5d
ポストモダニズムと循環史観
Postmodernism and Circulation Historical View

【本文確定】

ポストモダニズムが可能にしたこと、それは循環史観でした。モダニズムでは直線的な進歩史観の立場しか取り得ないからです。ただし、ここで言う循環史観は歴史学における厳密な意味でのそれのことではありません。また、運命史観のことでもありません。単に近現代の芸術において、既視感を容認しオリジナリティを絶対視しない考え方のもとでは、「歴史は繰り返す」という法則性が一定程度認められるということです。そしてそれが教えてくれることは、「このイズムは古いからダメだ」ではなくて、「このイズムは今は古くて説得力を持たなくても、またそのうち新しく説得力を持つだろう」との思考を可能とすることです。イズムは定理とは違います。定理には正誤がありますが、イズムにはありません。説得力を持つイズムはありますが、正しいイズムというものは無いのです。そのイズムが説得力を持つか持たないか、それが時代によって変遷するものであり、その変遷には一定程度の循環的な法則がある、それがここで言う循環史観です。

私の考える循環史観は、２０世紀以降の美術史を「前衛」→「反芸術」→「多様性」のサイクルの繰り返しとしてとらえるものです。「前衛」とは現実肯定的な時代精神のもと、熱さを伴った表現主義等として顕れるもので（「生」のイメージ）、その盛り上がりの頂点において一転、現実否定的な冷たさを伴うダダ等の「反芸術」が顕れます（「死」のイメージ）。ここで「前衛」と「反芸術」は同じ「芸術のための芸術」の２相なので短期間に相前後して登場し、ともに時代支配的なイズムとなり得ます。続けて「多様性」の長い時代が到来します（「死後」のイメージ）。否定されてしまった現実の外に逃避しようとすればシュルレアリスム、否定性の内在化に向かえば還元主義、否定を承けたキモワル風味はマニエリスムとして開花します。これは時代支配的なイズムの後退による多様なイズムの乱立または不在で、「人生のための芸術」の諸相の豊穣な滞留です。この滞留が打ち砕かれるのは、次のサイクルの先頭の「前衛」が来る時で、およそ３０年程度の周期です。

この「前衛」→「反芸術」→「多様性」というサイクルは、２０世紀前半の西欧美術史をその典型としています。ですが、西欧のみならずアメリカや日本においても、同様のサイクルが２０世紀初頭から数えてすでに３回転していて、日本では２０１０年以降、４回転目の「前衛」に突入していると私は考えています。これが、「現代美術史日本篇」としての本書の立場にほかなりません。本書の章構成は、この循環史観に拠るものです（表参照）。

【初版ママ】Although progressive history view was rejected by postmodernism, this does not necessarily mean we live in a non-historical time. Isn't postmodern era part of the history as well?

【初版ママ】I am taking a stance of law of history principle. There may be a danger of leaning towards simplification, but a rough sketch of the circulation history view will be presented here.

【初版ママ】The reality-affirming Zeitgeist emerged as a hot "expressionism trend," and as soon as it reached its peak, it underwent a sudden change and the reality-denying Zeitgeist set in as an cool "anti-art trend" emerged. The following era lasted a long time when a trend in which reductionism headed towards negative immanency and a surrealistic trend which tried to escape towards the outside of a denied reality coexisted, but as the regression of the dominating "ism" of the era set in, it gave rise to "diversity." If the time up to this point is to be seen as one cycle, then this was a cycle which typically appeared as "modernism before the World War II in Europe" in the Western art history in the first half of the 20th century*5d1 *5d2. For the art history in the latter half of the 20th century, it can be said that the same cycle was repeated twice whether it be in the U.S., Europe or Japan. For further explanation, please refer to the chart below.

【初版ママ】In Japan, "Gutai," "Kyushu-ha" and "Art Informel Sensation," which came about during the beginning of the rapid growth of the economy around 1955, were part of the expressionist trend (Chapter 2 "Avant-Garde"), and "Neo Dada," "Hi-red Center" and "Pop Art," which came about during the anti-Japan-U.S. Security Treaty demonstration, were part of the anti-art trend (Chapter 3 "Anti-Art"). After 1964, following the reductionism of "Japan Conceptualists" and "Mono-ha" which came about[この辺訳ダメ20090124メモ]during the Tokyo Olympics and opening of the EXPO'70 in Osaka, "Bikyoto," "Post Conceptualists," and "Post Mono-ha," which came about during the midst of the Cold War regime, were signs of diversity which came to rise as a result of the regression of "ism" (Chapter 4 "Reductionism & Diversity"). Up to this point could be called the first cycle of latter half of the 20th century, in other words "modernism after the World War II in Japan"*5d3.

【初版ママ】The second cycle, referring to the beginning of "postmodernism in Japan," was about the time Seibu came out with the catch phrase "Myself, A New discovery" in around 1980. The expressionist trend began to make a come back as "Supergirls (Choshojo)," "Heta-Uma (Bad-Good)," and "Parco" and the break off with the previous era became clear (Chapter 5 "Trans-Avant-Garde"). After around 1985, anti-art trend made a come back as "Kansai Pop" and "Tokyo Pop" during the growth and collapse of the bubble economy (Chapter 6 "Reproduction Art"). After around 1995, when the subway sarin incident and 9.11 occurred, "pleasure paintings," "Superflat," and "Methodicism" were the re-emergence of diversity which came to rise as a result of the regression of "ism"s (Chapter 7 "Mannierism & Diversity"). At the present time in 2008 when I am writing this, we are still entangled in the midst of this diversity.

【初版ママ】There are two main points that I wanted to express in bringing up this circulation history view.

【初版ママ】One is when viewed as a history, "expressionist trend" as a dominating "ism" of an era and "anti-art trend" were short-lived but important. On the other hand, the enduring "diversity" is rich in itself but not as important. Of course, this does not mean to say that each and every individual artist is not important*5d4.

【初版ママ】Another one is the presence of vertical lineage beyond the cycle. For example, when "Art Informel Sensation" and "Parco" are linked together, what can be seen is that both have given rise to a number of unknown artists*5d5. The art informel movement in Japan was negatively seen as being sympathetic to the West and Parco's Nippon Graphics Exhibition has been ignored as being commercial art. But in a historical sense, shouldn't the power and energy of the artists which motivated and kept them going be mentioned? Also, when "Neo Dada" and "Tokyo Pop" are linked together, what can be seen is not only a repeat of history from other people's views. The persons concerned, Shinohara Ushio and Murakami Takashi, have conscientiously referred to Dada and Neo Dada respectively from the earlier era. This was the reason why the next chapter is titled "Reproduction Art."