Life, as a dynamic flow, expresses itself in the shape of fixed forms we call culture. In the end, therefore, life destroys the very forms that emerged from it, replacing them with new forms and new expressions (Simmel, 1968:11). Today, we experience a situation in which life is struggling against the principle of form, against form as such (Simmel, 1968:12). How did we reach this point?
It was made possible by the concept of life gaining dominance in the 19th century, as apparent in the philosophy of the time, after other comprehensive notions such as essence, God, and nature ruled previous cultural epochs. Life comes forth, and as a result, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the great philosophers of the 19th century, begin to speculate it, whether disappointed or jubilated by its pure force, because without knowing life’s whatness, none of the other cultural forms could be understood (Simmel, 1968:13-5).
Life both provides meaning and value and is the juncture of the two, which are the fundamental framework of a modern world. Meaning, i.e., “metaphysical reality” (Simmel, 1968:13), and value, however, deny to be defined by modern people in a manner that shapes an exhaustive, homogenous idea since they have their roots in life, a formless flow of force that defies all form in one way or the other (Simmel, 1968:15). It is manifested in our time not only by expressionist art replacing impressionism (Simmel, 1968:16), but also by the prevalence of pop art later in time.
Painting is a suitable canvas for life to express itself so long as it does not carry any specific meaning per se. Therefore, painting is neither a fixed form to be in conflict with the flow of life, nor a standard to contain values such as ugliness or beauty. All the meaning and value, thus, belong to life itself, not any paintings. That’s why as meaningful as they might seem when regarded in relation to life, all the contemporary works are but unbalanced puzzling traces of paint in the eye of a traditional critic. Not only paintings, but the artists themselves possess meaning and autonomy as long as they listen to the force of life inside them and express life without any mediation (Simmel, 1968:17).
Of course, it had always been the case that life be expressed in art, although not necessarily immediately (Simmel, 1968:17). It explains why seemingly pointless pop works by Andy Warhol replace Monet’s masterpieces; Warhol lets life flow more purely through his paintings.
Life is the element in art which is not artistic, the element in religion not divine, in metaphysics not related to truth, making them all contradictory and “easily disproven” in order for the next school of thought, the next religion, the next form to come (Simmel, 1968:18). This is life fighting against form as such, today more overtly than ever. It is due to life being the central idea in every epoch, although taking the form of a different concept each time until finally it has broken through the concept of life too. Life is making the new generation, the youth who have always bore the strongest vitality, neglect all kinds of forms in every aspect, even in politics, causing revolutions and uprisings worldwide. They only wish to express the life in them, without a goal, since they are only driven by the force of life, without a form (Simmel, 1968:18). “The search for originality” (Simmel, 1968:19) prevalent in the youth is a strong case of formlessness, followed by pop art, the post-structuralist movement, the rap genre in music, etc. Pragmatism is yet another case that interestingly defines truth by its relation to survival, to life (Simmel, 1968:20).
References
Simmel, Georg. The Conflict in Modern Culture and other Essays. trans. by K. Peter Etzkorn. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968.