I'm in the final editing of the volume 2, of my series, titled "Modernity" ... and can't resist sharing this short passage about the different functions visual arts have assumed under the different models of society that succeeded each other along the path of societal evolution.
Bear in mind that the volume 4 of this series will focus exclusively on the arts so my touching on this subject in the volume "Modernity" is necessarily sketchy...
Visual signs served so radically different missions, from one model of society to the next, that it becomes necessary to separate these missions under different appellations :
We would definitely be best served to use three different appellations to designate such different practices. At the least this would help the public better appreciate what art is all about which would unmistakably cut short the many delusions that circulate in our present Late-Modernity...
I find the approach of the self, through the analytical lens of the arts, to be most enlightening. It sheds light on the differences, between — forcing the self through propaganda — and feasting the communion of the members of the group through art.
-
For some 100,000 years, or more, visual signs were at the service of sharing the animist worldview of the tribal (wo)men of knowledge with her fellow tribesmen in order to ease trust among them which thus eased the reproduction of their group. The best formulation for this kind of practice, it seems to me, is “animist art eased the “communion” of all members of the group”.
Under the territorial realm of the Chinese civilization this formulation should be adapted as follows : “animist+ art is an exercise at rendering the Dao with perfection to better ease the “communion” of all members of the group”. - During the first stage of power societies, and for some 4,000 years, visual signs were forcing the religious propaganda in the minds of the citizens, in order to ensure the preservation of the privileges of the men of power. The best formulation for this kind of practice, it seems to me, is “Christian art produced “propaganda” to force a common belief in the minds of all members of the group”. In China the (wo)men of Knowledge acted as men of power which explains why they focused on perfection in the rendition of the Dao.
- And finally during Western Modernity art satisfies “the reason that is at work in the transformation of money into capital”, by metamorphosing in ‘luxury trophies’ that serve the financial speculation of their owners who want to make-believe that they have power. The best formulation for this kind of practice, it seems to me, is “Art in Modernity is a “manipulation” of the minds to make believe in the spectacle of power”.
We would definitely be best served to use three different appellations to designate such different practices. At the least this would help the public better appreciate what art is all about which would unmistakably cut short the many delusions that circulate in our present Late-Modernity...
I find the approach of the self, through the analytical lens of the arts, to be most enlightening. It sheds light on the differences, between — forcing the self through propaganda — and feasting the communion of the members of the group through art.
These differences help us draw a clear separation line between — the propaganda of Early-Power-Societies and Western Modernity on one side — and on the other side the communion of tribal animism that Chinese Xieyi painting later expanded to a challenge at rendering the visual accuracy
of the flow
of transformations throughout time.
No comments:
Post a Comment