6 | peeling away the upholstery [ ecoart ]
The Upholsterer — Kitchen. 2008.
“Impasse” is the name for the space where the urgencies of livelihood are worked out all over again without assurances of better futurity while proceeding along by ways of adaptive improvisation and adjustment. People can be destroyed in the impasse, or be discouraged while maintaining composure or creatively managing things. Or they might refuse to adapt, becoming political or depressed, or both.1
—Lauren Berlant
There is no other aesthetic problem than the introduction of art into everyday life.2
—Gilles Deleuze
Gathered as things among other things, people prolong their stay in the impasse through the maintenance of dated, frail, or cracking attunements and orientations. Such is mere adaptation, a reactionary stance that struggles to keep defunct or damaged rhythms afloat; one becomes debilitated, committed to salvaging a shipwrecked life rather than leaving it behind, no matter the exhaustion, strain, and pain incurred. Cruel optimism.
Making it through the impasse demands invention rather than recalibration — creative rather than adaptive practices of detachment energized by new orientations, attitudes, and postures. It calls for, as a first step, the development of an intensified sensitivity — an active rather than adaptive process — to the things magnetizing the ordinary atmospheres of the impasse as well as things that may tug us elsewhere.
Ecoart is an example of what might push that first step, an expression of the aesthetic problem presented by Deleuze. Ecoart is not a particular medium or work. It can be anything, from acrylics being brushed onto a canvas to the colors splashing across a sunset stroll. It emerges as a dark precursor. Because ecoart can generate wonder for some while leaving others cold, it is haecceitic through and through. In other words, ecoart is atmospheric, an emergent atmosphere that sweeps up one as a thing among other things. It thus creates rather than adapts; it amplifies the noise of things, jolts familiar rhythms, ventilates atmospheres of the ordinary, and potentially breaks the impasse.
Robbie Rowlands’s sculptural and site pieces, showcased throughout this series, may be exemplary for some in generating ecoartistic experiences. The descriptions of one critic capture well the ecoartistic potential of Rowlands’s work:
Rowlands bases his sculptural work on things that exist at the fringes of our awareness, utilitarian objects such as lampposts or desks. He refashions them into something altogether different yet in a way that never allows their original identity to be shed. The mass produced and functional designs are softened and framed in terms of a new aesthetic, giving the object a renewed energy or sensibility. The effect is to reveal hidden potential in what had come to be regarded as outmoded. If the former object is largely unrecognizable in the new sculpture, the process is not one of violence, rather there is a sense of redemption, as if the object has been liberated from obsolescence, from forgetfulness. This redemptive sense is twofold; on the one hand the object has become something else, inhabiting a new and often sensuous form. On the other hand we can’t help reading this new form back into the old; we sense that the change is not entirely arbitrary, that maybe this new energy, this emerging beauty and potential was always there in the original object, even as it was sat on, written on, or passed by on the way to work. As such his work enables us to reflect upon the wider process of change, upon what our relation with things might suggest about us, and perhaps invites us to inject a little more care into the quotidian realm.3
I myself am attracted more by the site-work than the particular sculptures if only because the former countenance the withdrawal of things into atmospheres that offer no specific angle of entry. Outdoor installations (such as “Screening”, “Only 30 – Detroit”, and “Fell for Silo”) foreground their haecceitic dimension in their interaction with sunlight shifts and seasonal changes. The indoor installations (“The Offering” and “The Upholsterer”) take ordinary spaces (a church and a kitchen) and unleash the thing-power therein. In any case, Rowlands’s pieces magnetize ecoart atmospheres that, for some, cultivate an ecological disposition and aesthetic attunement to things.
Opening an exit from the impasse requires an ecological disposition attentive to things of various scales. The neoliberal impasse, for example, is not a structural crisis in the logic of capital alone; it is furnished in part by economic markets, but as “imperfect self-regulating system[s] in a cosmos composed of innumerable, interacting open systems with differential capacities of self-regulation.”4 To a cosmic tune not determined in advance of its emergence, neoliberal “force-fields” jive with heterogeneous, interactive force-fields of many types (e.g. cultural, biological, climatological, geological, theological, etc.). The neoliberal impasse here opens when the neoliberal force-field attains a relative durability despite the fluctuations in other force-fields impinging them from without. At the same time, that impasse is also fueled by a multifaceted neoliberal ethos lodged in lower registers of life. Therein, the neoliberal ethos produces and patterns bodies, thought-feelings, postures, activities, and expressions into the space-time of ordinary neoliberal life. We might be tempted to characterize the neoliberal (or any) impasse as both systemic and subjective were it not for our attentiveness to things and their preindividual (haecceitic) dimension. Moreover, too rigidly splitting the neoliberal (or any) impasse into macro and micro levels also forgets that things defy ontological scaling — that there is no difference in kind between things that would make them discrete entities. An ecological disposition accounts for how the impasse is operative on “different scales of time, agency, creativity, viscosity, and speed” by recalling that the impasse is composed in part by atmospheric things.5
Because we don’t know in advance which things situate us in the impasse and how, our ecological disposition must be enriched by an aesthetic attunement to things. That such an attunement is aesthetic emphasizes its affective grasping of what cannot be clearly cognized: when sensibility is sharper than cognition. What slips into consciousness from aesthetic attunement to an ordinary atmosphere is an approximated ecology of things.6 Aesthetic attunements to the neoliberal impasse, then, entail feeling out for the things clustering therein, to test out one’s affective attraction to wearying and damaging things. Dealing with the neoliberal impasse, in other words, demands more than attending to the “subjective grip” exerted upon populations by the “state/media/neoliberal combine” to reinstate their “faith” in neoliberalism.7 The neoliberal impasse isn’t managed by simply attributing failures of neoliberal endeavors to insufficient de/regulation, limited corporate greediness, or the favored policies of whatever political party — all projects of the human estate, more or less. The ordinary atmospheres of the neoliberal impasse are also comprised of neoliberal things, an ecology of neoliberal things whose membership and magnetism exceed human control; even nonhuman things upkeep the neoliberal impasse. I suspect that, for example, the widespread resuscitation of faith in the American Dream during the Great Recession amongst America’s college graduates who, upon a string of failed job searches, have moved back into their parents’ home is sustained not only by ideological fantasy, discursive practices, social normativities, and market performances; it’s also a matter of simple immersion in the noise of neoliberal things that generate and upkeep the ordinary atmospheres of bourgeois accoutrements and aspirations. Might the simple ambience of various things in and about bourgeois milieus make one feel right at home with a neoliberal ethos even if one doesn’t acknowledge such thing-power? Neoliberal things, in part but ultimately irreducible to instrumentalized objects and consumer goods, are neither inert nor inconsequential, even while their maintenance of ordinary atmospheres of the neoliberal impasse generally passes below the radar of recognition. Because faculties of recognition are ill-suited to grasp those things formative of the neoliberal impasse, they and their supportive subject-object universe might be suspended in favor of an aesthetic attunement that, on new affective registers, is sensitive to the pulse of those things vitalizing the impasse. An aesthetic attunement puts an ecological disposition into contact with things in transformative circuits of style and affect (e.g. Sasha and the lollipop screwdriver) that potentially chisels away at or blasts apart the impasse.
An ecological disposition turns one’s attention to the legion of things making up an impasse and how it — both those things and the impasse — might be otherwise. An aesthetic attunement opens affective registers shaped in part by the things prehended by them, except when it does not (remember, results are not guaranteed!). Forced by an encounter with things that resonate together as ecoart, they hold the subject-object dimension in abeyance long enough to potentially open visions of and even paths to new vistas beyond the impasse. Might aesthetic attunements to Rowlands’s works be crafting a “story of objects asserting themselves as things” that enacts a “changed relation to the human subject?”8 Might things turn out to be other than consumables and we other than dedicated consumers? Might the neoliberal impasse be left behind?
Perhaps. But only after a wave of things engulfs us in its noise, for a while.
—-
notes.