An In-concluded Modernity Project (III)

 “Hegel sees the modern age as marked universally by a structure of self-relation that he calls subjectivity ‘The principle of the modern world is freedom of subjectivity’… the term ‘subjectivity’ carries primarily four connotations: a) Individualism; b) the right to criticism; c) Autonomy of action; d) finally, idealistic philosophy itself: Hegel considers it the work of modern times that philosophy grasps the self-conscious (or self-knowing) idea.” (Habermas 17).

 “…Friedrich Schlegel mirrors the self-experience of a decentered self ‘for which all bonds are broken, and which only will endure to live in the bliss of self-enjoyment’. Expressive self-realization becomes the principle of art appearing as a form of life… “I live as artist when all my actions and utterance … is for me only on the level of mere semblance and assumes a shape which is only in my power’. Reality attains the status of artistic expression only through the subjective refraction of the sensitivity soul, it is ‘a mere appearance due to the I’. The criteria of art becomes expression and exteriorization of subjectivity. Outwardness is replaced by inwardness, the referent is replaced by the sign and the symbol, by the mark of individual emotions, feelings or by comprenhension.

Aesthetic valuation of works of art becomes then the problem of originality and authenticity. A work of art is valid as long as express true sentiments and feelings and as long as those feelings, sentiments and thoughts are unique. Extraordinary experiences and revelations becomes the norm of modern art. The artist needs to open the doors of perception and access a realm not usually available and that is alien to ordinary people and their life experiences. Any kind of tool to access that realm is welcomed, all sort of intoxicating substances and excesses. The expressivist model becomes the norm not only for art but also for any other kind of practices,  technology is also understood as an extension of the personal capacities of the human being and his need for exteriorization.

Another thing is the problem of time consciousness which for the modern is embodied in the fleeting of the moment and the expectation of the future. The modern sacrifices the present and lives for the future. This idea reached its aberrant forms in the ideology of communism, where the totality of ideological constructions based on the dream of a better future gives shape to economic, social and cultural structures. But the idea of the future has been shattered by the same Marxist-Leninist regimes that put it into practice. By the predictions of politicians such as Nikita Khrushchev the future of communism should have been realized long time ago, since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. In the conditions of today the concern is not about construction of a better future but about survival. We don’t look at the future today as something we are trying to achieve but rather as something we are trying to avoid. The direction of our gazes and concerns is thus oriented toward the present. What can we do to avoid making things worse, that is all that is in our minds. The thought of a modernity project lay astray by the forces of political and cultural perversion takes the shape of the question of the possibility of a different kind of modernity, an authentic modernity that doesn’t carry the negative aspects of the old modernity. In the way we answer this question depends our future. We better say yes and do the right thing or we will not be able to tell the story. So for the new modern the idea of the future doesn’t exist in its old form of emancipation but in its new form of survival and hope. If there is any epochal new beginning is the beginning of hope of survival, not of progress.

The problem of the breaking of separation between disciplines and spheres of life gets entangled with the problem of survival since globalization makes up for a need for universal consensus. But universal consensus is not going to be achieved if regional religions and ideas about society, morality and culture gets on the way of universal harmony. It is impossible to achieve a reunification of different specialties not just at the level of the scientific, moral, juridical and aesthetic disciplines but also at the level of world religions and their understandings of the world. The power of religion as a unifying force in society becomes a global problem since the issue is not so much about religion being able to unify people –and art as a substitute for the power of unification  of religion—as different world religions and the impossibility –or possibility—to make them reach a common ground of understanding.

This common ground of understanding between different cultures and religions if it achievable would be so by the working of individual subjects struggling to overcome cultural differences and all kind of prejudices, racisms, sexisms and classisms. In this regard the new conditions of mass communication favor the subject trying to achieve understanding and harmony. The death of the subject belongs to a certain time in history and we are witnessing a rebirth of the subject at least in media and mass communications. Social media and the Internet opens up the possibility for active participation in public affairs since subjects becomes shapers of public opinions. The passive communication structure of sender—medium---receiver is replaced by a two-directional structure of sender-medium-receiver and back. The subject of media is not anymore the unidirectional passive consumer of filtered news and editorialized opinion. The subject of media today is an active shaper of policy making.

What will become of the artist with new-found tools of social media and the Internet if not an active shaper of public opinion? The new artist goes outside the restrictions of aesthetics and becomes a trespasser of frontiers and boundaries, somebody who migrates back and forth between the different disciplines any time deemed necessary in order to exert influence in society. The expressivist model based on the individuality of the artist achieves a universalizing attitude not restricted to the aesthetic realm. The artist takes on a responsible role in society and sheds away its self-gratifying old modern attitude.

 

*This idea come from Jurgen Habermas’ “Modernity – An Incomplete Project” from which my paper borrow its title. Habermas says that “the differentiation of science, morality and art has come to mean the autonomy of the segments treated by the specialist and the separation from the hermeneutics of everyday communication. This splitting off is the problem that has given rise to efforts to ‘negate’ the culture of expertise. But the problem won’t go away: should we try to hold on to the intentions of the Enlightenment, feeble as they maybe, or should we declare the entire project of modernity a lost cause” (Habermas 1127). It seems to me that the main problem with the separation of disciplines doesn’t come from the need to specialization due to ever-expanding wealth of knowledge, but from society’s judgment of professions and professionalism.

The profession or activity of the artist is commonly associated with activities revolving around the idea of personal realization. Personal realization for the modern comes at the cost of practicality and instrumental reason. The abandonment of any reason of utility is the price to pay in order to step outside the grid of social relations, institutions and the state and open up to the true nature of the individual. The artist is thus perceived as the epitome of un-productivity, irresponsibility and amorality. On the other hand the respectability and social status that comes with the professions of the doctor, the lawyer and the scientist are seen as incompatible with the connotations of irresponsibility carried out by the figure of the artist. Thus no doctor or lawyer would dare to confess to his clients that he has a compartment were he dedicates time to the practice of art and aesthetic investigations.

Thus, one condition to make separate disciplines come together would be to shed away the negative connotations of being an artist and the aspects associated with it. Problem is that some artists think that they do need psychedelic experiences and over-stimulation in order to do their work --no matter how much drug use and over-stimulation has been exhausted by the history of art. Mass media also share a part of responsibility by implanting into the social mind and the artistic mind the idea of the need for drugs and alcohol to make good art. It doesn’t matter that all the good art that has been made through drug and alcohol abuse has been made already. Drug and alcohol fueled art has usually been shortly produced with the result that anyone else but the artist gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Artists need to be more socially conscious and abandon the idea that a life of art means a life of social and personal irresponsibility. Then the lawyer and the doctor would not have to worry about the consequences of being caught up as closeted artists.