the Tomorrow

Dear Pier Paolo,

In order to maintain/ensure the relevance of our cultural production, that very production needs to happen in relative disconnect to the market context. It is in many ways an obligation. For that reason the only possible ambition one might have in his “production” is to be classic. “Classic” has never been a clearly defined canon though, but rather a relatively clumsy approach towards cultural universalism. In my opinion its core idea is that the very context in which we (cultural producers) operate, is a cultural one, and not the context of the market. For that reason a “classic” perspective towards the production of culture is one that does not deny the existence of the market, but is indifferent towards it. In other words, it accepts its fate as a “failed” product. The classical project is for that matter not dependent on a specific definition, or canon, it is rather created as a set of iterations in dialogue with the culture that has preceded, for it is this very culture that defines its ultimate context of operation. In that light there are quite many “classic” authors — and I would dare state that most if not all relevant authors are classic — busy as they are (or were) developing their work from the principles of their art. To me Ed Ruscha comes to mind as a fundamentally classic author, as well as for example Lewis Baltz, who seemed so intertwined with his own work and the principles of that work that he experienced some kind of “writers-block” for the last twenty years. Perhaps this is in many ways emblematic for the classic author: in relative disconnect to the world he inhabits, he seems able to engage in a discourse of his own work as a proposition, but never able to give a proper answer.

I presume this relative disconnect is in many ways exhausting, as the work needs to be fuelled by its emanating self-relevance. At the same time, “classic” does not in any way connect with dogmatic. Dogmatic production is a propagandistic production of frozen rhetoric. As such unable to develop itself from within as it is in complete denial of the cultural context in which it could operate. It replaces the negotiation of principles by the celebration of a cult. Classic cultural production does not have the intention to claim anything. It uses the very grammar it renegotiates to present itself as a coherent entity, in a frank open relation to the world it inhabits but with mild indifference.

I feel there is no relation between the amount to which an author is “classic” and his success. In as much as his production happens in relative disconnect to that very context that decides to judge his work, the core of the work is indifferent to that judgement. I feel today it is not more difficult to pursue this ambition, the ambiguities of communication are in no single way in conflict with the project proper. For me Adolf Loos’ work is the perfect example as easily survived the ambiguities created by his other self — the polemic socialite — and is in hindsight a cornerstone in any contemporary attempt for universalism.

Best,
Kersten