Democratic Art?

(originally published in the mid 90s in Bulgarian; translated in the mid 90s)

It seems, that there does not exist a greater etymological absurdity than that of the combination of words “Democratic Art”, because it combines two incompatible ideas. It brings down the wonderful notion of art from an index of a supreme spiritual lift-up to an indication for sensitive expression of esthetic norm, which “the Demos”, that is to say the people has gladly accepted.

The combination of words in question has been purposefully created during the European Renaissance ever sins the problem of who creates what bears its existence. Ever after the aristocracy by origin and by spirit regenerated and even gave birth everything it thought necessary with the help of the Classical Antiquity, thus creating the modern European culture, the parvenus “by origin and by spirit”, led by their inferiority complexes and cupidity for nobility, headlong rushed into its elbow-room, invading cultural milieu with pseudo-patronage, expressed in stimulating overproduction of mediocrity.

Well entrenched in building-up national markets during the 19th century, the above mentioned influential nouveaux-riches, not yet turned into over national and even over continental monopolists, began selling art as consumer´s goods.

As they were intelligent enough not to rely that the peacefully vegetating and expecting the forthcoming revolution, “little people” would rush into creating aspiration for beauty, as well as by their just anger for being in information blackout concerning the masterpieces of the epoch, the tradesmen decided to turn them into an audience with the necessary consummation efficiency.

That is the way at galleries, concert halls and theaters became the arena of skillful managers, artists, impatient to wait for their glory post mortem, as well as urging hungry inventors of scores and texts, who altogether zealously undertook to make art easily accessible. Fortunately the creators, i.e. called upon by God, did not fool themselves by betraying their inspiration, turning their works into a conveyor production, but this does not change the fact, that during the “fruitful” 19th century the general conviction into “the open door” strengthens: one walks into the street and comes upon a poster, starts reading profoundly or not, says to himself/herself “Look here”, buys a ticket, takes a seat either in the theater or in the opera hall and gives a judgment about the performance being worth (a genius masterpiece) or not worth (pure junk).
Ever since then till the present day the spiritual degradation had gone so far, that the so called simple people have completely loss their ability of trembling up with emotion when confronted by the Creation. Due to the commercialization, even the folklore stopped moving the descendants of its creators, who consider it at best as “folk-art”.

After banality cut off human antennas, which could perceive messages of music, speech and hues and even made the epic song look like “chalga”, one should note be surprised, when throngs remain numb in front of a concrete pillar, covered with stickers, and at the some time callously overlook an exquisite wood-carving. Therefore I think that the quantitative accumulation – both directly and indirectly – leads not so much to qualitative changes but, to changes in the criteria. Having in mind that this basic dialectical law can easily be manipulated in the so called spiritual sphere, vanguardism at all cost, in order to hide that it is merely a “pseudo”- uses the focus of gigantism, i.e. the play of dimension.

The above mentioned wood-carving and the like, which fortunately are created, cherish the hope that Inspiration is immortal. Certainly, when the central heating is switched off at that at the Era of Internet, craftsmanship is under the threat of turning into a habit at the background of the play of dimensions of the sex-bombs and this habit – into a routine which denotes death.

The most dangerous thing is that the inherited rule from the 19th century, which read that everybody could pass on judgments, today is being circulated with computer speed and looks out for reincarnating the writer, the painter and the architect into a scribbler, a dauber and a builder, and the one, without whom they cannot create for the onlooker-contemplator is provided with a consumer-basket in which to put according to the income food product.

It is unrealistic and ridiculous to look around with the hope to be hold to catch a glimpse of the creator in the idealized image of a financially well provided for Bohemian or of an absent-minded and disheveled enigmatic old lady. The Creator can look for his/her truth under the mask of a hasty civil servant or a lonely teenager. This does not by any chance change the intransigence of Art, because it, similar to truth, is beautiful, because of being eternal.

And the Eternal is accessible and comprehensible only for a few.