One of the frequent discussions in the history of art surrounds the idea of Decadence. There is an assumption at the base of it that art is cyclic, rising to a point of major achievement and then falling away again into crudity and sentimentality. The high is characterised by a singular vision and practice. The oft quoted example is that of 5th century Greece which evolved a style of aesthetic as encompassed in human statuary and architecture [to say nothing of poetry and drama] which then devolved into Roman copies where inventive plasticity was replaced by functionalism – that is, Art with a social purpose. Looked at this way, decadence has two meanings, one of which has a moral dimension where certain types of art are considered to be inferior for largely political reasons and the other that ideas and creative manipulation of materials have reached some sort of end. However, it is seldom that clear cut and considerations of the art world today might suggest that both definitions are in play.
The arguments surrounding the rise of AI for instance fall into both categories. The moral dimension pits the algorithm against human creative expression and while praising the technical ingenuity, condemns the lack of human intervention. I can well remember this concern in the early days of the computer as computer engineers sought to emulate and outdo the human brain. The scientific sector saw it as a major step forward and the poets as a step into oblivion. Today, righteous alarm is everywhere as selective sampling produces an artefact that probably couldn’t be achieved by a human hand. A step forward or a leap into moral and ethical decay?
Inventive plasticity though is still everywhere and has been for a century or more as the forms that art can take have been continually manipulated and just as continually been absorbed into the functional world of advertising. What is inventive and ground-breaking one day, is functionalism in extremis the next. The recent example of Botticelli’s Venus being used to promote tourism would seem to fit the bill. Is this human ingenuity at work or decay? The political angle says yes, it is decadent.
Perhaps though, it is not the moral dimension or the shift to functionalism that defines the era in which we find ourselves, but the lack of a definable direction. Looking at fifth century Greece in retrospect, leads us to believe that everyone was pulling in the same direction and that singularity of artistic and aesthetic purpose was accepted and paramount. Perhaps it was but a century in art at any time in history, is a long time and barring ancient Egyptian strictures about stylisation which persisted for thousands of years, the life of artistic acceptability has always been short. What we see today is a plethora of styles, mediums, unresolved ideas, national identity and socially functional art all running simultaneously. There is no direction and certainly no singularity. Decadence or healthy human expression? I think that depends upon the role art has to play in the collective mind of society. Its subservience to the marketplace on the one hand and its symbiotic relationship to both architecture and interior design and its increasing relationship to therapy might suggest that art is on the downward slope.
Something else that might suggest decadence is the idea of art for arts sake. There is an element of escapism in some art being produced today where not just singularity of cultural or aesthetic purpose has been abandoned but that beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder has become a mantra for such a diversified idea of beauty [if beauty is the measure we are using] that we are essentially lost. While sections of the art community insist that there is a universal paradigm at work when it comes to judging art, essentially it all comes down to personal choice, taste and the mood of the times which shifts on an hourly basis. We probably today have more control over how we want to live than at any time in history but deciding what that actually means is another question entirely and current art practice is an indicator of the confusion.
The dictionary describes decadence as unrestrained self-indulgence and moral turpitude. No doubt a case could be mounted to align both with current society but where does this leave art? Does it mean that art practice necessarily follows suit? Anything goes sounds all well and good in theory but it won’t get a pyramid or a Parthenon built and we still measure artistic and human progress in pyramids and parthenons while decrying the urban sprawl of high rise accommodation and office space however quirky in London, the Middle East or Shanghai where money to indulge architectural fancy is no problem. At various times in the last two hundred years, doubt has been raised about the art being produced but then again, there are examples of opposing voices throughout the last millennium and particularly from artists seeking to maintain their grip on the commission front.
Can we say that contemporary art has stopped moving forward and is essentially moribund and reeking of turpitude? Perhaps. As a society we have found a way of having all styles, ideas and histories running simultaneously. There is no past and no present. Rather than the linear cycle we have the circle and as every forward-thinking philosophical rat knows, there is no escape from the wheel. However, artistic practice can no more be held in stasis than it can be isolated. All art has a lineage. No matter what style an artist develops and no matter what social or political standpoint is adopted, there will always be precedents in spite of certain misguided artists claiming that they are free from all influence and wholly original.
Decadence as a term used to define periods in in art may need redefining. Without Turner and the later Barbizon school there wouldn’t have been Impressionism; without Impressionism there wouldn’t have been Post Impressionism; without Cezanne there wouldn’t have been a Picasso looking over his shoulder and plumping for a multiview universe; without a Duchamp we may never have embraced the readymade; without a Pollock the legions of Abstract Expressionistic copyists would have no idea how to explore their troubled selves; without art as therapy existence may well have devolved into meaninglessness. And so it goes.