in simple way: why bioart is still art
I would not like to write about bioart in general. It is question about value in art and what is art. Who was first calling urinal an artwork was genius but each next is follower. Thus in art the first form have value and the next one are like the “likes” on facebook. Who will find uncounted number of followers of the ancient art or baroque art. So it is why traditional art is so boring – there are only details, eternal order, laws of the nature, belief in truth and small shade of human mind in the technique. Recent art is constantly using redefinition and subversive using the traditional art to show the connections through negation. Recent artist hates old art, they are playing with all dead tradition like chess on self prepared board in rainbow colours. There is no true point of view. Any possible is the same true, like no one else.
I had described the schema to validate art as genuine and valuable. Value of art equals the structural innovation divided by self expression. And it is the “true” because subjectively communicative and simple theory of art shared by unnumbered art lover (or art haters) in recent time.
So lets Go back to our question. Why recent art is still art? Because it is innovative and proved by subjective pleasure of art piece users experiences. We are looking for new experiences and innovative ideologies, and in the same time we are expressing our inner distrust for our feelings so much worshiped in the past. So what kind of pleasure can prove the value of the recent art? Innovation can be anything. Structural innovation is the innovation in ready taken area where art is playing role against science. Not with science but against. Science have to make research and find the truth, subjective truth about conceptualised matter in relation to viewer and all other influences. So it is truth about moment. This moment can be eternal if the influence of the context will keep the same affect on researched matter. Artist is somebody who can play with that context and ask about situations where the rules are changing. First of all artist will use allegory to name the space in his language, then he will break the rule or set the spectator in the position of somebody who have to play and loose. The winner will be matter then, but only artistic gesture can break the rule and set free user. Or artist will transform all the relation into interactive artpiece where user will affect the shape.
Image was just hand painted image and artist was part of the apparatus then. Now the apparatus is just part of the technology – science – truth spectacle. Artist is using the tools so it is acting. First artist who was using perspective was genius, first Duchamp was… Duchamp and we still are looking at the same: the image. Image of imaginary object in conceptual art, visualised object in Fake Art, or objective object in the art objects that is filled up with stories till it blast. ancient art was appreciating the images of objective Truth – in spiritual or sensitive sence – subjectivity was slave for the objectivity and tools of artists was tricky links between shapes, or symbols of the sensual reality and human emotions. Subjectively art was serving for the truth and artwork had to be validated by “thruthers”. Authority handled stick of the power like remote controller for art spectacle. From the early avant-garde we are interesting only in particular and subjective truths so we are looking for the structures of knowledge as objective truth. Art needs to have a God to serve and fight with them. Definition of God is the power of the truth that you will obey and worship, and definition of artist is the trickster that will serve and subjectively destroy the upcoming kingdom – in the name of pure pleasure of the play.
Just to say simply…