Fred FOREST

Michel Onfray calls for "a philosophy rooted in action rather than closed rooms, in everyday life rather than the lecture hall or the university library, a form of philosophy capable of giving new to a discipline that would henceforth break out of the ghetto to which the defenders of theoretical purity would have it confined." ¹.

Echoing Michel Onfray, I have long advocated a new status for the artist, one that calls him to a specific form of praxis engaged in the realities of our time. A modus operandi that enables him to carry out, in his own way, the ideal of philosophy in action--in other words, a call to become an agent of change and an inventor of new aesthetic and ethical forms of reality. ² The sociological art movement that we launched in 1974 with the creation of the Sociological Art Collective, as well as the International Group for the Aesthetics of Communication, co-founded with Mario Costa, corresponded to these criteria.

Other participants in this colloquium will not fail to address the pressing issue in our age of the implications of technological developments hold for the future of aesthetics (the production of symbolic objects) and ethics (social morality). It is my intention to first take inventory of the current state of observations and critical analyses of the inner workings of the contemporary art system as pertains to aesthetics and ethics, then to outline the only course of action that I believe open to the artist of today, working in society such as we know it.

I am motivated by the fact that the system in question has prospered and generated enormous profits for over thirty years without offering us many examples of philosophers, art critics, or intellectuals in its midst who have tried to cast a critical light on the system and denounce its ethical lapses, aesthetic aridity, or the social alienation embodied by the vast majority of its production. If one takes a closer look at it, the figure of the artist appears little more than a public jester (Ben), a conceptual decorator (Buren ³, or a creature of the establishment, in service to and served by the system (Sophie Calle). It is as if one has already conceded, on the basis of art history, that the artist was forever confined to certain predefined roles without possibility to escape from this destiny. I am among those who believe, on the contrary, that our mutating society promises to offer artists the opportunity to acquire a more meaningful status that will allow them to assume real responsibilities and play a major role in this society.

This colloquium is timely because after decades of unrivaled hegemony, one has finally started to detect some cracks in the contemporary art system. We will not go into detail about the controversy surrounding contemporary art in France in the 90s, ⁴ which was, in reality, little more than a blip on the screen. The formalist defenders of orthodoxy who came together on that occasion, like Jean-Philippe Domecq, Jean Clair, Marc Fumaroli, now appear, rightly or wrongly, as nostalgic for outmoded forms of expression belonging to the past. In reality, in the blunt discourse of these critics, there is no mention of the ideological, social, and technological mutations that affect our society and, as a result, alter its collective imagination, its artistic and symbolic forms. Nor is there any allusion in their discourse to a significant shift from aesthetics to ethics, a shift that the art critic Pierre Restany was among the earliest to signal in his writings. ⁵

For so many reasons, I am convinced that this colloquium will make a mark. It will play the role of catalyst. It will be a historic occasion. By virtue of its chosen theme, it will help clear the way for a new critical stance regarding contemporary art, which has been dominant for many years, but whose modes of operation now show certain signs of obsolescence.

The artist who doesn't enjoy the support of the market or cultural institutions can now make use of the new forms of expression that the information revolution has made possible. If he masters these new forms, he has certain advantages over the economic and political powers that be: rapid execution, a pragmatic sense of imagination, a strategic approach to creativity, complete freedom of initiative, without obligation to defer to some hierarchy or system before going into action.

In a striking new development, the first signs of cracks in the contemporary art system are now starting to become visible. It's not so much a matter of aesthetic breaches like as those made by the avant-garde throughout the last century, each new movement pushing aside those that preceded it with aesthetic propositions always presented as newer and more innovative. It's more like a nagging sense of doubt that has taken hold, swelled, and spread. Second thoughts left in the wake of the triumphal arrogance of contemporary art, which, like an irresistible tidal wave, has inundated our museums and minds several decades running. The marketing machine of art has our art schools marching to its beat and has successfully placed several generations of art students under its influence. Succumbing to the temptation of financial windfall, art journals have succeeded in getting their readers jump on the band wagon by giving currency to the idea that anyone who didn't like contemporary art was simply an imbecile, if not a reactionary stooge. In this context, aesthetics have been relegated to a minor role and ethical considerations have been completely erased. Commodification and instrumentalization have ended up leveling the aesthetic dimension and, even more so, the ethical purpose of art. The marketplace, the economy, high finance, speculation, and marketing have not only become the driving force of so-called contemporary art but also, far worse, its sole creative outlet. In a world in rapid mutation and never-ending crisis, (true) artists cannot afford to remain confined to a ghetto, where aesthetic issues have become a joke, and ethical considerations are practically absent.

Contemporary art: an elitist universe, closed off from the rest of the world. Locked tight. A universe that now operates solely according the laws of commerce. A universe centered on prefabricated commercial values assigned and manipulated by the most influential players in the marketplace. Men and women in the know, who profit from at every level of the power structure that governs the system--from the lowly artist-producers at the bottom to the very summit of glory, where the ultimate value of the work is determined as a function of the price it has fetched at Christie's. These players are so powerful in France that they are in a position to put on their payroll, according to their whim, ex-Ministers of culture and ex-Presidents of the Centre Pompidou, or, if it's low-level handymen that they need, former officials from the government-run cultural centers or Regional Funds for Contemporary Art (Fracs). Players whose sheer financial power determines the aesthetic worth of works of art and who benefit from their connections in the state cultural bureaucracy and the administration of public museum, who only strengthen their already formidable aesthetic and economic power.

It is this world without transparence that contemporary artists must navigate by sight, at the mercy of their handlers. What else can these unfortunate souls do, these men and women who are both victims and mercenaries of contemporary art, often in spite of themselves, as they claim? The answer is really quite simple, as I myself have publicly declared on numerous occasions, most notably in the context of the colloquium on The State and Contemporary Art, ⁶ before an illustrious assembly that included now less then ten high-ranking government officials: the artists must seize power!

The entire system of contemporary art is based on, revolves around, and is structured solely in terms of a business ideology. Once this basic fact is made known (or recognized for what it is), it then becomes a question of neutralizing it by developing creative strategies relying on the resources made available by digital technologies, information networks, techniques for the dissemination of disinformation, and even hacking.

One observation to be made is that nearly every field of human activity is now dominated by an economic logic that has transformed the lives of individuals, turning them into what one might call citizen-consumers. However, in direct response to this tendency, one has observed over the past fifteen or so years (since the advent of the Internet), any number of cultural communities instigating movements designed to free them from the stranglehold of the marketplace. Open source software emerged in the middle of the 1990s. Finally, numerous artists’ groups have developed forums for thinking about “generic infrastructures,” open access to public services online, and new approaches to development, or collaborative “de-development,” offering alternatives to unfettered capitalism.

Why shouldn't artists be the creators, collaborators, and defenders of these new instruments of widely shared collective power? After all, artistic practice is both the last rampart and the first indicator of the health and wellbeing of democracy and of a certain level of existential authenticity. In a society such as ours, where every one of our movements is under observation, analyzed, and scrutinized in the minutest details, the artistic act still stands as a highly symbolic exercise in liberty.

The power of artists, which derives from aesthetics and ethics, could be limitless if only artists became aware of it. It's at arm's reach. They only need to bend down to take it and make it their own. The will is the way! They just don't always realize it. Tomorrow, already, they will because in a world in crisis, they are the only ones who are capable of restore MEANING where there is no longer any, and give back to the word POWER the full force of its positive connotations in order to change the world. This is the new revolution in art that is to be brought about in this beginning of the 21st century, one that I ardently yearn for and call my own: the realistic utopia.

Notes

1 - Le Monde, 11 July 2008, p.8.
2 - Art sociologique vidéo, Fred Forest, UGE 10/18, Paris 1977.
3 - Buren’s position is all the more astounding given the fact that he is perfectly at ease making the following pronouncement without a shadow of self-doubt: “The official artist certainly did exist at one point in history, but no longer exists. I cannot honestly single out a single living artist in France today to whom one could stick this label. When one talks of the official artist, one is really referring to an artist who represents power, whatever form it may take.” For an artist well known for his intellectual rigor, we are, needless to say, obliged to take this remark as an example of cynicism rather than ignorance. We find no fault with Buren on the aesthetic level, as is commonly the case, but rather on the ethical level, for equivocation and a refusal to assume responsibility for what one is. (Le Monde, «Il n’y a plus d’artistes officiels », interview with Harry Bellet, Friday, 25 July 2008.)
4 - La crise de l'art contemporain, Esprit, February 1992 (N°2).
5 - « La révolution de la vérité : vers un nouveau critère fondamental du goût, » public seminar organized by Fred Forest, MAMAC Nice, Friday, 19 May 1999.
6 - “L’Etat et l’art contemporain,” Théâtre du Rond Point, Paris 29 November 2007 (See Art Absolument, no. 22, September 2007 and Artension, no. 4, “La critique dissidente,” May-June 2007.