January 2010
The myth of the avant-garde, based on inventiveness, cannot be sustained for long solely on questioning, no matter how aggressive it may be.
André Malraux
Our era lives within the cult of the new, the novel, the fresh. Originality has taken the place of substance. The present tends to obliterate the past.
This tendency has found fertile ground among artists, offering them convenient freedom, perhaps licentiousness, and certainly arbitrariness. Since the new has value, there is no need to engage with the past. Rejecting the past is an innovation in itself, while it protects against the temptation of comparison with it. Since the new artist invents their path from scratch, it's not possible to judge them based on the values of their predecessors. Consequently, each new artist paves their own way and simultaneously sets new criteria for their art. It's characteristic that theorists and teachers of our time carefully avoid venturing into the paths of criticism, as their criteria are likely to be contested.
Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine art without criteria, as the admiration and emotion a work of art may evoke are primarily due to its comparison with others. The art as we perceive it today was born when some people in a limited area of Italy six centuries ago suddenly realized that ancient sculptors had reached an astonishing point of perfection and power. Since comparison generates admiration, knowledge of what preceded is required.
But beyond that, it's difficult and rather arbitrary to establish criteria for art by sidelining previous artworks. The works that preceded are ultimately our safest criteria. Even their overturning presupposes their recognition. The greatest heresies have their roots in the faith they questioned.
But even if the artist's goal is to create against the art of the past, knowledge and respect for the past are essential prerequisites for the success of the endeavor, mainly because every attack presupposes knowledge and respect for the "enemy." Besides, the effective dethronement of the past can only be achieved through another, new, work of art and not through theoretical formulation, as is often observed nowadays. The new work is the one that might "stick to the wall" the old one, not the theoretical support accompanying it. This, however, presupposes a deep appreciation of the past.
Moreover, it's characteristic that in art, the truth that is dethroned and the one attempting to replace it will always coexist. Unlike in science, where the new often eradicates the old, in art, both can exist simultaneously. Once the earth became round, it can no longer be flat. However, in art, it could be.
Therefore, knowledge and respect for the past of art are the most necessary prerequisites for innovation, as something is new only in comparison to the old, and questioning the past can and should be a fertile motive for creation, not just rejection.
Plato Rivellis