Gilles Lipovetsky: "He is now changing religion just like his car"

Like all French intellectuals, Gilles Lipovetsky dominates not only the theory, but also the art of provocation. "Imagine a frightening dilemma," he suggests, "the jihadists of Hezbollah kidnap a child and drop bombs at the Louvre museum.They say," What do you prefer to save? A child or the biggest museum in the world? "We do not know, in principle, it would be the child, but totally destroy the Louvre …"

Lipovetsky sums up in this dilemma several of his concerns: the place of art at that time, the sacred and a global scenario in which conflicts do not disappear. He does it in his own way because, after all, he knows very well that provocation is a weapon of thought. "When we saw the jihadists destroy the ruins of Palmira or Our Lady caught fire, we had an emotional commotion, there is something sacred there."

A crucial term in his thought, which unites all his concerns, is that of hypermodernity, as he stated in his book
Hypermodern weather (Anagram). From the sociological point of view, Lipovetsky jumped to the artistic and the working of tradition in a world marked by individualism. "Hypermodernity is the hybridization of modern technology with tradition, for example, museums use virtual reality headsets and headsets, but people spend five or ten seconds in front of each board.
The great odalisque from Ingres five seconds. It is a consumer business facing the tradition. Another case: women lose their virginity at 16 but marry in white. There is an aestheticization of tradition that does not correspond to values. Hypermodernity does not make religious faith disappear. Many people say that they are believers, but they believe in a non-traditional way. They say, "I am Catholic, but I do not agree with the Pope." Is this a kind of religion à la carte? "Exactly! À la carte!" And the phenomenon of conversion, changing religion by car, allowed the triumph of Bolsonaro in Brazil with the support of the evangelists. "

– Is hypermodernity a historical limit? Is there anything beyond?

-In the Middle Ages, there were several middle ages. I think that in the same way, hypermodernity is not homogeneous. It does not always mean the same thing. Secondly, I've used this concept to put aside the one of "postmodernity", which is ridiculous because we are more and more modern. We are not "after" modernity. There is a deepening of modern elements: the market, technoscience, democracy, individualism. Where does this "post" come from? Hypermodernity means that the great models of modernity have no credible counter-model. Everyone criticizes the market, but no one raises another model! Note the position of [Nicolás] Maduro: here are the results. The critique of capitalism is pure rhetoric.

-In Argentina, almost no politician is in favor of capitalism, even when they know that there is no other option and that they maintain in practice the rules of market. It seems that capitalism was a bad word.

-Yes of course! You are right! Anticapitalist rhetoric is alive. But what? It is one of the characteristics of the time. In the 1950s, this did not happen. Anticapitalists aligned with Stalin were convinced of a model: the planned economy. They were crazy, but they believed in the model and the model existed. We can now criticize the free market, the trade rules with China or the taxes of the richest. But that does not deny capitalism. We would have less liberal capitalism, but it would always be capitalism. I agree with you. This is what happens with intellectuals: they have anti-capitalist positions, but they speak in isolation. It is a moral issue and it is not morality that will destroy capitalism.

-It is true that, as you have said, hypermodernity does not imply the disappearance of conflicts and that anti-capitalist rhetoric is a false conflict, what are the real conflicts today? # 39; hui?

-In France, since December, we have a social movement that are the "yellow vests". Every Saturday, they break and burn the Champs-Élysées. That is, there is a conflict. A conflict that affects populations weakened by the economy. This conflict lasts nearly six months and shows that hypermodern capitalism is not synonymous with consensus. And I will go further: capitalist societies do not stop having value conflicts: what do we do with immigration? Gay marriage, yes or no? Adoption by homobaduals, yes or no? Hypermodernity is characterized by the multiplication of sources of conflict. Because? Because hypermodernity has exploded the traditional life forms. What does hyperindividualism mean that people are not interested in public life? No. There are more and more countries where the population does not vote or is not interested in elections, but participates in demonstrations. In contemporary society, other modes of participation are sought.

-The conflict between Continental Europe and Donald Trump, is it an authentic or pure simulation?

-We will see. For me, Europe and the United States are like cousins. The great victory of Europe is the existence of North America. the invention of the United States has occurred through Europe. It is the biggest success in Europe. I do not think the links are too broad and that some of Trump 's criticisms of Europe are not wrong. When he says we have to take charge of our defense, it does not shock me.

-When we said previously that it almost opposed the market in fact, another reflection of it is outstanding, namely how the market area has upset the art. On the one hand, art has become an investment; on the other, contemporary art looks a lot like a park of attractions. How does this dialectic between calculation and entertainment work?

-I understand what you propose: it would be a consumer activity. But at the same time, for the mbades, contemporary art is something that has no value. If you take someone from a little culture to see an exhibition of contemporary art, say: what is it that shit? On the other hand, with the Sistine Chapel, they do not say the same thing: they do not understand it but they admire it. In modernity, since the eighteenth century, art and its institutions have been built against the powers. The modern artist, like Baudelaire and later the avant-garde, totally ignores commercial success. I have scorned the bourgeois who was thinking about money. The
ethos of the modern artist was the authenticity and disinterest. It was the micro-social world of bohemia: Van Gogh or Giacometti, who sold a painting to buy a bottle of wine. Now the artists have changed. The first who provokes this process is Andy Warhol. When he said "I am a commercial artist", he gave birth to artistic hypermodernity. Marcel Duchamp would never have said that. Damien Hirst is one of the 50 richest men in the UK. Not enough with a style, you have to have a rhetoric. Collectors are not the same: they are speculating now. And in the press, the only thing that matters is the price.

To program

Lipovetsky will speak today at 18:30 at the Osde Foundation Auditorium, Leandro N. Alem 1067, 2nd basement. Free admission subject to availability.