Realism, modernism, postmodernism and crealism - 4

 

by Momir Nikic

 

The environment of realism is neo-polis, industrial city (“of coal and steel”) and administrative conglomerate. Man has fallen from “divine state” (civitas dei) to the “earthly” one (civitas terrestris). The city is the factor of accumulation (of po­pulation, production, capital, power…) with infernal attributes (cloacae of merciless exploitation, crimes and misery). It is a metaphor for the center, cradle of mechanization, national integration, transports (railways, steamships…), a place full of life, success and unhappiness, incubator of political maturation and conf­rontation… Industrialization “transforms the man from farmer-shepherd to ma­nipulator of machines run by lifeless energy” (Hobsbawm); nation-state destroys burg (“city-state”) and transforms people into nation; urbanization substitutes ordinary man to bourgeois. This is also the end of previous institutions (medieval family, clan, social and manufactural castes…) and affirmation of new values, manifested in unprecedented individualism, secularization, sever competition, division of labor and specialization…

Though still maintaining that everybody is, by historical conditions, traveler (“live baggage”) in the train which, by the iron logic of development, rushes into the future… realist lacks the feeling of transition. He uses gloomy colors in painting the big fall in the hell of dehumanization, social underworld, suburbs, sa­na­toriums, jails, workers “caves”, markets and city periphery, scaffolds of civiliza­tion… Mechanization seals everything (men are mechanized in head and in heart as much as in hand – T. Carlyle). Time and space are functions of mechanical (not natural) processes, social (not individual) perceptions, they are changed and shortened but remain separate and objective (external) quantifications.

Modernism is affirmed in metropolis, the heart of monopoles and financial ca­pi­tal, the center of modernization, trade, banking, automated production… No more urbs aeterna but waste land (T. S. Eliot), kingdom of madness (Trakl), apocalypse and chthonic atmosphere, this center has traits of cosmopolis and magically attracts people of different cultures, languages, races, knowledge (it is natural to be a “stranger” or immigrant, as much as being “at home”). In metropolis exist both: the center (permanently dehumanized, with extremely developed bureau­cracy) and the periphery (people from colonies, unemployed, lumpen-proletariat, “bulvarnaya in­teligentia”…). Dominant technologies are: electricity, oil and its derivates, auto­mo­biles and air transportation, wire commu­nications (telephone, telegraph…), mechanized printing press (linotype), film… Modernist movements are internati­onal, developed in crossings of different influences (Paris, London, Chicago, New York, Zurich, Berlin, St. Petersburg…).

For a realist the city was a “raw material”. For modernist it is way of life. Accele­ration, transitivity, transformation of duration into tempo, haste, panic…all these are features of metropolis as well as modernist art. Time and space are interior­zed, becoming continuum (quantum physics), shortened or lengthened according to subjective perceptions. Insecurity, anxiety, instantism… syncope, permanent in­no­vations, experimentation, monographism, introspe­ction… are widespread ten­den­cies. Subjectivization enfolds the “real” image of the city (“the place as it is”) in fog of i-reality (urban life is essentially un-real and sur-real). The city concen­trates all frustrations caused or strengthened by destructions and confrontations, bankruptcy of scientific and social utopias (progress, reason, revo­lution, commu­nism…), devastations of totalitarian projects (fascism, Stalinism…), moral deba­cles of alternative solutions (“welfare state”), construction of new etatistic laby­rinth in which we are prey for the bureaucratic monster… Metropolitan man is neither pilgrim nor missionary of Romanticisms, nor inspector of neo-polis, but migrant, transmigrating person (generally from the world of periphery to “can­cerous centers”), motivated by economic, cultural or political needs. Swinging between two “sides”, countries, social environment… he deeply experiences the crisis of identity and time. But, being modern is inevitability and primary demand, inte­llectual herald (Rimbaud: Il faut être absolument moderne). Modernism is en­throned as “the only art appropriate to the modern man” (G. Stein).

Postmodernist environment is skeno-polis, stage on which everything is sceno­gra­phy, acting, spectacle and spectatorship…It is “fabricated”, simulated commu­nity (pseudo-polis). There is no centre, what remains is only periphery (subaltern, feminism, homosexuality…), marginal, suburbia, sub-cultural. The world is sha­ped by technologies of simulation, manipulation and persuasion (TV, radio, ad­vertising, commercials…). This is a ne­cro-polis where everything dies: man, rea­lity, change, work, production, society, sense, arts…

Skenopolis is the empire of the culture of death (Baudrillard) with its necropolises of civilization (archi­ves, museums, galleries…). Their “canonized” pseudo-philoso­phers sing requiem for humanity and perform massive rituals of exorcism, specu­lating that life is a crooked mirror (speculum) in which everything is distorted, mi­rage, the phan­tom in the cave (specus) of shadows. Artists are illu­sionists practicing theurgy, communicating with ghosts in spiritualistic ambiance where all measures and values, plans and standards… are mixed up… In this “city of illusions” all previ­ous relations and values are substituted by production of mirages and values of signs. The postmodern man is only “a grain of masse” and could move (volvo) only as a cell in the mob (volvox). That is not a real movement but vital akinesis, imaginary nomadism, the illusion of crawling without empirical travel (the term tourism is not in favorable), romancing without the aim, going nowhere. Actually this simulation of movement in pseudo-polis is conditional reflex of lost vitality, proof of conviction that everything is mental spinning (cyclism), renovation of myth of eternal return…Le néant (nothingness) is not perceived as the pulse of the world (as in modernist irony) but as the essence of hyper-reality and a pulse of the mind.

The world of crealism is auto-polis, which is community of free human beings, koine and neuropolis. In the age of global communication networks and noetic technologies (computers, Internet, mobile and satellite links, nuclear break­throu­ghs, genetics, nano-world…) the citizen of human city has need and freedom to live both in closer and larger communities (within nets of different levels and qualities of integration, starting from his local commune to the world Community). That man, for the first time ever, is entitled to have a choice, to be in the world even in most isolated places, to act simultaneously in his “little” culture and uni­versal human Culture. He is always in the center of his creative and created world. This is no longer neo-polis, monstrous mega-polis, nor pomo ske­no­polis, but invisible city where all sorts of experiences are to be met, combined and tasted, a junction of material and ideal existences, of real and virtual. Hu­ma­nism and creation should rely on all human potentials (holism). The crealist does not believe in pomo “nomadism” (aimless “wandering”) but in creative mona­dism and noema­dism, inquisitive adventure of cultural in-dividual (permanently mo­ving, end­le­ssly seeking and creating). Being in the world he knows very well his personal, individual res­pon­sibility and ability to create, maintain and develop his freedom and world.

Combining his and others (predecessors’ and contemporaries’) capacities and pro­ducts, he is aware that by creating “for others” he creates for himself (he is ne­ver the same before, during and after creation). His thirst for novelties force him to permanently research, hunt, chase, cruise in time (trough history) and space (vi­siting different cultures). His travels are physical, material (globe-tro­tter) or vir­tual (net-trotter). Always “on the road” he does not lose the starting point (in­herited values) and the target of his endeavor (newly created values). His life is an endless search. Knowing that human existence does not have meaning a priory, he broadens old and creates new horizons of meanings. His credo is not demiourgy (of realism), nor techneurgy (of modernism), nor semiourgy (of post­modernism) but fitourgy (constant and all pervasive creation).

 

Realism, modernism, postmodernism and crealism - 3

 

By Momir Nikic

Realism is focused on socio-sphere, economical, social and political relations. The society is stratified in social classes and layers and shaped by their permanent strug­gle for survival and domination. That struggle defines status and behaviors, the form of ideology and morals. The very base of society are production and vital economic interests (production is the fundament of everything, including politics and “science of production” – Saint-Simon). Society has its history (chronology of gradual development), organization, scientific explanation (rationalism, positivi­sm, utilitarianism…), dynamism and logic of changes by evolutionary (Darwinism) or revolutionary (socialism, Marxism) means and steps.

The realists’ man is new zoon politikon (social animal), homo faber, with tran­spa­rent, common nature. Through this magnifying glass realist thoroughly investi­gates eve­rything: social disintegration and breakdown; class confrontations; urban–rural contrast; absence of solidarity and ethics; intellectual retreat and abulia (“super­fluous men”); unscrupulous rise of newcomers and swindlers; trade with life and death (“dead souls”); the fate of “humiliated and insulted”; activism of rebels against social norms (legal, ethical, esthetical…)…

Dominant effects are decay, degeneration, alienation…Naturalism exposes life as “jungle”, men as “beasts”, “puppets” created, motivated and destroy­ed by passi­ons, conditions and laws of human zoology. Dominant tone is dis­content with actual conditions without connotations of returning to the previous state. Generally accepted are progress as “fundamental law of society” (Macaulay) and im­perative of struggle for change. Certainty is based on the conviction that all basic natural and social laws are discovered, including “eternal law of truth and beauty” (Balzac).

For a modernist focus is on psycho-sphere, states of soul, spiritual resources, inter­nal life. While realist relies on sociology, economy, biology… modernist favors psychology, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, quantum mechanics, theory of rela­tivity… He investigates regions and states of conscious, unconscious, arche­typal, primary structures of our mind.

The modernists’ man is homo ambiguous. Everything has the Janus’s face of “dua­lity”, swaying (of reality, arts…). He is tortured by doubt, anxiety, fear, un­cer­tainty, perplexity, melancholy… On one hand, refined, polished, cultivated, poli­te, educated, intelligent, clever and witty… on the other, daring, impudent, explo­sive, shameless, ironic, sarcastic, capricious… all traits of an urban man (homo ur­banus), traits long ago noticed by classics. Sometimes those traits are extremely manifested (futurism, Dadaism, surrealism…).

Modernist’s goal is encounter with himself with an aim to dig up unexplored depths of subjective structure (unknown, unconscious, a dream), to go trough liminal expe­riences (hyp­nosis, hallucination, telepathy, psychic magnetism…), to reach un-real and sur- real, to describe indescribable, to express inexpressible. To do that it is nece­ssary to dramatically sha­ke previous conceptions of reality, sci­ence (only one, probably not the most important instrument of human cognition), to question “ru­ling truths”, to confront with the language, conventions, routine communications, petrified traditi­ons. Subjective realism, psychological naturalism, non-fixed human nature…are ele­ments of new registry of privileged concepts. Posi­tive knowledge is comple­mented or substituted by intuition and para-science (mesmerism, occultism, mysti­cism); observation yields priority to interpretation; recording retreats before ana­lysis, experiment and medium.

Dominant principles are: uncertainty (Heisenberg), relativity (Einstein), ambiguity (Freud). Artists advocate skepticism, (self)irony, parody, destabilization of firm positions (any assertion is incomplete without denial)…We witness transition from dialectic model (thesis–antithesis–synthesis) to ambivalent pattern which is not an old dichotomy or coincidence of opposites, but new, albeit unstable, compound of analysis and synthesis, transformation of everything in its opposite (enanti­o­dromy of C. G. Jung). Within the hot oven of intellectual effort and emotional stress two typically modernist processes develop – Spaltung (splitting, se­paration, breaking…) and Verschmelzung (melting, assimilation, amalgama­tion…). Resting on one of these ends leads to schizophrenia. Both enable artistic integration and su­blimation. Characteristic modernist matrix is affirmation of opposites: to embrace life and to run away from it; cosmos (order) and chaos (disorder); conservation and progress; conventional and innovative; naturalism and ab­stractness; delight and despair; construction and destruction; technophilia and technophobia; radical engagement and isolation…

Postmodernism flourishes in the sphere of simulation and manipulation. Mostly interested in sciences of epiphenomena and uncertainty (hyper-relativism, pheno­menology of accidence, pataphysics), it is focused on mediation, on the concept “media is the message” (McLuhan) with decisive influence on both ends of tran­smit­i­on (subject and object). By their “magic” (enabling “implosion” of borders of reality and simulation) media abolish certainty of both the subject (psychological aspect) and the object (ontological and sociological side). What used to be just the “means” and “instrument” became “generator of reality”, of its transformation in hyper-reality, of change of facts in simulacrum, of society in “silent crowd”, of dynamic world in special zone, of class in mass. Everything is fractioned, indifferent, char­med by the kiss of deaths of object and commodity.

For postmodernism the man is homo consumptor, he does not produce but spend (destroys) what is offered. He is the subject turned to object under the in­fluence of mass-media, aggressive marketing, propaganda, display, show, spec­tacle, gigantic political manipulation. But the real hero of postmodernism is homo trico, media magician, master of simulation. His avatars are homo loquax and homo fallax, experts in language games and technical illusions. He is the main “ac­tor” of the world of hyper-reality, in the society relying no more on production of commodity (and values of production), money (and exchange values), but on signs and values of signs – general semiurgy and “symbolic exchange”. In this kingdom of illusion dominates glamour, “nebulous state” leading in “total entropy”. Eve­ry­thing operates on the level different from known (information and disinfor­mation, past and future, factio and fictio…to have and to be, happiness and suf­fering). The mass production is not production for the masses but production of the masses. Dominant moral attitude is indifference.

Under the influence of various thinkers – often mentioned are Bergson, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Durkheim, Mauss, Bateson (concept of plateau), less frequen­tly Veblen (conspicuous consumption), Debord (societe du spectacle), Bantam (pan­opticon)… but buried in silence Plato, Kant, Weihinger…– and em­bracing extreme attitude of futility of change, pomo raises its flag: play, game. It is, by its nature, limitless game of signs (language). In this scope, common position is determined inde­termi­nation: the language, itself illusory, becomes the “jail” and the “cage”, worse even than biological, psychological or eco­nomic constraints (Darwinism, Freudism, Marxism); the sign – according to Saussure fully arbitrary – looses the trace of signified and, quite suddenly, installs itself as un­questionable base of com­munication (emptied of the sense of community – communion) and organization (society as “plexus of language ga­mes”).

The sphere of crealism is creation. The man is homo creator who creates his ex­ternal and internal world. His basic need and strategy is not production but creative re-production, biological, psychological, social, cultural pro-creation. Homo cre­ator is homo vertator, longing permanently to confirm himself, to continue, se­cure, and enhance his existence. This strive is source of his unlimited curiosity, of all (good and bad) adaptations and actions shaping his natural and social environment, enlargement of material, spiritual and social recourses. The most important successes of this paradoxal being are culture and society, which are interwoven and interdependent. Human socialization is not a mere aggregation (natural “invention” increasing chances for survival). The process and state of hu­man sociality has completely new dimensions and open perspectives. All natural ele­ments of aggregation (integration, communication, hierarchy, specialization, com­­petition and confrontation…) are enormously enhanced and surpassed. The crucial role in this process belongs to culture while the crucial role in cultural development belongs to society. They limit and stimulate each other. They are ge­ne­rically linked: changing one changes the other. Culture consists of ma­ny accomplishments, partially separated “regions” of human creation, vertati­ons. Every vertation has its own domain and dimension, functions and projections, aim and means, dynamism…

Still, each vertation is inevitably in native connection with others (all creations of men). This polyphony (“music of human spheres”) is precondition and expression of health of each person and society as a whole. The lack of contacts and convergences among vertations, as well as absence of their divergences and au­tono­my, is clear sign of smaller or geater degree of social deviation. To live in more vertations (worlds, spheres, dimensions, spaces, times, levels…) means to be more cultural, human being. Constant disturbance and reestablishment of harmony is the nature of creative process. Therefore, development is not uniform and linear. Decisive role in this process belongs to creators (individuals) and creative net of society (institu­ti­ons, values, patterns, models, forces…). The choice of crealism is the total crea­tion. In the center of this concept is the creator, with his sacrifices, his boldness and his heretic ideas. He is real fan-attic, fan of Phanes and double of Phaëton, who radically shakes fundaments of personal and social constraints. His unrest and craving for change is inevitably confronted with inertia of preser­vation, dif­ferent barriers, forces and problems, trying to prevent him in his endeavor to cha­nge established order. But new balance, stability, cultural homeostasis could be restored only by creation.

Creation doesn’t separate but integrate people. Crealist does not sacrifice local for global and vice versa, person for the world or world for the person. He favors everything that makes world better. He substitutes irresponsibility and post-hu­manism of postmodernism by new humanism. In this sense, crealist is true homo humanus, equally both homo ludens and homo prudens. His game is not puerilism but the expression of his unbound mind and confirmation of his creative freedom. Being aware of the power of reason, crealist does not renounce the rest of the human abilities and capacities. At the same time, he is not a slave toany ri­gidity or prejudice. He affirms prudentia (responsibility, wisdom, reason, experience, kno­wledge…) as his strategy of enhancing quality of life.

 

Realism, modernism, postmodernism and crealism - 2

 

 

by Momir Nikic

For a realist the world is solid, composed of more or less distinct realia (men, thi­ngs, relations, facts…) exposed to influence of cause-effect mechanisms. Social structure is constructed by “blocks” and “bricks” of social building. Their change is possible only as the substitution. Men are pure instruments of “natural” (unavoidable) processes of development comprehensible to reason and science.

For a modernist the world is liquid, in permanent motion. There are no firm and unchangeable borders of external or internal, of subject or object, of present or fu­ture, of time and space…Causal relations are substituted by accidents; social mi­lieu becomes more complex; monism, compactness and objective logics yield their place to pluralism, fragmentary and subjective measures. Outside world is com­posed of “permanent sensations” (J. S. Mill), of illusions vi­bra­ting lyrically (im­pre­ssionism) or dramatically (expressionism…). It is more problematic and disin­te­grated (split up to Kant’s sensorial phenomena and intellectual noumena), and could be re-integrated in subject itself.

The world of a postmodernist is nebula, gas, vapor, the smoke of something which does not exist anymore. Composed of phantom “facts and values”, it is, actually, a construct, the product of simulation. It is the “twilight zone” in which spaces (heterotopy of Foucault) and positions are completly confused. The reason is driven from the throne; there is no developmental of axiological hierarchy (prio­rities and value scale), consciousness (only in unconsciousness we are ide­ntical to oursel­ves). “The language is a home of Being” (Heidegger), but being illusion it­self it is incapable of expressing the world. Men, object, subject, past, present and future… are imprisoned in vacuum, chaos, dissolution, flux, dialysis…without any solid support, and nothing could be confirmed or disputed. The entire secret of the science of truth is – there is no truth. “The truth” is but a mask for strategies of “might” (in this point Foucault follows Nietzsche and “hegemony” of Gramsci). Perceptions and conclusions are unreliable. It is im­possible to take a neutral position. Every attempt of objective description, use of scientific methods, or any sort of verification is doomed to failure. We live in a pseudo-world transformed to hyper-reality by extremization of simulation and substitution of reality by models and codes. Life is, in its essence, the expression of total apathy, want of emotions, “allegory of death”.

For crealist the world is plasma, creation. He accepts it as men’s work, wha­tever its structure. “In the world” the man embodies his i/reality, i/rationality, i/logic…; his good and evil, sense and nonsense, his love and hatred, affinities and alienations, war and peace, crime and punishment, wisdom and madness… Under­standing all creative powers and weaknesses, advantages and disad­vantages, nece­ssities and freedoms, we show new, critical, actual hu­manism. For everything hap­pening in society nobody could be blamed but us. Ultimately, men are respon­sible for their lives. Striped to the bones, the man’s truth is anthropo­logically very simple: the basic drive and aim (as in all living nature) is survival. This is the main challenge for species and individuals. But man’s answer to that challenge is… Culture. As expression and base of sociality, humanity, culture is man’s cre­ation. On the other hand, culture has transformed the “creature of nature” in its creator. Little has remained of “earthly” or raw nature. Our “minds and hands” (tools) have touched almost everything on the Earth, re-creating or adapting it to our needs, inevitably assuming responsibility. Ob­ject influences subject more if it is more subjective (shaped by our creative resou­rces) and vice versa. Only in cre­ation exists real exteriorization of interiority (objectivization of subject) and inte­rio­rization of exteriority (subjectivization of object). But once created, our subje­ctive/objective world (i.e., culture, society, history…) are not less mysterious or easier to comprehend. On the contrary: the magic of otherness (cre­ations of other persons and generations), complot, complexity and extreme variety of mediate­ons make it more “puzzling” and “charming”. Dangers of deviations, aberrations, destructions and self-destru­ction are omnipresent. They are real provocations of bestiality. Not only action of Shadow but overt howl of the Beast in the man. Con­frontations of our potentials are the biggest source of our dramatic events and behaviors, tragedies, defeats and victories. “Ciphering and deciphering” of the world are not simply coding and decoding, but serious creative processes oriented toward the maintenance of our lives, increase of knowledge and crafts, enrichment of our culture and final change of the actual state we happen to be in. Crealist (albeit conscious of complexity and possible tragic aspects) always gives advantage to life, which is our creative chance. He creates for life and lives for creation. His “deity” is Eros (not post­modern Thanatos), not ordinary natural drive (of Freud, Jung), but meta­phor of permanent search, craving for physical and spiritual reproduction, total pro­cre­ation.

Realism, modernism, postmodernism and crealism

 

 

 

 

by Momir Nikic

 

Realism perceives reality as objective and external. Man’s life is manifested in his outer environment, social relations and behavior. The artist acts in the world which is “completely separate”, “independent of our will”.

Modernism makes a turn toward subjective, internal reality. Writer does not exist in the world but world in the writer. Both, impression and ex-pression, pass through the sensorial, intellectual filter of each person. This process changes our cognition and comprehension, as well as our evaluation and creation (hence the demand for “re-evaluation of all values”). Reflection is substituted by refraction. In modernism every individual is the assessor and final judge of reality, and shapes it according to his subjective views.

For postmodernism the world is simulacrum which swallowed the subject, object, reality… Precisely said, reality is “the form of collective fiction” (P. Berger, T. Lucman) enabled and imposed by the process of socialization – institutionalization, communication, “games” – in the first place language games (Wittgenstein). Everything (existence, essence, cognition…) is undetermined, marked with total relativity. Since nothing is certain action, change, value system, assertions (including “truth”, “justice” etc.) are biased instruments of “scientistic” ideological and regional (western) domination (epistemological relativism). In the kingdom of simulation, in which the doubt is hopelessly entangled in aporia, artist could only accept “the rules of the game”, become simulator, producer of illusions.

Crealism affirms creality. Both external and internal reality are interwoven by our action. External reality is non-subjective (as materialists take) or mere construct (according to “radical constructivists”). Internal reality is non-objective (cf. idealists), or simple reflex of genetic factors (assumption of neo-positivists in biological sciences). Creality is reality created by us externally and internally, by our permanent interactions with subjects and objects, with aim to create our human world. This is a new world and world of novelty, open to change, limited only by the extent of our creative potentials. Vital core of any modern wisdom is, therefore, very simple but essential fact: we live in the world of creality, reality created by us. This is the crucial ontological, gnoseological and axiological “secret”. Everything else is derived from this basic fact…

 

 

 

Playlist créaliste

Découvrez plus de musique comme celle-ci sur THE CREALISTS - LES CRÉALISTES

Eco-sphéropraxie créaliste

 

Ex-traits imaginés à partir d'un texte lisible dans son "entièreté" ici:
http://crealisme.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/07/09/eco-cr...

 

Nietzsche-Jésus : le débat

Premier film produit par le Créel, débat entre Nietzsche et Jésus -

(comédiens Gauthier de Crépy et Nicolas Zanier)

TRAVERSÉS PAR LES FLUX ENIVRANTS

 

Portons-nous à la puissance du modulant créaliste.

Tandis que les individus trépignent, s’agitent, suent corps et âme à la recherche de leur moi, l’époque avance, collective mais sans valeurs capitales autres que ces forces génériques qui absorbent le sujet en mal de compléments.

Partout de grands machins : grand machin musulman, grand machin femme, grand machin jeune, grand machin cadre, grand machin people. Vous voulez connaître le prototype du Général aujourd’hui ? L’Islam ou le Capital, même combat inversé. Le prototype de la Femme aujourd’hui : regarder du côté de Madonna, caméléon boursouflé, sans humour et opportuniste. À moins que ce soit la « petite French » souriante et prête à tout pour être photopornographiée par Hollywood et Chanel. Le prototype de l’Homme ? Le footballeur sans couilles, ne voyant pas plus loin que son ballon et ses cuisses. Le motif du jeune ? Le lycéen américain qui se préoccupe de ses semblables moutons plutôt que du lointain, du savoir et de l’Autre, et dont le langage est fait de trop peu. Heureusement, beaucoup s’écartent de ces collectifs sans tête, de ces protostéréotypes au feu d'allumette.

Le créalisme n’est pas un individualisme. C’est une force commune. Ce n’est même pas seulement un collectif, car il n’est pas que matière. C’est un modulant, entre le générique et le général : il exprime un style, un axe, une direction, une force en devenir. Il s’agit de conquérir des terres en les civilisant, de prendre des territoires aux gestionnaires de la mort-vivance et de rendre ces territoires de nouveau parcourus par des courants en spirale, riches de correspondances, de musique et de magies ascendantes. L’individu ne vaut que traversé par ces flux enivrants, pourvu qu’il ne s’en croie pas possesseur.

Nous sommes souvent des artistes ou des réfléchissants, soit. Mais nous le sommes trop souvent encore dans un rapport privatif avec l’être. Nous avons atteint à la propriété bourgeoise du flux vital par l’art et nous en sommes fiers. Il est temps de cesser de parquet la poésie comme l’on épingle les papillons et de nous déplacer, aventuriers, dans l’espace-temps du même rêve multiple. Disposés à l'existence plutôt qu'exposés dans des galeries. Doucement dérangés en libres rires plutôt que tristement rangés en librairies.

Mélancoliques individus, lâchons notre quête du moi tout-terrain et surpuissant, méprisant de ce qu’il y a de meilleur en nous et qui nous élève. Notre ressentiment compétitif ne sait plus admirer les maîtres et même plus les envier. Car nous envions les glorioles massives des collectivisés sans autre dessin que leur volonté d’être au-dess(o)us des autres dans l’échelle des consommables.

Groupules, crapules, bulles, trouvez une force qui enfante un monde qui ressemble à votre désir enchanté de couleurs émotives, de spirales sensuelles, de danses spirituelles. L’appauvrissement des conditions collectives de vie, l’asservissement des âmes à la forme individuelle avide, la mort du général dans la généralisation, tout cela le créalisme le combat sans donner dans l'administration de l'événementiel, en lave volcanique courant sous nos rues froides et nos décors de mauvais cinéma. Le créalisme est une politique de l’avenir portée séculièrement par la valeur foi. Le créalisme est l’intérêt général porté à la puissance Joie.

Que puis-je faire ? Cesser de lutter en tant qu’individu seulement. Mais toujours en même temps comme force générale de combat contre le rétrécissement et l’appauvrissement de notre forme de vie.

Que m’est-il permis d’espérer ? M’incarner dans un mouvement qui me purifie du cancer de l’envie, de la jalousie, des mesquineries compétitives, de la gestion de carrière, du malentendu amoureux, du destin aveuglé par les impératifs décapitants du temps-argent.

Que dois-je croire ? Qu’une armée se lève qui ne veut plus entendre parler des groupules et des trahisons ridicules, des âneries, des médiocrités et des crapuleries, des ego trips, des strip tease sans cause et des plébiscites d'overdose. Cessons de monter sur les épaules les uns des autres pour voir un spectacle navrant, cessons de crier à qui mieux mieux sa tue-tête, d'être de la nulle tétée l'aspirant. Le monde est notre création et notre destin. S’il est laid aujourd’hui, c’est que nous le voulons tel. S’il est partout privatisé, exproprié, mesquinisé, madonnisé, coranisé, c’est que notre corps est complice de ses affects tristes. Il est temps que la capacité de gratitude arrose nos sols anthropophages et fertilise nos cerveaux sages comme des images.

Vous n’êtes rien tout seuls, des scribouilleurs, des gribouilleurs, des assoiffés d’épate d'une galerie déjà indifférente, des propagandistes de vous-mêmes, des libidineux de momies, des noeuds d'angoisse et des empileurs d'amis. Portons-nous par-delà les nationalismes, les tribalismes, les communhautainrismes, les clientélismes, les onanismes, les identifications pulsionnelles, la loi commerciale du Grand Poubellique, les hygiénismes, les bordélismes, les grippismes, les bonusismes et faisons échec aux audimats.

Sous les pavés, la lave d'une tectonique des actes.

Portons-nous par-delà nos silences de vers de terre rongeurs de freins. Rassasiés de liberté, n'ayons plus faim de lendemains.

Révélons-nous en magiciens dont les tours restent, à ce jour, truqués d’amour.

______

 

_____

REALISME, IMAGINATION ET UTOPIE

ESSAI SUR LES PRINCIPES DU CREALISME

La réalité semble être, par définition, ce qui s’impose à l’esprit et qu’on ne peut pas changer : « c’est un fait ! », « c’est la dure réalité de la vie ». On a tendance à opposer d’ailleurs la réalité, en tant qu’elle s’impose à l’esprit, à tout ce qui n’est pas réel et qui, d’une manière ou d’une autre, est une création de l’esprit ; « tout ça, c’est dans ta tête ». On peut penser à l’illusion (prendre ses rêves ou ses désirs pour des réalités), à l’imaginaire. Certes, si le réalisme consiste simplement à dire que pour agir efficacement sur la réalité, il faut d’abord s’y soumettre, on peut admettre qu’il faut savoir être pragmatique. Tout n’est pas possible. Mais bien souvent, « être réaliste » signifie qu’on ne peut rien changer à la réalité. Ainsi, l’homme n’a plus qu’à contempler ou plutôt à constater le monde qui s’impose à lui, sans chercher à y réaliser ses rêves ou ses désirs ; sans même penser à transformer ce monde, sous peine de n’être qu’un idéaliste. « Changer mes désirs plutôt que l’ordre du monde ». Voilà ce qu’on pense quand on est  "cartésien ".

Mais à quelle réalité devrait-on se soumettre ? Et qu’est-ce que la réalité ?

D’abord, d’un point de vue purement philosophique, il est difficile d’admettre que la réalité est ce qui existe indépendamment de l’esprit; qu’elle s’impose à l’esprit. Je dis que la table qui est devant moi existe, qu’elle est réelle. Or, à quoi tient l’évidence de cette réalité ? C’est parce que je la touche et que je la vois. Mais alors, cela signifie que si je n’étais pas là pour voir la table et penser qu’il y a une table, elle n’existerait pas. En bref, c’est dans la seule mesure où la table existe pour mon esprit, qu’elle existe. Une table, elle, ne pense pas. Elle n’est donc rien pour elle-même.

 

Et quand bien même on laisserait de côté ces considérations trop métaphysiques, à quelle réalité doit-on se soumettre ? À la société telle qu’elle est organisée, capitaliste et consommatrice. Mais d’abord, qui a organisé cette société, si ce ne sont pas les hommes eux-mêmes ? La réalité dont on nous parle, à laquelle on nous demande de nous soumettre n’est pas une réalité naturelle qui s’imposerait à nous avec autant de nécessité que les lois de la nature. Tous les hommes sont mortels, c’est un fait, et l’on ne peut sans doute rien y changer. Mais "Il faut gagner de l’argent pour vivre", "consommer pour exister" ; en quoi cela constitue-t-il une réalité à laquelle les hommes ne pourraient rien changer, dans la mesure où ce sont eux-mêmes qui l’ont créée ?

En fait, la réalité qui nous entoure n’a plus rien de naturelle : elle est tout entière produite par l’homme. Il paraît donc mensonger de prétendre qu’on ne peut rien n’y changer. Mais c’est un mensonge sans doute utile à ceux qui ont intérêt à ce que cette réalité demeure.
En fait, c’est la société humaine, l’idéologie dominante qui veut faire passer l’idée qu’il faut être réaliste. Non seulement elle est mensongère, mais en plus, elle désenchante les rêves. Le monde humain actuel, mondialisé, est ce monde dans lequel on apprend aux individus à être réalistes. Un monde dans lequel on donne l’idée qu’on ne peut ni ne doit changer la réalité, alors même qu’il s’agit de la réalité la plus terne, la plus uniforme qui puisse exister. Tout le monde consomme les mêmes choses, définit son bonheur de la même manière à travers les clichés imposés par la société de consommation.

Il est donc faux de croire que la réalité ne pourrait pas être changée, qu’elle ne sortirait pas, d’une manière ou d’une autre, de l’esprit ou de l’imagination des individus. Après tout, la réalité même qui s’impose aujourd’hui à nous, dans tout ce qu’elle a de plus terne, de paupérisant, etc. est elle-même le fruit de l’imagination et de l’esprit humains. Par exemple, les « cités » ou banlieues et leurs misérables conditions de vies desquelles on semble aujourd’hui incapable de sortir, sont bien l’œuvre de projets utopiques des années 60-70. C’est de l’esprit humain que sort n’importe quel élément de la réalité qui nous entoure, de la plus petite poubelle à la plus grande mégalopole. Ainsi, c’est bien l’imagination qui produit la réalité. On a tort, sans doute, d’opposer l’imagination à la réalité, comme si l’imagination ne pouvait produire que de l’imaginaire. Le monde moderne, avec ses lois économiques, sociales ou politiques, qui s’imposent désormais à chaque individu aussi nécessairement que les lois de la nature retire à chacun l’idée qu’il pourrait changer cette réalité ; et fait croire à tous qu’on doit s’y résigner. C’est bien d’un cerveau humain qu’est sortie la bombe atomique, comme les cités dortoirs, les villes nouvelles, et tous les bidonvilles de la terre. Alors, pourquoi une autre réalité ne pourrait-elle plus sortir du même cerveau ?
L’imagination ne consiste pas forcément à s’évader de la réalité : le scientifique qui émet une hypothèse use de son imagination. Baudelaire l’appelait « la reine des facultés ». Il critiquait le peintre paysagiste qui se contentait de copier la nature, et considérait comme un triomphe de ne pas montrer sa personnalité.

 

Le « créalisme » prétend donc faire cette synthèse ; réaffirmer que la réalité, loin de s’imposer à l’esprit, est créée par l’esprit lui-même. Notamment son imagination. Loin du « réalisme » qui voudrait nous imposer un seul système monde, une seule réalité, le créalisme affirme, contre Descartes, qu’il vaut mieux changer l’ordre du monde, plutôt que ses désirs ; rendre le monde conforme à ses désirs. Pourquoi le fait de « prendre ses désirs pour des réalités » consisterait seulement à se réfugier dans l’illusion ? A s’évader de la réalité ? Qui a dit qui les désirs ne pouvaient pas créer, transformer la réalité ?

nouveau réseau social

 

Visit THE CREALISTS - LES CRÉALISTES

Visit THE CREALISTS - LES CRÉALISTES