the spirit of Kracauer

… contemporary anthropologists (at least all those I’ve read so far) believe that myths have not disappeared but have transformed into new roles, such as pop science, corporations, and ideologies. All true, except for one thing. Such an approach (model) assumes their cultural equivalence. In the sense that our faith (quote …) in money or corporations or quantum field theory is just as ephemeral as the ancient Sumerians’ belief in Abzu and Enki.

In reality, however, such relativism runs up against the issue of proof (and falsifiability). Not that I completely disagree with this thesis, but upon closer examination, it becomes clear that myth is, in a way, a precursor to the model, in the sense that the word “model” considers science. Myth is a special case of it. That is, a model that claims to explain everything but is neither provable nor falsifiable.

Such a perspective, incidentally, opens up an interesting continuation… if at the heart of classical art-narrative myth is an inseparable part, the foundation (here we need to talk about monomyth and all that, but I’m already in my pajamas), then in modern art (including literature, film, and alike) the presence of a model in its scientific interpretation is a cornerstones criterion of validity. And here endless prospects open up…

Having thought about this, I immediately realized why most of what is now classified as so-called “media art” and exhibited here and there not only fails to inspire but, on the contrary, causes bewilderment at the mere fact of its existence and, even more so, discussion. 99% of it is simply a transferred classic quote into blinking lights, making the quote no longer a vulgar repetition. Curators of all kinds will promptly explain to you about “post” and “meta.” But isn’t it because they are equally ignorant? Because creative products require understanding of means and materials. And today, if you don’t understand QFT, you’re doomed to craft light bulbs with Arduinos here and there and look for such discursive equalizers to get praised and have everyone else put it all in a lullaby of pulled-out-of-the-palm meanings that sound nice for the target group.

Some of them guess something along these lines, but they think that watching more videos with flying balls and smart words about wave function and quantum entanglement would suffice to fill them with understanding.

Generally speaking, I would ask prospective students in art schools today, instead of examiners, to explain the meaning of Schrödinger’s equation (or at least write without Google first).