Художній метамодернізм: від експансії мертвого – до дихання живого

Abstract

У статті обґрунтовано перспективи метамодерністичного мистецтва як антиномічного співбуття в єдиному творчому процесі інтуїтивного чуття Краси і енергійного поривання Розуму, індивідуального духу свободи і колективної логіки. На прикладі епістемологічного аналізу жанрових різновидів відповідної артпрактики (живопису Адама Міллера, Мітча Гріффіта, Кея Доначі, колажів Девіда Торпа, інсталяцій Баса Яна Адера, фільмів Мішеля Гондрі, Уеса Андерсена, Спайка Джонса, постінтернет-музики у жанрі мікстейл і ґерідж) концептуально узагальнено антропологічну та естетичну парадигми метамодернізму і стратегій (метарефлексивності, перформатизму, осциляції, конструктивного пастішу; нормкору, антропоморфізації; меtа-сute) формування належної компетентності його адресанта.

В статье обосновано перспективы метамодернистичного искусства как антиномичного сосуществования в едином творческом процессе интуитивного чувства Красоты и энергичного стремления Разума, индивидуального духа свободы и коллективной логики. На примере эпистемологического анализа жанровых разновидностей соответствующей артпрактики (живописи Адама Миллера, Митча Гриффита, Кея Доначи, коллажей Дэвида Торпа, инсталляций Баса Яна Адера, фильмов Мишеля Гондри, Уэса Андерсена, Спайка Джонса, постинтернет-музыки в жанре микстейл и ґеридж) осуществлено концептуальное обобщение антропологической и эстетической парадигмы метамодернизма и стратегий (метарефлексивности, перформатизма, осцилляции, конструктивного пастиша; нормкора, антропоморфизации; меtа-сute) формирования надлежащей компетентности его адресанта.

Metamodernism is a term that has gained traction in recent years as a means of articulating developments in contemporary culture, which, it is argued (and our generation appears to intuitively recognise) has seen a move beyond the postmodern mode of the late 20th century. In the wake of the myriad crises of the past two decades – of climate change, financial meltdown, and the escalation of global conflicts – we have witnessed the emergence of a palpable collective desire for change, for something beyond the prematurely proclaimed end of history. The metamodern generation understands that we can be both ironic and sincere in the same moment; that one does not necessarily diminish the other. Thus, metamodernism itself is intended as a philosophy or an art movement, since it define or delineate a closed system of thought, or dictate any particular set of aesthetic values or methodologies. It is a manifesto of today’s dominant cultural mode. However, мetamodernism does not, then, propose any kind of utopian vision, although it does describe the climate in which a yearning for utopias, despite their futile nature, has come to the fore. The metamodernism discourse is thus descriptive rather than prescriptive; an inclusive means of articulating the ongoing developments associated with a structure of feeling for which the vocabulary of postmodern critique is no longer sufficient, but whose future paths have yet to be constructed. With the recent ebb of typically postmodern sensibilities and the rise of a new generation – one reacting not only against a discredited notion of transcendence but also against the unfulfilling shallowness and existential disorientation caused by postmodern surface – we enter a new period: a metamodern period, whose structure of feeling is characterized by a sort of “oscillation” between these poles. Proposed by cultural theorist Timotheus Vermeulen and philosopher Robin van den Akker as the new “dominant cultural logic of modernity”, metamodernism evokes a continuous oscillation between (i.e. meta-) seemingly modern strategies and ostensibly postmodern tactics, as well as a series of practices and sensibilities ultimately beyond (i.e. meta-) these worn out art-categories. Indeed, out of this crucible it seems an entirely new kind of depth model has been forged. For some of this generation are daring to imagine transcendence again. There is a revival of the mythic; sublimity, narrative, depth, meaning, and reorientation are once again being sought out and can be seen within metamodern artforms. And yet, precisely because one knows this transcendence cannot be unequivocally asserted (indeed, quite the contrary), its entertainment as an idea is of an essentially different sort than (pre)modern naiveté. It is indeed an “informed naiveté” a sense of transcendence arising out of and ultimately held in check by the acknowledged immanent frame. The show’s curators refer to the notion of sleight of hand in their exhibition notes, comparing art with the field of magic and trickery. Art’s “magical” operations necessarily exploit the constraints of the systems in which they operate, perhaps requiring a degree of suspension of disbelief in order to be fully realised. Here, the perceptive metamodern spectator can be seen to acknowledge the smoke and mirrors, whilst continuing to hope for the emergence of something greater than the sum of its parts: the promise that reason might be usurped by affect.