umetnosti suđeno da uvek nekako zaustavlja ono što je u pokretu, da mu stavlja granicu i okvir, da ga smešta na neko mesto, makar to bilo i mesto transcendentalne utopije? Svako uobličenje umetničkog nužno završava u ovoj logocentričkoj ideologiji koja uvek nalaže novu pobunu, mada ne raspolaže sredstvima da iz logocentrizma jednom za svagda iskorači... Iz tog kruga može da iskorači samo ona umetnost koja je spremna da preuzme odgovornost za svoj nemogući, utopijski status. Moderno kretanje je iscrpelo ideju artističkog fundamentalizma, kao i koincidencije s radikalnim istorij skim projektom. Svet je, doduše, i dalje metafora koju bi ljudi hteli da zaustave. Ali artisti su danas skloni da taj metaforički, prenosni, izmeštajući proces sveta na neki način upere protiv zaustavljanja. Ako u umetnosti još postoje nekakavi oblici, oni se ne javljaju u homo genoj ravni bilo kakvog dobro-usredištenog-jedinstva. U ravni Celog ili Sveta. Ostaje još samo to da umetnošću
26
the standpoint of that postmodernism that professed “loving” the commodity unconditionally, and not being afraid of mercantile fetishism, in fact, rather enjoying it. Of course, the rebellion against modernity has thus again ended in the glorification of mercantile Form and, finally, glorification of a culture in which the object position of various (historical) artifacts is equalized. All this imposes a question: can we escape the Form at all? Maybe every rebellion, sooner or later, creates its own formalism, that is, the steadiness of its own form unlike the changeable content? Maybe the art is destined to always somehow stop what is moving, to limit and frame it, to place it somewhere, even if that be a place of transcendental utopia? Each forming of the artistic necessarily ends in this logocentric ideology which always orders a new rebellion, yet does not have the resources to step outside the logocentrism once and for all....only that art which is capable of taking responsibility for its impossible, utopist status can step out of this circle. Modern movement has exhausted the idea of artistic fundamentalism, as well as coincidence with a radical historic project. The world is admittedly still a metaphor that people would like to halt. But the artists are today inclined to somehow use that metaphorical, figurative, relocating process of the world against halting. If certain forms still exist in the art, they do not appear on a homogenous plain of any well-focused-unity. In the plain of the Whole or of the World. What remains is only that the art is being commanded by a differential movement. An economy, not reduced (or: market), but expanded. An economy of the differences. Not only: always-some-other-goal, but also other-than-a-Goal. The art, in the final instance, is commanded by a decentered artistic – event. Because the event is that topos, the place in which the unexpected – the other and the excessive – emerges. The effectiveness of the invisible hand of the art does not mark only a short-lasting phase, after which follows the age of theorizing and the conceptually-imperative, or God forbid, stylistic completion of the given project. A priori finished movement of the final Form simply – does not exist. There is no end to the story. The end of the story is not even that today it became self-evident that nothing concerning the art is self-evident. There is, always and inevitably, that fatal emergence of the art out of nothing, out of neverwhere, out of nothingness. There is, therefore, something that is always – in arrival. There is faith and hope in the coming of the art. The only problem is: how to reflect upon what is in arrival? How to think it in the key of its unvisibility, un-finishedness and non-absoluteness.