(1) to da služi Svetu; niti (2) da svet (u Celini) preobrazi ili poništi; kao, naj zad, ni to da (3) u stvarnosti kakva god da jeste, umetnost sebe narcisoidno posmatra u sopstvenom (= apstraktnom) Svetu, bez ikakvog dodira sa velikim Svetom života. Sve u svemu, savremena umetnost više ne veruje u te tri mogućnosti. Ona sada traži za sebe mesto (topos) negde drugde, u nekoj drugoj ravni, tako da se može reći da je svet umetnosti, u stvari, radikalno izvan Sveta, da je postao ne-Svet. Ili: bez-Svet. U stvari, savremena umetnost na neki način radikalizuje staru Kantovu ideju o svrhovitost bez svrhe. Ona produbljuje svoje biti-bezsvrhe u Svetu, kako tuđem tako i svom. Sve to, najzad, znači da je status umetnosti izgubio uporište u datom i obećanom Identitetu, odnosno da je postao radikalno utopijski-nemoguć. Ali time je, ujedno, umetnost posta la odgovorna za svoje stanje nemogućeg. Ona je, pre svega, briga za sopstveni status kao status nemogućeg u svetu kakav jeste. Ubuduće, njena odgovornost je odgovornost pred nemogućim, pred vlastitom fikcional nom, nestvarnom sudbinom.
(1) to serve the World; or (2) to transform or annihilate the world (as a Whole); or finally (3) to see itself, narcissistically, in the reality, whatever that may be, in its own (=abstract) World, with no touch whatsoever with the great World of life. All in all, the contemporary art no longer believes in any of those three options. It now searches for a place (topos) for itself somewhere else, in some other plain, so that we can say that the world of art is, in fact, radically outside the World, that it became non-World. Or: Worldless. Actually, the contemporary art in a way radicalizes the old Kant’s idea of the purposefulness without a purpose. It deepens its being-without-a-purpose in the World, both others’ World and its own. All of this, finally, means that the status of the art has lost its stronghold in the given and promised Identity, that is, that it became radically utopist-impossible. But thereby, at the same time, the art became responsible for its state of impossible-ness. It is, foremost, the concern for its own status as the status of the impossible in the world as it is. In the future, its responsibility is the responsibility before the impossible, before its own fictional, unreal destiny.
15