About time, fascism, kitsch, and the gaze
By Morten Goll
In the Western part of the world time is conceived as linearly progressive. The changeability of the present is a consequence of its position in the field of tension between the past and the future. The individual is a hostage of the present. The present is tangible, living, as opposed to the past and the future, which are abstract concepts. What we do in the present time is a hotchpotch of thoughts and actions of which only few become "historical". By the term "historical" is meant the thoughts and actions that will constitute the individual's conscious life. Another way of putting it is to say that our present is covered by a Lacanian network of the same kind as the one mentioned by Norman Bryson in his article "The Gaze in the Expanded Field" from 1988:
"... when I see, what I see is formed by paths or networks laid down in advance of my seeing."
The time progress of existence is characterized by chaos as is the case with the original gaze - the gaze which has as yet not been socialized through Bryson's paths or networks. K.E. Løgstrup comments on the chaotic element of the time progress of existence in the chapter "Det poetiske hukommelsestab" (The Poetic Amnesia) in his book Kunst og erkendelse (Art and Recognition):
"It is one thing to understand what is happening around us and what we are doing, another to observe what is happening from one moment to the other, physically as well as psychically."
In order to organize our memories as well as the present, we use what Løgstrup terms the historical omission:
"The historical meaning of what is happening and what we are doing is created by omitting most of that which can be observed ...".
In the present the individual moves in the sphere between the two abstracts - the past and the present - continously censoring observations, and this censorship will eventually constitute "history". The "censorship" goes on automatically in the consciousness through the semiotic networks which Bryson discusses. The future represents a chaotic sphere - the infinite space of possibilities. As opposed to this the past represents the organized time. The historical omission is a way of organizing the future, making it known and past (harmless).
Through experience we may guess which one of the chaotic infinity of potential happenings in the future will shortly become the present. However, if we make use of these tools - Bryson's networks and Løgstrup's historical omission - they will set limits to thinking and seeing. The experience and the intellect are dependent on their socialized structure of recognizable and simplified sign patterns. The function of these structures is twofold: they help us see, but at the same time they define the limits of what can be seen. If we accept seeing the world through this socialized structure, the present (for present read art) which we produce will in itself become kitsch. Because if that is the case the gaze will be limited to be able to see only what has been.
The statement which was yesterday a crystal-clear expression of its time may degenerate into kitsch tomorrow if the speaker pretends that it is still a valid expression of the present. The truth value of the statement depends on the speaker's ability/wish to see through the signs that we insert between ourselves and the world and which controls the gaze.
Kitsch comes into existence when one gives up seeing what lies behind the sign and instead fixes one's gaze on a sign which through its static state is forever left behind by the amorphous and changeable present. The nauseating aspect of kitsch is that it pretends to be a genuine statement, whereas in reality it becomes a smokescreen which has been thrown up as a bulwark against the truth.
Since our consciousness is controlled by the linguistic tools which are designed to trim, catalogue, and cultivate the present, it cannot be employed in an "impartial" exploration of the chaotic space of possibilities of the future. Or rather, our experience which is semioticized and intellectually based does not help us understand what is actually going on around us. On the contrary, it keeps us from seeing because it blocks our view with signs of that which we expect to see.
Let us further elaborate this thought. A common phrase goes: "One must keep up with the times!". The very image of keeping up with reveals the problem. In order to keep up with something, this "something" has to be a specific, locatable quantity, something already known. Logically speaking, this already known cannot be something of the future since the future is the unknown. To keep up with the times is to follow an already known path watching for signs that have already been made by somebody else, hence by definition kitsch. To be the time on the other hand is to have the courage to look right through the signs, through the mental barrier of signs that keep accumulating in front of one's eyes. As Bryson says:
"The signifier casts its shadow of darkness across my vision, and because of that darkness I am no longer bathed in the lustre of a luminous plenitude."
Every existing individual is the time. If one chooses to keep up with the time, however, the consciousness remains locked in the delusion of the signs, and thought degenerates into an anachronism, art into kitsch, and the artist as well as the spectator into gregarious beings, always needing the others to confirm that in reality the lie is true.
The collective suggestion is vulnerable because it is based on negation. It only takes one person who dares see the abyss behind the signs to reveal the self-deception. Without drawing any unnecessary parallels it is however obvious to point to another similar phenomenon: a gregarious culture that seduces by means of a collective psychosis.
A LIE ABOUT THE SEEN
What is referred to here is fascism. A classic example is Nietzsche who is unwarrantedly accused by many of having been a forerunner of Nazism.
What is the reason for the "slight paranoia" that can often be detected in Nietzsche? A study of e.g. The Twilight of the Idols - or How One Philosophizes with a Hammer illustrates how Nietzsche in his thought somewhat irresolutely constantly weaves back and forth between two ways of regarding and studying what he terms "the abyss". One Nietzsche employs what could be called an artistic method: unflinchingly, he crashes through the barrier of the language directly into a dimension where phenomena are bathed in perspicacity. The other Nietzsche gets afraid of what he sees and denies it.
But what he sees is of a kind that will not be denied - it only grows bigger and bigger until a continued denial demands more drastic methods as for instance a projection. Nietzsche projects his own inner dirty dog out into the surrounding world on one individual or more. It makes it easier to drive away the beast and at the same time one has become cleansed through the projection; as a more pure being one is obliged to extirpate "the beast".
In the attempt to renounce "the monsters in the abyss" Nietzsche's text undergoes a transformation pointing towards fascism. This is the reason why Nietzsche is accused of being a forerunner of Nazism. Many of his texts are vulnerable as to misinterpretation due to his periodic fear of his project.
Thus, fascism reveals its nature; the fascist intolerance is founded on an abysmal self-denial which originates in paranoia of (an inner) chaos. The "fascist" has seen more than he wanted to, so to speak. As opposed to the "artist", the "fascist" cannot accept what he sees. With each action that the fascist makes at the mercy of his delusion, his inner dirty dog grows bigger, demands more space and attention, and the need for the projection increases, the bloodthirstiness is intensified. Those who contest the validity of this picture of the world constitute a danger to the fascist's self-knowledge; it only takes one person, who dares look into the chaos of the abyss and describe what he sees, to disavow the construction. Accordingly, the reason why Nietzsche cannot with justice be called a fascist is that he himself makes this disavowal in every second line.
Thus, art and fascism have a common feature which is a preoccupation with the gaze. The only difference is the reaction to what is seen. The first mentioned wishes to let the gaze penetrate the veil of the signs. The second has a panic fear of the very same sight and defends a comfortable but false picture of the world by fixing the gaze on well-known and harmless signs.
If, however, we admit that this hidden connection between art and fascism is a fact, is it then possible to maintain a sharp distinction between fascists, artists, or for that matter spectators of art? - The answer is of course no. Nietzsche provides us with a clear example of the fact that the same person may change his methods and aims according to what is seen. It would indeed be an ideal situation if art could be perceived as being good and fascism as being bad. But why is history so full of fascists with an inclination towards art? It is a well-known fact that Hitler started his career as a landscape painter, and the official Nazi art was kitsch of the worst kind while the seeing were proclaimed "Entartete Künstler". Or for that matter artists with an inclination towards fascism? The general intolerance to each other as well as the flock mentality among artists in our own contemporary art scene is likewise something to wonder at.
It is frightening that the ubiquitous kitsch can be so closely related to fascism. Kitsch is not merely an innocent popular culture and lifestyle, it is also a manifestation of a scary choice to do without the gaze. The merciless clear gaze is troublesome because time and time again it undermines the prevailing cultural discourse. Unfortunately, the majority prefer to regard the world through fixed signs which guarantee continuity in one's picture of the world by hoodwinking the gaze. And this is exactly where the parallel between kitsch and fascism is most obvious. In both cases they come into being as a consequence of a self-elected denial, intolerance to the gaze which sees, no matter what.
In totalitarian systems where order is upheld as the leading principle, art is forbidden because in its nature it is a disavowal of the fascist postulate. It is anti-kitsch. Kitsch is a great deal smarter: it operates from within, dims the gaze, deceives imperceptively, and lulls the consciousness to sleep. It is therefore a greater enemy to art. Looked on in that light one can appreciate the importance of following and upholding the gaze that dares stand out from the multitude and does not accept following the time along the already known path of the "trend". The gaze which dares be the time and look directly at its world. Exposed and deflowered, but as yet not prostituted.
Translated by Sanne Dahl