The lesson of Joseph Beuys: art is the science of freedom. Here's why it's so important

Exactly 100 years ago, on May 12, 1921, Joseph Beuys, one of the most important and influential artists of the 20th century, was born in Krefeld. Beuys has gone down in history for his well-known slogan that “every man is an artist” (or “everyone is an artist”), which is often misinterpreted (intentionally or unintentionally): what Beuys meant was that every person can harness the creativity inherent in human beings in any sphere of his or her profession or daily practice as an affirmation of his or her freedom. According to Beuys, art is indeed “the science of freedom.” On the occasion of the great German artist’s birthday, we therefore publish a passage that is fundamental to understanding this idea of his, taken from Joseph Beuys. What is art, published in Italy by Castelvecchi in 2015: it is the conversation, dating back to 1979, between Beuys and the then very young critic Volker Harlan (Dresden, 1938). Here, then, is why art is so important according to Beuys.

Joseph Beuys (Krefeld, 1921 - Düsseldorf, 1986)

Throughout my life I have repeatedly returned to the same question: what is the necessity (i.e., the constellation of objective forces acting in us and in the world) that justifies the creation of something like larte? This question has undoubtedly been influential in my life, prompting me to reconsider my initial involvement in science. Before the change of course brought about by this doubt, this reflection, I had in fact begun to study the natural sciences, where I learned things about the dominance of the scientific paradigm that made me realize that I would not find my answers there. In questioning the value of this kind of research as a means for the exploration of the vast field of forces at play (the vital forces, of the mind, that is, of the soul, the psycho-spiritual ones and their nobler forms), I came for purely experimental reasons to consider lipothesis of investigating the sphere of art, which over time had manifested itself as a form of cultural dattivity.

But I already sensed that my fundamental question would not be answered there either. Then, during my studies at the Academy, I discovered that this question about the spark and source of art, about the world’s need to progress and evolve through art, was ultimately to remain unanswered. I discovered that larte had followed a kind of development parallel to that of science, an academicism, with a long tradition dating back to the Renaissance; and that people no longer knew exactly what they wanted to do. On the one hand, there were teachers who seemed to me to approach the problem like anatomists or surgeons in the operating room: they looked at things in a mimetic way, based only on observing what was in front of them, reproducing it in the same perspective on paper or in spatial forms; in other words, copying. On the other hand, there were teachers who had a radical stylistic approach. However, it was very difficult to recognize the spark and source of their intentions. They showed a stylistic direction that, if you will, was derived from "abstract art," which is a popular concept that even an abstract form can be art.

It was clear that both positions had something to do with my questioning. In that sense, the teachers I had had could be called true artists. But the point was that the fundamental questions, that is, the fundamental inquiry about art and its function, could not be answered in the Academy. This strengthened in me the determination to investigate on my own. For now, suffice it to say this. Since then I have done nothing but research, although I cannot deny that I have also, to some extent, stirred the waters a bit in this area. However, one thing seems above all clear to me: if this question does not become central to research and is not answered in a truly radical way, one that actually considers the art as the starting point for the production of anything, in any field of work, then any idea of further development is a waste of time. If we want to redefine and reform society, we have to keep thesedea in mind (i.e., that all work comes from art), because it will also affect economic issues, touching on human and legal rights. I am using the future because in the meantime it has become clear to me, and it is becoming increasingly obvious, that this is a viable way to compensate for the errors of philosophy or sociology in the last century; for example, rebalancing the erroneous tendencies in Marx with something that, going beyond his analytical orthodoxy, can lead to a true holistic development of the world.

Therefore, we are right inside the question of the necessity of art, which is undoubtedly also the question of freedom. If we want to deal with such things, with the problems of humanity, with the potential inherent in such forces and therefore also with the demand for energy, including technological energy (nowadays so urgent and important... ), if we want to answer this question, then we have to pose it as a question of energy in the broad sense).

Therefore we need to take stock of the situation immediately, to draw up an inventory of all the energies present that truly reflects what is available. It is very often overlooked today that human beings have a different kind of denergy than they had two hundred or five hundred or a thousand years ago; that today the energies of freedom are emerging in us and that this is precisely the time when we can talk about darte which is, so to speak, a kind of science of freedom. Once we have taken stock of the world’s reserves, everything must be oriented toward this new energy situation. This implies the recognition of a new expression of energy existing in the world, represented by the human being, which constitutes a novelty even for the human being itself leaving aside for the moment the spiritual links that this energy weaves with other networks of individualized forces in the world. And while this is a given, it is indeed still to be assimilated as well as practiced, taught and studied. Thus, first of all, there is larte as the science of freedom, then, consequently, there is larte in everything as primary production or original production.

Now, to many the idea seems too high; many object that not everyone can be an artist. But that is precisely the point: to have the idea reaffirm the essence of human being, that is, human being as an expression of freedom that embodies the evolutionary pulse of the world, perpetuates it and develops it further. We are then faced with an anthropological concept, rather than the traditional petit-bourgeois concept of art in force today. This complicates the discussion, since we have to talk on two levels: on the one hand, we have to talk about what has been handed down to us from the past, what our ancestors produced and which now, if we do not overcome it, is in danger of becoming a dead weight; and on the other hand, we have to project ourselves in a preliminary, anticipatory way into the future. Which is often problematic, having to speak simultaneously on both levels in the same way that, one might say, the new grows within the old.

[...]

There is a particular critical point that is where things break down: this node is our idea of work. Thisdea is related to that of art, but it is no longer permeated by it, just as the concepts of creativity and responsibility do not permeate it: this is impossible in the kind of system in which we live. Even if one wanted to, one cannot take real responsibility for one’s actions, since everything happens, we might say, from the top down. You can change, but you have to work at it, accruing a sincere interest in setting things right that are so degenerate and chaotic that they sink the world. So the fact that these stones are so important to us is basically related to the problem of atomic power plants.

Yes, I think so. There is a kind of deep connection: a lack of genuine reflection, a compulsive desire to peddle and sell things. Someone was undoubtedly very eager to sell these stones; but no thought was given to the fact that it had to be precisely these stones or that they had to have precisely this form. It is an automatic process, whereby builders hire workers, tilers recruit someone else, and so on. All this could be stopped, gaining efficiency and productivity at work.

The concept of economic growth, together with the concept of capital and what goes with it, does not really make the world more productive. They don’t. The concept of art must replace the degenerate concept of capital: art is the real capital and people must become aware of it. Money and capital cannot represent economic value; human dignity and creativity are the capital. And consequently we must develop an idea of money that supports creativity or art that is, so to speak, capital. Larte is capital. It is not unutopia; it is reality. In other words, capital corresponds to art. Capital is human capacity and what is derived from it. So, only two organs or two polar relations are at play here, from which the product arises: creativity and human intention. These and no others are the true economic values. Not money. However, our concept of capital implies the intrusion of an economic value that ruins everything because it makes the economy dependent on profit, exploitation, etc.

There is only human capacity and what flows from it; and this can always be discussed and analyzed in constant dialogue among people and led toward boundless productivity that builds and rebuilds the world; and that under certain circumstances builds a whole new universe, rather than destroying it. The current system is not about growth; “growth” is just the name they give it. In fact, it is about a process of decrease and contraction. Because apparent growth actually progresses like a tumor; in fact, it is a lethal process. For this reason it is not a productive process at all, nor can it be called growth. There is no growth; only additive, cancerous proliferation of some interests that people no longer control. But we can control them. It is up to us. It is not up to the politicians; there is no point in picking on them. They may not always have the best intentions, but there are some really motivated ones. Yet they are allowed to do as they please; they are never reprimanded or pushed to take part in a dialogue. In other words, if things go wrong you have to blame only yourself and no one else.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.