El arte como significado / Art as meaning

Nonetheless, it does seem that historical perspective cannot be achieved if each of the members of the community of inquiry is not freed from the critical inactivity that is seemingly brought about by that misunderstood relativism we referred to previously. Hence, each member of the community of inquiry must openly state his or her opinion on the objects and issues that are being considered. That is to say, to assume that artistic relativism, on principle, does not mean, as aforementioned, that we cannot voice our own opinion on art and, consequently, hope for that opinion to be considered -to be considered over others- and expect it to attract other people (that is, to hope our opinion will become "criticism"). The undeniable relativism of forms in art is not, therefore, a sort of Wittgensteinian clause that forces silence. Quite the opposite, the more we strive to point out relativism, the greater the relevance of confronted opinions in our community of inquiry. I defend an open criticism, where everyone can state their "private conception of what art is," and try to make as many others share their same view. The community of inquiry will turn towards one or the other in terms of which person or group achieves the most acceptance. In this sense, the construction of the meaning of works of art and, therefore, the meaning of the artistic, is very similar to how we define what is fair. We cannot reach a consensus on the idea of fairness without considering the different conceptions we all have on that single concept. The construction of the notion of fairness is a collective issue that is constantly developing and is conceived as a collective pursuit, a task that tends to the infinite (absolute fairness would be an unachievable horizon, but that does not mean we should renounce attaining it). This type of pursuit would suppose an encounter, in which each person would freely expose his or her position, beyond the fact that we may or may not believe in the possibility of that quest ever converging in one single point, according to Rorty, a "‘free, open encounter' -the sort of encounter in which truth [ 12 ] will always win."

Therefore, let this article stand as an apologia of criticism and its present task. An apologia which I would, also, like to expand, especially, towards "hard" criticism, that criticism that censures what it considers devoid of artistic worth without making a fuss over it. Critics should never avoid controversy (with the artist, with other critics, with the public), and must borrow Heraclitus' maxim, since their task is contained in that very controversy. The example of a certain critic who has been systematically condemned for confronting a specific artist comes to mind, especially considering that his texts have acted more as a creative spur for the artist than the gratuitous flattery voiced by the royal court of outdated supporters that followed him whilst he was alive (those who never dared contradict the "genius" and who now, after his death, ignore his indications, exhibiting his works in venues which he explicitly loathed).

Not only do I think said critic did the right thing by voicing his ideas, I am also convinced that he had the -moral- obligation of doing so. The only truly reprehensible attitude in art criticism is gratuitous flattery, giving a work of art an endorsement we do not understand, feigning an emotion that is not such. There are other attitudes that also harm our disciple, but none of them are as detrimental as the systematic praise which comes so easily to those who long ago lost the ability to be truly moved by the products of human creativity.

In my opinion, for some time now, the image of the development of contemporary art looks more like an oil mark spreading on a piece of paper than a straight line where one step is taken before another. Contemporary art is a raft where, paradoxically, each person must row his or her own way for the raft to continue its "onward journey." Therefore, we must continue, even if we think, like Rorty, that, as a last resort, all we can do is "praise our heroes and condemn our villains, using odious comparisons," and despite the fact that said attitude will probably only, as the title of Aldo Pellegrini's book says, "contribute to general confusion."

Translation: Laura F. Farhall