Apie mimikrinę estetiką

LTStraipsnyje mimikrinės estetikos terminas pasitelkiamas atsakant į klausimą, kokie bendriausi požymiai priskirtini nūdienos vizualiesiems menams, reikšmingai pertvarkiusiems po vėlyvojo modernizmo paveldėtą Vakarų dailės kontekstą. Šiuo terminu bandoma aprėpti menines pastangas, kurioms nebūdingas joks bendras vardiklis išskyrus tam tikrą ekspansyvumą siekiant įreikminti iki tol nejmenintus kontekstus ir priemones. Atsakant a) apibūdinami bendriausi požymiai, skiriantys nūdienos vizualinius menus nuo modernistinių praktikų: tam pasitelkiama auros sąvoka, pabrėžianti pastarųjų savitumą ir to savitumo netektį vizualiųjų menų kontekstuose po modernizmo; b) ryškinami nauji santykiai su aktualiu išbujojusios vizualybės kontekstu, skolinančiu menui naują auros tipą. Sis tipas - tarsi dovana su antru dugnu. Viena vertus, meninei pastangai ji suteikia naują patrauklumo ir įtaigumo kokybę, padeda užmegzti naujus santykius su vizualybės magijos išlepintu suvokėju. Kita vertus, ji reikšmingai sumažina meninės pastangos savitumo požymius, nes uždengia juos nemeninėmis priemonėmis ir įterpia į nemeninius kontekstus. Būtent tokį, besiskolinantį, nusavinantį. įsiterpiantį judesį siūloma vadinti mimikrija, nes tai savitų, tik jai būdingų priemonių atsisakiusi meninė pastanga, „išoriškai" beveik neskiriama nuo kitų veiklų/profesijų vizualinės produkcijos. Raktažodžiai: mimikrinė estetika, šiuolaikiniai menai, plėtra į nemeninius kontekstus, išbujojusi vizualybė, meno aura. [Iš leidinio]

ENIn this article, the term ‘mimicry aesthetics’ is used to answer the question of what are the most common characteristics of the visual arts today, which have changed the traditionally perceived context of art. The term attempts to encompass artistic endeavours that have no common denominator, apart from a certain expansiveness in order to instil hitherto unimplemented contexts and tools. The answer (a) describes the features that distinguish today’s visual arts from modernist practices; and (b) highlights the new relationship with the current context of proliferating visuality. The response of mimicry aesthetics to the exclusivity of contemporary visual arts is paradoxical because it questions that exclusivity, or at least demands a rethinking of its foundational assumptions. The latter is characterised by the avoidance of, or perhaps the inability to identify with, a well-defined, autonomous identity, with its inherent firm knowledge of how it differs from other non-artistic human activities. Such art upholds the ideal of a tactile and shifting identity, which implies a sometimes enthusiastic, sometimes feverish search for new ideological assumptions and, above all, new means of conquering non-artistic contexts. It is this borrowing, appropriating, intrusive movement that is proposed to be called mimicry, because it is an artistic endeavour that has abandoned the specific, inherent means, and is almost indistinguishable externally from the visual production of other activities/ professions. The term of mimicry aesthetics denotes a new situation of artistic effort after the loss of the fundamental support – the aesthetic superiority of the non-artistic or semi-artistic visual production.What should be the grounds for distinctiveness if the production in question is clearly more robust, faster to regenerate and much easier to access? The mimicry of artistic endeavour in such a context is a response to the power of the visual that has conquered it, an attempt to appropriate elements of that power, essentially acknowledging the inadequacy of traditional artistic languages and the necessity to overcome that inadequacy by opening up to previously ignored technologies of visual impact. Contemporary mimicry aesthetics is characterised by an almost omnivorous logic based on the principle: not everything is art, but everything can become a means to serve art. If we accept this statement, one fundamental question remains: why does such art still remain art, that is, how does it manage to preserve that minimum of autonomous identity that prevents it from finally dissolving into the vastness of the non-art territories that are constantly being “attached” to art? In such a context, the rules that characterise the mimicry effort are not a priori givens, not a precondition to be relied on for creation or interpretation, but a task to be tackled again and again by reinventing the rules that work in the here and now. Keywords: mimicry aesthetics, contemporary arts, expansion into non-art contexts, proliferating visuality, artistic aura. [From the publication]