, one can see, the overall degenerative process is accelerated, perhaps to the extent where many signifiers and most art becomes “meaningless” or “forgotten” overnight. The realm of speeds has a tendency to increase, and if the internet is a stream of information, can we truly sail through the rapids? Only time will tell.
Postnote: this section is somewhat less ‘grounded’ … need more insights from others into speeds and their affects on their mental health, art engagement, cultural understanding, etc… rewrite at later date
X
It was once said that art was the revolutionary’s best weapon. Does art in the modern, digital social plane still offer a means of liberation, or decoding? Is there still ‘a light at the end of the tunnel?’ We cannot be so sure. Art as a process functions much differently in this era than say, 1892 or 1984, operating in a function of speeds, of continual degeneration, of narcissistic reflections, of shatterings, of destroyed nuance, of social control. How does one take these factors, and, like the surgeon in the operating room, declare the patient alive or dead? Let us review. We have thus far covered:
1. The Degenerative Process; The General Tendencies of Art.
2. Art as a Narcissism; Is art Impactful in a Narcissistic Age?
3. The Shattering of Art through the Self; The Communicative Tendencies.
4. Art as Attention-Machine; Reflected through the Lens of the Self.
5. Art as Simplified “Aestheticism”; Art as Oriental Signifier; Art as Non-Emotion.
6. Art as Commodity; Art-Commodity Transcending Art; Artistic Suicides.
7. Art as Dead Signifiers; The Graveyard of the Signified; Artistic Overdose.
8. Art as Speed Tendency; Muddied Waters; Cultural Confusion and Feeling “Lost”.
*Note: This section is unfinished. I do not want to make a determination, nor do I want to leave being “uncertain” … it is to the reader to decide for the moment, even though that is profoundly inconclusive
There is a great deal of joy in seeing someone’s annotated book. (*Keep this?) In the same way in which a book is annotated, so too can one see the French revolution…?
“there is something that belongs to no school, no period, something that achieves a breakthrough — art as a process without goal, [and] attains completion as such”(D&G).
*Note: need a broader viewpoint — memories and dreams of others needed to plug into the dream machine… the writing process is a process of catching the butterflies of other’s fantasies …
*Postscript: Finish soon? … and … and … and … ?
