The myth of the city as archetype, and the illusion of genius loci are no more than the remnants of an age before subtopia, if one subscribes to the architectural nay-sayer Ian Nairn. Not his words, but more a miasmic conflux of Lefebvre, Foucault and…the latter-day artist who trawls the city streets knowing full well that he is, in fact, walking on all streets in gestalt. Without the frame of architecture, art can say little about its environs and more often than not carries an a la mode motif which is not merely influenced by trends in architectural norm, but is also governed by them.
Artists, like writers, are involuntary narcissists. Both fabricate worlds in which said artist’s ego has the dominant ideology, and both dictate life and death according to their whims. Every writer and every artist is God to their individual micro-disciplinary practice, a practice which we can perceive as a world, or sphere. If we were to create a model of the seemingly endless practices being engaged at any one time, we would see an actual world filled with these spheres orbiting one another, feeding off of a shared, reciprocal energy. To begin any kind of creative endeavour is to feed from and absorb the energies flowing from these multiplicitous bodies, and to negotiate the regulations governing these. The artist borrows and re-conditions: nothing is purely genius. In this sense art is always a collaborative process, allowing multiple voices to be heard to varying degrees of intensity. This process has previously been referred to as a constellation, though art practice in the 21st Century has become a thing decidedly more immanent, allowing literal connections, juxtapositions and collaborations to occur. The artist, we can argue, who does not engage culturally, socially or creatively with the spheres in orbit around them must either be an artist of the most profound genius, or no artist at all. We may also think of the artist as the zeitgeist of their particular field, in that an artist cannot help but be a vector in a specific chain of semiotic connections starting with obsessions and inspirations, contemporary osmosis and going on to include those works which the artist has necessarily inspired. Naturally, the number of “inspirational” vectors both before and after the artist’s own vector can be nigh-on infinite, and each prone to mutation – for the flow of creative energy goes backwards as well as forwards. We retrospectively attribute aspects culled from other sources to a piece of work after we have encountered the second pieces of work, altering and mutating the meanings and semiotic representations to both primary and secondary sources. Indeed, in this respect are there any longer primary or secondary pieces of work? The present is irreducible to any singularity. This is what Bergsonism teaches us, and what common sense forces us not to forget. The present can only ever exist in any quantifiable measure as a memory, in which case it is imbued with attributes gleaned from the fanciful whims of subjective recollection (an object observed by many people five minutes ago is already undergoing an erosion of reality whereby the individual recollections of these many people have themselves trailed off into the unstable areas of perception, association and interpretation). The myth of the city as archetype, and the illusion of genius loci are no more than the consensual assemblage of memory and fantasy. The organic optic machine has gradually been superseded by the technological optic machine, which we are more prone to place our trust in, but this new optic machine is still slave to perception: holding a camera in one’s hands is still a subjective choice and remains dependant upon the whims of those hands’ owner: does the photographer stand or crouch?
The homogenisation of Western culture has been so insidious in its multiplication that one struggles to attribute any one particular starting point to it. Certainly, it has become more noticeable since access to the internet, and yet more acutely its associated virtual cellular structure, became a global entitlement. The dominant economic patois of affected American doggerel has never, since the Second World War, loosened its grip on the remaining Anglosphere. On the contrary, we have collectively become increasingly enchanted by the two extremes of North American lexical orthodoxy: to wit, the disaffected dismissiveness of Generation X, and the hyperbolic enthusiasm of Disney-regulated plasticity. These two ends of an economic spectrum are doubtlessly also tied geographically – The West Coast, most typically associated with the American Dream, promotes the latter, whilst those areas hit by economic struggles (Michigan still being the primary exemplar of American civilisation in decline in the minds of Europeans) inspire the former. This gross generalistion notwithstanding, it barely scratches the surface of psychoanalysis to suggest that this is no accident. The myth of the city as archetype, and the illusion of genius loci are no more than the consensual assemblage of memory and fantasy, a virtual engine which powers an ideological zeitgeist machine of sorts, and this machine is constantly leaking non-standardised dialectical argot which Europe has long been (bafflingly) enchanted by. European Contemporary Art still heroically stands, here and there, against this inexorable tide of semantic slovenliness and does so with a clinical aloofness which has nothing to do with what might be called “pedantry.” I am here thinking of the kind of minimalist, precise sculptural works associated with the likes of Heimo Zobernig, Angela Bulloch or John McCracken – artists who, while certainly borrowing certain traits of American minimalist art, adhere more strictly to a Germanic aesthetic rather than the pop-infused work of, say, Sarah Morris. Understatement is still understood as being more intellectually keen than the peremptory vicissitudes of the great spectacle: it allows for contingent interpretations wherein lines of flight flow more rapidly, and with greater intensities.