Some Remarks on the Opposition: either Pop or Art

Abstract

Nowadays, attempts to systematize art on the basis of its value are being somewhat replaced by descriptive theories that shy away from its evaluations. Moreover, postmodern reflection, changing its attitude to low art, has effectively blurred the differences in the hierarchization of the content of art. A strengthening of the programmatic theses advocated in the avant-garde aimed at invalidating the previous criteria of attitudes assessing the value of art came with the so-called philosophy of postmodernism. The assumptions of postmodernism show a vision of contemporary art that has reached the end of its creative possibilities. In other words, there is no contemporary possibility of saying something new in art, which will not be just a quotation, repetition or recapitulation of what has already been done in art. This kind of hypothesis assumes that human imagination is a set of finite possibilities, and in the process of cultural development we have reached a point where all possible combinations have already been used. In this situation, we can either adopt an attitude of discouragement, or we can reach back to past times and select individual elements by putting them together in an eclectic combination so that they bear the mark of novelty. But, in order to set up this eclecticism, which is supposed to fulfill the semblance of novelty, it is necessary to start from doubt in the category of rational reason, or lack of faith in the natural order of the world. Only then will ubiquitous irony remain the main operative on the ground of culture. And in this spirit, according to the assumptions of postmodernism, one should read the so-called great historical narratives, that is, philosophical systems, religions, social projects and art theory. The narratives developed in history should be treated like great literary tales, which, perhaps, have an interesting plot, but are not true, and do not go beyond casual commentary. The catalog of frequently posited hypotheses selected and discussed in the article indicates their vague and often flawed construction. But this does not imply the impossibility of posing questions about value judgments on the grounds of aesthetics. It should be remembered that certain issues remain constant in evaluation of art. The criterion for evaluating a work of art on the basis of empirical qualities remains in place, thus, what we call workshop issues can pass as the first premise for recognizing, or not, of a work of art as valuable. Similarly, on the basis of a certain visual fiction, values are realized that are not available in the real world, thus, they do not act as a pure repetition of experience from the real world, so they can exist in the world of art. Thus, the value of art can be measured by the extent to which it introduces something that the cognitive subject has not experienced before.