This section looks at the very heart of what we understand by Post Autonomy ‘How to invent a new language and thinking at a moment when we do not have a language, and logically following on from that implication the thinking.
This line of reasoning develops key strategic descriptions that lead to the necessity for developing the discourse of Post Autonomy –
“That what started in the 17th Century with the invention of art culminated in the 1990’s, but at the same time witnessed its collapse and implosion”
This moment of culmination, collapse and implosion signals both –
- A basic level of maturity
- Yet the thinking and practices that led to this moment of culmination and collapse is unable to offer solutions for developing art any further
Since the aim is to imagine Post Autonomy as the moment of the transformation of art
We out of necessity need to locate new thinking and solutions. Therefore –
- How and where do we need to go in order to start to develop a new language?
- Or where do we to Locate a language that is specific to the space of PA
It goes without saying that the task of both locating new thinking and language is fraught both with the obvious claims of the pointlessness of such an exercise*, and the huge demands and complexity of this task. But I don’t think that either the complexity nor demand disqualifies such a goal.
*since this task is unable to fit comfortably within existing discourses or that it appears that such an exercise is a rerun of what has already taken place. Yet the strength of the rationale supporting Post Autonomy is that it shows very clearly that both these claims are incorrect if one carefully looks at the fabric of the development of art.