\u00ab Dans le cynisme de l\u2019innovation se cache assur\u00e9ment le d\u00e9sespoir qu\u2019il n\u2019arrive plus rien. \u00bb
\nLyotard, J.-F. (1988). L\u2019inhumain. Galil\u00e9e, p.118<\/p>\n\n\n\n
La crise ne cesse de recommencer. Elle cesse, reprend et cesse encore, pour reprendre une nouvelle fois, expiration et inspiration altern\u00e9e, soulagement prise dans la crainte. Dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 dont les effets de mise en sc\u00e8ne de la crise produisent des cons\u00e9quences critiques, certains cherchent \u00e0 justifier les financements per\u00e7us par la cr\u00e9ation artistique en en d\u00e9montrant l\u2019utilit\u00e9 d\u00e9mocratique. Une dialectique entre l\u2019art pour l\u2019art et l\u2019art pour autre chose (l\u2019art utile donc) se met en place :<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab Aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation. \u00bb (Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991, p. 4\u20135.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L\u2019un des ressorts classiques de cette tentative de justification est l\u2019innovation : l\u2019art serait une source d\u2019innovation et de cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 sociale. Sans cette ressource, le d\u00e9veloppement de nos soci\u00e9t\u00e9s s\u2019arr\u00eaterait. Une \u00e9quivalence civilisationnelle se met alors en place entre les arts, les sciences et les techniques, les trois formant un torrent irriguant l\u2019esprit de notre temps gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 la croissance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Il y a bien s\u00fbr tout lieu de penser de fa\u00e7on critique que le discours de l\u2019innovation n\u2019est pas sans rapport avec l\u2019exigence de d\u00e9veloppement effr\u00e9n\u00e9 propre au capitalisme contemporain qui ext\u00e9nue la terre et les affects. Innover c\u2019est produire du nouveau, co\u00fbte que co\u00fbte, c\u2019est ne jamais s\u2019arr\u00eater, mais c\u2019est surtout produire de plus en plus de nouveau, par des productions mat\u00e9rielles et des discours, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire que c\u2019est le diff\u00e9rentiel qui permet d\u2019\u00e9valuer la nouveaut\u00e9 elle-m\u00eame. L\u2019innovation appara\u00eet alors comme une valeur commune entre le monde de l\u2019art et le monde de l\u2019entreprise. Cette fuite en avant est celle de la modernit\u00e9 avide de nouveaut\u00e9s en tout genre et dont l\u2019obsolescence programm\u00e9e n\u2019a eu de cesse d\u2019organiser les corps d\u00e9sirant selon une logique de remplacement permanent, puisque ce qu\u2019on me fait d\u00e9sirer, je devrais l\u2019abandonner dans quelques temps. Deuil vite oubli\u00e9 par le remplacement d\u2019un autre objet. Il est n\u00e9cessaire de d\u00e9construire les ressorts id\u00e9ologiques de cette innovation, mais cette fuite ne se r\u00e9duit pas au lib\u00e9ralisme. Baudelaire ne faisait-il pas lui aussi pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence au go\u00fbt du nouveau ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab Au fond de l\u2019Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau. \u00bb (Les Fleurs du mal)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sans doute faudrait-il alors distinguer deux temporalit\u00e9s de la novation. La premi\u00e8re appartient au futur comme temps pr\u00e9visible et soumis au calcul. La seconde \u00e0 l\u2019avenir comme inanticipable et monstruosit\u00e9 faisant trembler la valeur des signes, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire les conditions m\u00eames de l\u2019\u00e9change. La modernit\u00e9 artistique s\u2019est constitu\u00e9e dans l\u2019entrelacs entre cette novation du futur et celle de l\u2019avenir qui s\u2019est ouvert gr\u00e2ce au d\u00e9sir d\u2019\u00e9mancipation. Il y avait alors un lien entre l\u2019accroissement de la production industrielle et la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation artistique de nouvelles potentialit\u00e9s jusqu\u2019alors impensables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cette articulation entre le futur et l\u2019avenir permet de comprendre l\u2019un des raisons essentielles pour laquelle l\u2019art dit \u00ab num\u00e9rique \u00bb, dont la terminologie elle-m\u00eame est h\u00e9riti\u00e8re de cette structure, garde un arri\u00e8re-go\u00fbt de modernisme alors m\u00eame que cette p\u00e9riode semble derri\u00e8re nous. L\u2019art \u00ab num\u00e9rique \u00bb s\u2019est souvent justifi\u00e9 par cette innovation, ce qui a donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 des discours d\u2019apparence na\u00efve qui tentaient de donner le change, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire de fournir le discours attendu pour rendre des comptes \u00e0 des institutions administratives accordant en retour des subventions. Personne bien s\u00fbr n\u2019a \u00e9t\u00e9 dupe de ces discours, mais au fil du temps l\u2019innovation est devenue une habitude de l\u2019art \u00ab num\u00e9rique \u00bb, tant et si bien qu\u2019elle a fini par s\u2019int\u00e9grer totalement \u00e0 son d\u00e9veloppement. C\u2019est aussi la raison pour laquelle on retrouve dans les appels de dossier, une conception instrumentale et anthropologique sous-jacente de la technique.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dans le recours fr\u00e9quent \u00e0 l\u2019innovation, il y a \u00e9galement la soumission de l\u2019art au mot d\u2019ordre de la rentabilit\u00e9 et de l\u2019utilit\u00e9 sociales : l\u2019oeuvre devient un commentaire de l\u2019innovation, elle doit l\u2019exemplifier, en \u00eatre la d\u00e9mo. Par une telle soumission, on gagne peut-\u00eatre en moyens \u00e9conomiques, mais on perd le vacillement qui est le coeur m\u00eame de l\u2019oeuvre. Par rapport \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9conomie classique de l\u2019art (le march\u00e9), ce mot d\u2019ordre se place en amont de la production, pas en aval, et a ainsi des cons\u00e9quences plus profondes. Il rend ringard des techniques qui forment pourtant notre temps, parce qu\u2019il se soutient d\u2019un discours de l\u2019obsolescence. Certaines techniques sont alors \u00e0 la mode artistique : processing, arduino, pure data, qui r\u00e9sonnent comme autant de mots magiques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S\u2019il ne faut pas soustraire toute id\u00e9e de nouveaut\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019art, puisqu\u2019on voit souvent dans l\u2019art pr\u00e9tendument \u00ab num\u00e9rique \u00bb des oeuvres r\u00e9p\u00e9tant ce qui s\u2019est fait des ann\u00e9es plus t\u00f4t dans la plus parfaite ignorance, on peut distinguer deux formes de novation : l\u2019innovation correspond \u00e0 un mode de production qui acc\u00e9l\u00e8re l\u2019apparition et la disparition des objets en soumettant les affects \u00e0 un certain rythme. Le propre de l\u2019innovation, c\u2019est qu\u2019il n\u2019y a aucun tournant technique, aucun moment d\u00e9terminant, ce qui compte c\u2019est le rythme du changement et c\u2019est ce flux auquel il faut s\u2019adapter plut\u00f4t qu\u2019\u00e0 tel ou tel objet particulier. Le mouvement n\u2019a d\u2019autre fin que la soumission du d\u00e9sir. La seconde novation pourrait \u00eatre appel\u00e9e la disnovation. Il faut y entendre quelque chose de nouveau qui est anormal, d\u00e9sajust\u00e9, inanticipable. La disnovation met en jeu la distinction m\u00eame entre le nouveau et l\u2019ancien : il y a une r\u00e9serve d\u2019avenir dans le pass\u00e9. C\u2019est ainsi que les technologies pass\u00e9es peuvent ne pas passer, qu\u2019on peut ranimer des objets obsol\u00e8tes et les zombifier (Five Principles of Zombie Media). Par cette distinction conceptuelle, on redonne aux discours sur l\u2019art la capacit\u00e9 de s\u2019engager dans le nouveau sans pour autant s\u2019adapter \u00e0 l\u2019instrumentalit\u00e9 sociale : la disnovation ne vient pas s\u2019adapter \u00e0 ce qui existe, mais est un flux discontinu qui vient interrompre et troubler ce qui pr\u00e9existe jusqu\u2019\u00e0 ses conditions m\u00eame de possibilit\u00e9 qui sont l\u2019utilit\u00e9 elle-m\u00eame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Un tel trouble ne reconduit pas le discours, lui aussi moderniste, de l\u2019anomalie interrompant le syst\u00e8me de valeurs. Nous savons combien le capitalisme contemporain est apte \u00e0 int\u00e9grer ce qui lui r\u00e9siste, combien le singulier devient une marchandise, la r\u00e9sistance devenant alors un concept d\u00e9crivant la conduction \u00e9lectrique. C\u2019est sans doute pourquoi, le capitalisme valorise la relation entre hacking et art ainsi que l\u2019art incidentel tel que le glitch, qui sont une r\u00e9sistance qui reconduit le flux int\u00e9gral. Peut-\u00eatre faut-il alors voir la disnovation, non du point de vue des influences du num\u00e9rique sur la culture, mais de la culture sur le num\u00e9rique. Pour le dire autrement : la dislocation va du pr\u00e9sent vers futur, non du futur vers le pr\u00e9sent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
–<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab\u00a0In the cynicism of innovation there is certainly a despair that nothing more will happen. \u00bb
Lyotard, J.-F. (1988). L’inhumain. Galileo, p.118<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The crisis is starting all over again. It stops, starts again and stops again, to start again, alternating exhalation and inhalation, relief caught in fear. In a society where the staging effects of the crisis produce critical consequences, some seek to justify the funding received by artistic creation by demonstrating its democratic usefulness. A dialectic between art for art and art for something else (useful art) is being established:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab\u00a0Aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation. \u00ab\u00a0(Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991, pp. 4-5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the classic springs of this attempt at justification is innovation: art would be a source of innovation and social creativity. Without this resource, the development of our societies would come to a halt. A civilisational equivalence is then established between the arts, sciences and techniques, the three forming a torrent irrigating the spirit of our time through growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is, of course, every reason to think critically that the discourse of innovation is not unrelated to the demand for unbridled development peculiar to contemporary capitalism, which exhausts the earth and affects it. To innovate is to produce something new, whatever the cost, is to never stop, but above all it is to produce more and more new, through material productions and discourses, that is to say, it is the differential that makes it possible to evaluate the novelty itself. Innovation then appears as a common value between the world of art and the world of business. This headlong rush is that of modernity avid for novelty of all kinds and whose programmed obsolescence has not ceased to organize the desiring bodies according to a logic of permanent replacement, since what I am made to desire, I should abandon in a little while. Mourning quickly forgotten by the replacement of another object. It is necessary to deconstruct the ideological springs of this innovation, but this flight cannot be reduced to liberalism. Didn’t Baudelaire also prefer the taste of the new?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00ab\u00a0In the depths of the Unknown to find the new. \u00ab\u00a0(The Flowers of Evil)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No doubt, then, two temporalities should be distinguished from novation. The first belongs to the future as foreseeable time and subject to calculation. The second belongs to the future as inanticipable and monstrosity that makes the value of signs tremble, that is to say, the very conditions of exchange. Artistic modernity is constituted in the intertwining of this novation of the future and that of the future that has opened up thanks to the desire for emancipation. There was then a link between the increase in industrial production and the artistic revelation of new potentialities hitherto unthinkable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This articulation between the future and the future makes it possible to understand one of the essential reasons why so-called \u00ab\u00a0digital\u00a0\u00bb art, whose terminology itself is heir to this structure, retains an aftertaste of modernism even though this period seems to be behind us. Digital\u00a0\u00bb art was often justified by this innovation, which gave rise to seemingly na\u00efve speeches that tried to give the change, that is to say, to provide the expected discourse to be accountable to administrative institutions granting subsidies in return. No one, of course, was fooled by these discourses, but over time innovation became a habit in \u00ab\u00a0digital\u00a0\u00bb art, so much so that it became fully integrated into its development. This is also the reason why we find in the calls for papers an underlying instrumental and anthropological conception of the technique.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the frequent recourse to innovation, there is also the submission of art to the watchword of social profitability and utility: the work becomes a commentary on innovation, it must exemplify it, be the demo of it. Through such submission, one may gain in economic means, but one loses the wavering that is the very heart of the work. Compared to the classical economics of art (the market), this watchword is placed upstream of production, not downstream, and thus has deeper consequences. It renders obsolete techniques which nevertheless form our time, because it is supported by a discourse of obsolescence. Certain techniques are then in artistic fashion: processing, arduino, pure data, which resonate like so many magic words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If we must not remove any idea of novelty from art, since we often see in so-called \u00ab\u00a0digital\u00a0\u00bb art works repeating what was done years earlier in the most perfect ignorance, we can distinguish two forms of novation: innovation corresponds to a mode of production that accelerates the appearance and disappearance of objects by subjecting the affects to a certain rhythm. What is characteristic of innovation is that there is no technical turning point, no determining moment, what counts is the pace of change and it is this flow to which one has to adapt rather than this or that particular object. Movement has no other end than the submission of desire. The second novation could be called disnovation. It is to be understood as something new that is abnormal, maladjusted, unpredictable. Disnovation brings into play the very distinction between the new and the old: there is a reserve of future in the past. This is how past technologies may not pass, how obsolete objects can be revived and zombified (Five Principles of Zombie Media). Through this conceptual distinction, we give back to the discourses on art the capacity to engage in the new without adapting to social instrumentality: disnovation does not come to adapt to what exists, but is a discontinuous flow that interrupts and disturbs what pre-exists up to its very conditions of possibility, which are utility itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such a disorder does not renew the discourse, also modernist, of the anomaly interrupting the system of values. We know how much contemporary capitalism is capable of integrating what resists it, how much the singular becomes a commodity, resistance then becoming a concept describing electrical conduction. This is undoubtedly why capitalism values the relationship between hacking and art, as well as incidental art such as glitch, which are a resistance that drives back the integral flow. Perhaps we should then see disnovation, not from the point of view of the influences of digital on culture, but of culture on digital. To put it another way: dislocation goes from the present to the future, not from the future to the present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/disnovation\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/innovation\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/obsolete\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/post_et_post\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/logicielle\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/medium\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/style\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/a-contre-temps-2\/
http:\/\/chatonsky.net\/flux\/a-contre-temps\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00ab Dans le cynisme de l\u2019innovation se cache assur\u00e9ment le d\u00e9sespoir qu\u2019il n\u2019arrive plus rien. \u00bb Lyotard, J.-F. (1988). L\u2019inhumain. Galil\u00e9e, p.118 La crise ne cesse de recommencer. Elle cesse, reprend et cesse encore, pour reprendre une nouvelle fois, expiration et inspiration altern\u00e9e, soulagement prise dans la crainte. Dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 dont les effets de…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4074,"template":"","meta":[],"portfolio_category":[28,21],"portfolio_tag":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/portfolio\/3952"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/portfolio"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/portfolio"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/portfolio\/3952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4898,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/portfolio\/3952\/revisions\/4898"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"portfolio_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fportfolio_category&post=3952"},{"taxonomy":"portfolio_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/incident.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fportfolio_tag&post=3952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}