GEMINILOGGBOOKOBERDADAISTICUS

Ellul on Nonsense Art

Jacques Ellul is most known for his technology criticism, but his writings on modern art is well worth the acquaintance. L'emipre du non-sens (1980) is a scathing critique of modernism in all the arts. Although Ellul often comes across as a reactionary who simply finds modern art ugly, ridiculous, or pointless, it's not quite that simple. Two of the main premises of his argument are that technique is a dominating force in society, stronger than any political tendency, and that modern society is one where meaning has ceased to exist. An art that tries to be relevant and critical of modern society, then, might try to show the absence of meaning, by itself becoming absurd or nonsensical.

Non-sens in French has the double meaning of absurdities and non-signification or absence of meaning. Both these meanings are implied when Ellul writes of nonsense in art.

Ellul throws punches in all directions. Some art exposes and exaggerates horrors and the repulsive, with the effect that we feel relief at realising that the reality we live in is not that bad after all. Other art is escapist, offers a ludic compensation, colourful displays in response to our gray surroundings, playful activities everyone can partake in. Some art carries a message which is critical of society, other kinds of art appears meaningless, although it supposedly comments on the lack of meaning in society. There are a few such examples of contradictory tendencies that Ellul refers back to a reaction to the technical society.

> C'est un art sans contenu, sans message, sans signification, qui se veut parfois directement conforme à la technique, parfois l'exprime involontairement.

The accusation that modern art conforms to the technical system, or simply Technique, is one of Ellul's key points, but the argument is perhaps not as solid as one might hope. For example, Ellul claims that artists express the influence of technique without being aware of it. Easily said, harder to prove. Another difficulty lies in the vagueness of the term technique, which includes all the artistic techniques, and the fact that sometimes Ellul seems to refer to more advanced technology such as computers and their effect on the arts (remember, this was published in 1980): If the computer is able to imitate modern art, he writes, it is because modern artists imitate the computer!

Modern art has relied to a large extent on theorising and explaining. It has come to be an art for specialists. The art critic serves an essential role in this system of explaining art to a general public. Exhibition catalogues with texts by an expert or interviews with the artist are indispensable. This trend of art for specialists has come about because modern art rejects common experience, according to Ellul. Either it resists carrying any meaning, or it reflects on the lack of meaning in society, which amounts to the same thing. Then, of course, opposed to this formalist art there is also l'art à message, the kind of art that does have a message, and when it does, it is stated in such a banal way that it's not worth our attention anyway.

Against this bleak assessment of modern art, Ellul only briefly contrasts it with classical art, where beauty and meaning were still cherished ideals. Concerning reinterpretation of classics (most notably in theatre), Ellul notes that the original meaning is destroyed "... pour aplatir tout ce qui pourrait faire obstacle, contester le courant dominant de notre société : la technique" - to flatten that which might have served as obstacles against the dominating current of technique.

Despite many similar passages of reactionary resentment, Ellul's criticism is fun to read. He writes like an angry young man, although he had come of age at that point. What he finds ugly, others may find beautiful. Popular taste changes over time. Even advertising and design has appropriated the language of modernism and made it commonplace, a few decades after it first happened. And where he finds a lack of meaning in modern art, others might disagree; either it has some meaning for them, or its meaninglessness is not viewed unfavourably.

It must be emphasised that the existential emptiness and lack of meaning Ellul sees in modern art is not typical of engaged contemporary art. The reliance on theory remains as strong as ever, but accusing it of withholding meaning would not make sense. But one thing that Ellul is correct in pointing out is how the meaning is not always communicated in the work of art in itself, and this is still true. For example, he ridicules Tàpies for his symbolic abstract paintings, such as one in black and red, where one is supposed to read the colours as symbols of blod and death.

More recent writers such as Nathalie Heinich and Aude de Kerros have criticised the contemporary art scene, or simply described it from a compassionately neutral standpoint; neutral in the sense of neither trying to tear it down or prop it up. Their perspectives are mainly sociology and economics. As de Kerros points out, cultural politics in France since the early 1980's has favoured what she refers to as "conceptualism." I'm not so sure it would be possible to blame that political decision on the technical system, but its consequences have been far-reaching. Ellul is probably right in pointing out the "technical system" as a strong driving force, and he is probably also right in attributing to it some role in shaping modern art. However, the weakness of his argument, as I have pointed out, is its vagueness as well as occasionally appearing to be self-contradictory.

glog index

Main page