âRecently we have seen a growing interest in realism, which for a long time seemed historically passĂ©.â
âOne often understands ârealismâ to mean the production of mimetic images of âreality.ââ
âHowever, the question remains: How do we initially meet reality? How do we discover reality in order to become able to make an image of it?â
ârealism usually involves the reproduction of an average, ordinary, profane view of the world. However, this profane vision of the world is not especially exciting. The desire to depict and reproduce this profane image of the world cannot be explained by its alleged âbeauty,â which it obviously does not haveâ
âWe initially discover reality not as a simple sum of âfacts.â Rather, we discover reality as a sum of necessities and constraints that do not allow us to do what we would like to do or to live as we would like to live.â
âReality is what divides our vision of the imaginary future into two parts: a realizable project, and âpure fantasyâ that never can be realizedâ
âthe object depicted by realist literature and art was not reality itselfâas described by the natural sciencesâbut the human psyche suffering from the shock of a failed reality test.â
âNineteenth-century realism was, in actuality, psychologism. Reality was understood not as a place of âobjectiveâ scientific investigation but as a force of oppression that endangered or even crushed the hero.â
âModern and contemporary art are, by contrast, products of the long history of depsychologization that many criticsâfor example, Ortega y Gassetâexperienced as a history of dehumanization.â
âthey understood art as a specific kind of technology that was able to change the world by technical means. In fact, the avant-garde tried to turn art spectators into inhabitants of the artworkâso that by accommodating themselves to the new conditions of their environment, these spectators would change their sensibilities and attitudesâ
âSpeaking in Marxist terms: art can thus be seen as either part of the superstructure, or part of the material base. In other words, art can be understood as either ideology or technology.â
âThe radical artistic avant-gardes pursued the second, technological way of world transformation. This was pursued most radically by the avant-garde movements of the 1920s: Russian Constructivism, Bauhaus, De Stijl.â
âinternetâ
âArtworks by a particular artist can be found on the internet in the context of other information about the artistâ
âHere the artwork becomes ârealâ and profane because it is integrated with information about its author as a real, profane person. Art is presented on the internet as a specific kind of practical activity: as documentation of a real working process taking place in the real, offline worldâ
âit is a reality of which we are informedâ
âIt is this positivist facticity of contemporary art that produces a nostalgia for realismâ
âthis discontent, this conflict with reality, calls for a new description: the New Realismâ
âIndeed, the psyche cannot be accessed and scientifically investigated. However, this does not mean that the assumption that there is a psycheâi.e., that there is an internal discontent with the reality that cannot be diagnosed externallyâcan be rejected as purely fictional.â
âThis becomes clear when one goes back to Hegelâs description, in The Phenomenology of the Spirit, of the moment when self-consciousnessâand the assumption of the self-consciousness of the Otherâinitially emerges. In this moment we experience the other as a dangerâeven as a mortal danger.â
âThe entirety of psychological literature is basically crime literature. It treats human beings as especially dangerous animalsâdangerous precisely because they are âpsychologicalâ animals.â
âIt is very telling that contemporary post-Deleuzian, neo-Dionysian, accelerationist, and ârealistâ admirers of technological progress explain their admiration in exclusively psychological terms: as the ecstasy of a self-annihilation that produces extreme intensities in their psyche.â
âRealism describes reality not âas it isâ but as it is psychologically experienced by artists. That is why Marx, and LukĂĄcs after him, liked Balzac and other French authors of the realist school so much.â
âWhereas science described social, economic, and political reality as a âsystem,â these writers described it âpsychologicallyâ as the place of antagonistic conflicts and despair. In this sense they thematized the revolutionary potential of the psychological discontent produced by capitalist societyâa discontent that was covered up by âobjectiveâ statistical data and that had not yet broken through the surface of everyday life.â
âFiction becomes reality when it enters realityâwhen the psychological conflicts described by art lead to revolutionary action. Before this revolutionary moment, ârealist fictionâ remains a fiction.â
âwriters and artists, if they want to be realist, have to learn to live with the suspicion that their descriptions of the human psyche are pure fictionâuntil history confirms the realism of their work.â
Navigation
Backlinks
There are no backlinks to this post.