ADKO

zeit

12 min read

Here’s a summary of the text with the requested annotations:

This text is an excerpt from a book Zeitgeber the author was working on in the 1990s. The author describes it as a personal manifesto, originally written for his own consumption, that was unpublishable at the time but formative for his later “crusade” and self-created platform. He re-examines passages from this book, believing them to be still timely, perhaps even more so. He notes his earlier writing style was denser and more scholarly, reflecting his proximity to his academic sources and his intention to polish the work for himself, unlike his current practice of publishing first drafts for efficiency and to appeal to modern audiences who prefer directness.

The book, titled Zeitgeber (Time Giver), focuses on resetting the art-historical clock and being an artist in the 21st Century. The author defines a Zeitgeber as an environmental stimulus that resets a biological clock. He uses the metaphor of a twentieth century flight, moving against the earth’s rotation, blinding artists with the sun and causing aesthetic jet-lag. He argues for the need for an artistic Zeitgeber.

The author defines an artist as both a master of craft and a sharer of strong emotions, requiring talent, patience, skill, and the ability to express emotions through their chosen medium. He emphasizes that artistic development involves comprehending and expressing emotions, enhanced by broad knowledge—intellectual, aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual. He contrasts his holistic approach with the disembodied pursuit of technical secrets, quoting Thoreau on the importance of a work fitting the individual. He warns against hiding in art and stresses the need for courage alongside talent and depth. He believes true education empowers individuals to act on what they already know. He argues that art technique is largely intuitive, like a baby learning to talk, and that encouragement comes from witnessing others’ achievements and trusting one’s own eye.

He criticizes contemporary art institutions for stifling high ideals and destroying potential artists. He likens contemporary art to Lewis Carroll’s branches of Arithmetic: Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. He states that the avant garde dismisses excellence as a bourgeois conspiracy and that respect for tradition has become an end in itself, lacking art-historical resonance. He describes art as bipolar, divided between Moderns and Realists, neither capable of generating “real art.” He argues that the avant garde’s pursuit of Pure Expression has led to the superfluity of the visual image and a loss of meaningful visual communication, comparing it to expressing music without an instrument or visual art without conventions. He contrasts this with masters like Leonardo, Rodin, and Van Gogh who did not rely on external explanations.

He categorizes current formalist painting in the vein of Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Jasper Johns, and Cy Twombly as Modern but not cutting-edge, and lumps it with contemporary Realism due to their shared abstraction and focus on brushstroke and color over content. He argues that both Realists and Formalists mistake paint for the painting itself, failing to grasp that creation is synthesis, not analysis. He criticizes art as reducing, dissecting, or substituting, rather than synthesizing. He points to Nietzsche and Camus on the tendency to invent principles when lacking capacity or character.

The author discusses the challenges artists face in a world where the past seems inaccessible. He highlights the market’s influence on art, turning it into a business driven by decoration rather than intrinsic value. He advocates for tightening definitions, particularly of “Art,” which has become overly broad since the Impressionists. He asserts that artists should be independent and self-expressive, ideally visionary or at least sincere, moving away from art for decoration, financial gain, or to illustrate beliefs. He notes the Modern movement’s roots in reacting against political influences, a stark contrast to the contemporary artist’s overwhelm by political obligations. He criticizes artists for pandering to critics, academics, and curators, equating it to pandering to the market, as both involve selling creative autonomy.

He traces the co-option of art’s influence by clergy and aristocracy in Europe and later by politicized factions. He uses Denis Diderot, an encyclopedist and art critic, as an example of someone who pressed his own agenda, judging art on morals and politics rather than artistic merit, critiquing Boucher’s nudes for their perceived immorality. He argues that Diderot’s method, by suggesting educated non-artists could judge art better than artists, has endured, leading to the expectation that artists should meet the demands of non-artists, be it the common man, businessman, media man, or scholar. He contrasts the courage of Michelangelo and Leonardo in standing up to powerful figures with the contemporary artist’s inability to stand up to gallery owners or editors, leading to art becoming a “wholly monetized art.”

He connects French Revolution ideals of liberté and égalité to the artist’s plight, suggesting that such ideals often lead to the imitation of ruling-class instincts. He notes that Alexandre Kojève and other social critics on the Left consider the loss of great art a necessary cost of egalité, forcing a redefinition of art in hyper-egalitarian terms. He criticizes Clement Greenberg’s attempt to overcome art’s social failure with his own elitism, arguing that the new art is neither an aesthetic nor a social success. He references Nietzsche’s concept of the “last man” and criticizes the modern tendency to build a future that is too small and wasteful.

He states he is not advocating for the political Right, as they are primarily concerned with laissez-faire capitalism and have no coherent position on art. He views the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) as a matter of economics for the Right, not art. He quotes Thoreau on how trade curses everything. He argues that neither the Right nor the Left have noticed civilization dissipating due to a lack of leadership and inspiration, leaving individuals adrift in a sea of freedom and irresponsibility, living off borrowed enrichment. He states that art history is a finite resource being depleted.

He posits that an inartistic milieu discourages art not just due to lack of funding but due to a complete philosophic and social reversal over the last century, unrelated to democracy, Christianity, or science. He argues that while the French Revolution was positive for liberté and égalité, it did not positively democratize art. He asserts that art is incompatible with the politics of any group or authority outside the artist’s mind, and that to democratize art is to maximize its opportunities and leave it alone. He criticizes modern democratic practice for mandating equality of achievement, leading to “creativeness” being judged by quantity rather than quality, which he sees as a symptom of modern skills and a threat to self-definition. He notes that Periclean Athens and Christianity did not equate equality with the denial of quality or distinction.

He distinguishes between Jesus’ recognition of an elite based on spiritual quality, which affirmed individuality and was democratic, and elitism as political privilege. He argues that democracy, with its potential for equal opportunity, is closer to a meritocracy than old forms of rule. He contends that art, like science, business, and education, is inherently elitist in the sense of recognizing excellence and should not be expected to be equally accessed and equally timed. He criticizes the NEA for charging American arts with being elitist when great art is by definition exceptional and created by an artistic elite.

He describes modern democratic states as anti-elitist in both senses, selfish, lacking spiritual goals, and adrift. He criticizes the selective use of Christianity for comfort rather than moral demands, and the downplaying of individual responsibility in democracy, leading to a demand for rights without obligation. He argues that a realized meritocracy is hindered by a distaste for true merit and the glorification of small deeds. He also criticizes science for its de-spiritualizing of the world and its inability to answer “why” questions, focusing solely on “how.” He argues that Science’s denial of a purposeful universe is as unprovable as religion’s assertion of one.

He acknowledges that his broad concerns are considered unmodern but cites Van Gogh’s perspective on the need for a solidly framed society for artists, contrasting it with the current laissez-aller and anarchy. He suggests that artists need a groundwork and that reconsidering certain topics is necessary for the rejuvenation of the artistic psyche. He criticizes the current educational system, or “noncurriculum,” for leading to chaos and argues against specialization, which has led to “smaller artists.” He posits that the artistic temperament is often that of a generalist, and an artist’s key skill is making connections. He believes that artists need broad curiosity and that his own wide-ranging approach can serve as an example for aspiring artists.

He discusses the predisposition of artists for grand, world-saving schemes, not as an excuse for his own intemperance, but because he believes society desperately needs such grand schemes due to the failure of old ones. He advocates for risk-taking in grand gestures and big pictures, urging people to refrain from scoffing at those with large intentions. He contrasts the risk of deconstruction (Nietzsche, Freud, Existentialists, positivists) with the greater risk of rebuilding. He notes that in literature, careers like Salinger’s signal a decline in serious engagement with religion. He argues that all arts must make room for the grandiose, even at the risk of pedantry, citing Thoreau and Nietzsche as examples.

He concludes that Democracy, science, and Christianity are not to blame for the current situation, but rather the way their heritages have been translated. He identifies politics, defined as expediency, as the problem. He rejects the idea that “everything is political” as an immutable or desirable state, attributing it to individual choice. He criticizes the underestimation of collective power in democracy, where rights are asserted over responsibilities. He argues that if individuals reorder their lives based on principle, government will be principled. He critiques the passive approach to self-governance, likening it to letting life live us as long as basic needs are met, and stresses that principles must be supplied to the government. He calls silence the greatest mistake and asserts that institutions are not too democratic, but not democratic enough, advocating for equal opportunity over regulated mediocrity. He reiterates that equality unfairly discriminates against excellence and destroys art.

He argues that Nietzsche’s complaint against modern cultures was the suppression of excellence, with institutions maximizing constituency and protecting longevity by fostering resentment. He sees economic and political power as lures for the talented, but ultimately hollow. He quotes Thoreau on striving to be a “worthy of the world” rather than an overseer of the poor.

List of Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View