NEODECADENCE
Since the Pre-Raphaelites, the decadence of the symbolists had reflected in keeping distance from the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century, a material imperative of those times and quite unreasonable ways of consuming natural and abusing human resources (and as a matter of fact, these ways haven’t changed a great deal ever since). Their contempt toward the progress and all of its consequences unfortunately also extended to the sciencific achievements of that period, which were considered unspiritual (the fact that they indirectly exerted influence on the development of psychoanalyses remains as just another of their controversies).
Due to these reasons, symbolism was never a kind of contemporary art, just another of actual “isms” of those times (each of them was, as a rule, condemned first and glorified later), because it didn’t carry the sign of its time. It was anachronous and therefore unacceptable as such among the modern styles of 20th century, to which it had either direct or indirect impact, the nexus most but not all of the representatives of these styles denied (Andre Breton and Marcel Duchamp, for instance, recognized and praised how the symbolists had contributed to their work).
The artists of decadence used to express their admiration for the ingenious and above average, looking from their own perpective which implied a utopian view of the world, inspired by the new philosophical thoughts of those times. Many artists were themselves the socialutopists who had a vision of better future where the mankind could be brought by crossing the boundaries of mediocrity and reducing the class differences. Related styles, and such are Symbolism, Art Nouveau, Liberty and Jugendstil, abounded in aspiration to move an artisticaly shaped product away from being an exclusive privilege of the opulent, however, just like the idea of a society without classes, they would have often been caught in their own contradiction. By renewing both the styles and the idea itself, I leave some space for optimism.
And what about mediocrity? Does the craving for the above average exclude understanding for those who are just ordinary people, or this should be deprived only to the mediocrities, those individuals that display no need of pushing forward beyond their own limits, but only harbor desire to bring everything back onto their own level, using whatever means necessery to achieve that goal. Light and darkness reside in each of us, hidden behind a number of obstacles which we built in order to make ourselves socially acceptable, our essence and something what we really are, our true nature that holds the seeds of curiosity and creativity, often supressed not to discern from the average so much adored by mediocrities.
People have always lived under the social imperative of supressing their own individuality, which has also been imposed as the safest mode of their existence, and each digression from this course in the past was either sanctioned or rewarded by those who at the same time evaluated to which extent and in what manner their own interests were endangered. Ingenuity comes as a privilege of some, however the passion and desire of gravitating toward it belong to everybody.
We usually don’t think much about the influences the surrounding world exerts on us every single day, a variety of medias, other people’s opinions, options we are forced to embrace or we refuse to accept consciously or subconsciously. A part of it has a positive impact on us, the other part doesn’t, and unfortunately our choice is often made without any more profound reflections on need for positive values selection. By doing so, we also lose a part of our own personality because, regardless of that whether or not our intention is good, the point is in balance. Nothing looks as it seemed to be at first sight, and the road to hell is full of good intentions.
Formal and unformal education, general culture, as well as natural curiosity and passion for knowing, all of which we carry in ourselves, help us to create or recognize those values that will not fade in time.
Consequently, my way to protect my personal seeds of creativity is founded on a selective distancing from certain, widely accepted social ideas, and also resisting to the standardization of human psychology and acting through socially approved model. Thanks to the fact that a huge database is now easily accesible, we’re able to recognize and comprehend quickly and with facility, to extract what is important and discard what isn’t. Knowing is not a bunch of facts, piled up in a head, it is the conscience about their justified existence. Only when all parts of a puzzle are put on their places, one can get a big picture.