8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 1/6

Adam Kleinman

Tempus EdaxRerum?

ÒPoliticians, ugly buildings, and whores allget respectable if they last long enough.Ó

Ð Noah Cross in Roman PolanskiÕsChinatown

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMaybe youÕve heard it before at a dinner orover coffee: two or three colleagues, letÕs say an

artist, a critic, and a curator, are sitting aroundtalking about the work of a peer. And all of asudden, one of them announces that this workunfortunately wonÕt stand the Òtest of timeÓ Ð orconversely, someone emphasizes that it will. Andwhile this may be a rather common expression,its meaning is not often discussed. In fact, moreoften than not, this phrase is treated as an olddictum, a universal qualifier or dismissive. Butrather than take this expression for granted, Iwould like to look at some of the variousimplications, allusions, and contradictions

inherent in this figure of speech, especially whenuttered with respect to contemporary culturalproducts or situations that are obviously tooÒyoungÓ to even be considered along such terms.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn the most banal sense, something thatstands the Òtest of timeÓ is simply an object thathas endured. This could be as simple as a matterof fact. Take the Parthenon, which has stood theÒtest of timeÓ to the extent that it still quiteliterally stands in its original place, not onlybecause of its material durability, but alsobecause it was not torn down (though of course itdid suffer an explosion). And though itsrepurposing Ð from temple to church, to mosque,to armory, to storage dump, to museum Ð couldbe an argument for its adaptability, its ultimateuse as an icon points to something greater.Namely, that the Parthenon never stoppedmeaning something to someone Ð it gained akind of historic and thus political and socialworth, with images of the building and its decayoften used as propaganda in support of Greekindependence and Philhellenism just as they areused today to promote tourism.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut for the sake of argument, letÕs assume

that the Parthenon was demolished severalcenturies ago after suffering a period of neglectfollowing the explosion. If this had happened, thebuilding would not have stood the Òtest of time.ÓThe Parthenon would have stopped meaningsomething to someone, and as a result, its statusas an icon would have been discarded. It isthrough this counterfactual that we canappreciate the full rhetorical power of theexpression Òstanding the test of timeÓ; when anobject ceases to be present, to be in demand,then it no longer merits preservation or life. But

since the object of our inquiry is an ancientartifact to which we have considerable hindsight,

   e  -    f    l   u   x    j   o   u   r   n   a    l    #    1    3

  Ñ     f   e

    b   r   u   a   r   y    2    0    1    0    A    d   a   m    K    l   e    i   n   m   a   n

    T   e   m   p   u   s    E    d   a   x    R   e   r   u   m    ?

    0    1    /    0    6

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC

8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 2/6

Bernard Tschumi, Advertisementfor Architecture, 1977.

Fig.6 From Le CorbusierÕsTowards a New Architecture.

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC

8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 3/6

any proclamation of its existence would seem tobe rather meaningless and self-evident Ð and yetit is still uttered. Following from the idea that theÒtest of timeÓ has more to do with publicinterest, we can say that it is really a test ofsocial history, a form of idealized history whereinvarious activities can be classified as exemplarsor ideals.

A drawing from the 1700s depicting the bombing of the Parthenon byFrancesco Morosini in 1687. The picture shows the minaret as it stoodin the SW corner.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOf course, history in general is just acollection of episodic observations andinferences; however, the act of historicizing is ameans of classifying these events according tosome kind of order, in such a way that thehistorian is actually thinking with history, notabout it. Nevertheless, an agenda must fit intosome greater logic for it to gain acceptance Ð asKarl Marx reminds us that men make their ownhistory, but not in circumstances of their ownchoosing.1 To invert this phrase, it stands toreason that although men cannot choose their

circumstances, their judgments and readings ofthese circumstances inscribe what is to bepersevered, and hence make history. Herein anethical position starts to emerge, as an eventÕsinscription in accepted or established patternscreates its moral worth. So in this sense, theParthenon not only ÒstandsÓ in the physicalsense, but stands in as a symbol of underlyinguniformity in human culture through itscontinued use and popularity. The Parthenonstands in as deserving prolonged existence,prolonged life. So with this in mind, letÕs return to

the idea of a contemporary product being able toeither stand or fail the Òtest of time.Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSince contemporary objects are bydefinition still emerging, it would be difficult tosay that they have stood the Òtest of timeÓ;however, this doesnÕt prevent many arbiters frompredicting that they will or they wonÕt. Although acritic may be acting on Òintuition,Ó anypredictions in this vein would need to be referredto an ideal index of taste against which theobject will need to stand Ð quite literally, if that

object is acquired by a collection. Likewise, tosay that it will not last would be to relegate thatobject to having little worth. As the objectÕsmortality, so to speak, is at stake, this is no smallclaim. However, beyond this, there is an evengreater claim at stake.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊConsider that the object itself is a standing-

in for a society, a school of thought, or theculture that produced it, and represents thatspecific history against an ideal of that which isworth preserving. In elevating an object to thisplane, one simultaneously elevates the people or

organizations around that object, preservingthem with it. Conversely, to dismiss somethingas a fad, for being of fleeting interest, is todowngrade not only that object, but also thosewho find it to be of interest. This substitution ofobject for class allows for a form of denigrationwithout conscience, as the object of derision isabstracted and disembodied Ð of course, thisalso holds for the inverse as well. In other words,saying that something will or will not last is aguiltless attempt at spin, an attempt to swaypublic opinion and win favor. And here it might beimportant to draw a provisional distinctionbetween value and worth, in this case lettingÒvalueÓ denote an objectÕs commercial influence,and letting ÒworthÓ denote that objectÕs potentialcultural or intellectual Òimportance.Ó Thisdivision is of particular import today, as objectsof fancy Ð that is to say, fads Ð are by definitionhighly sought after and expensive, whereasobscurities and objects on the fringe are oftencheap Ð unless they can be turned into a rarity ora specialty item to be collected. In order toreassert some measure of dominance, toseparate the elite from the parvenu, arbiters

need to establish some abstract notion of worthand worthiness by which to place themselvesoutside this system of market justification. Inthis new industry of arbitration, Òcraft,ÓÒrelevance,Ó and ÒutilityÓ are summoned asrationales with which to be in accord. The keyfallacy in deferring to these rationales comes inneglecting how they have been variouslyassessed historically. In this sense, to invokeÒcraft,Ó Òrelevance,Ó and ÒutilityÓ withouthistorical grounding would be to prematurelyapply some form of rational choice theory to

human interaction. In any case, the validation ofduration is often asked of even the newest of

   e  -    f    l   u   x    j   o   u   r   n   a    l    #    1    3

  Ñ     f   e

    b   r   u   a   r   y    2    0    1    0    A    d   a   m    K    l   e    i   n   m   a   n

    T   e   m   p   u   s    E    d   a   x    R   e   r   u   m    ?

    0    3    /    0    6

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC

8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 4/6

Saiho-Ji Garden, Kyoto.

things Ð but why?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOne possible reason is that through the actof qualifying something as a representative of anorder, the object and that order must not onlyconform, but must also confirm each other insuit. That is to say, this form of agreementproduces an apparatus, which validatesselfsameness and eschews deviation as anexternality. In this setup, once something is

deemed important due to the fact that it haspersevered, this fact trumps all other aesthetictheories or value judgments, which are externalto that order by definition. In other words,something that has persevered and remainspopular becomes beyond reproach, beyondcriticism. George Orwell sums up this specificcontext in his attack on Leo Tolstoy, an attackaimed at TolstoyÕs own polemic againstShakespeare as a terrible and immoral dramatistpropped up only by the Òepidemic suggestionÓ ofa few German scholars:

In reality there is no kind of evidence orargument by which one can show thatShakespeare, or any other writer, is Ògood.ÓNor is there any way of definitely provingthat Ð for instance Ð Warwick Beeping isÒbad.Ó Ultimately there is no test of literary

merit except survival, which is itself anindex to majority opinion. Artistic theoriessuch as TolstoyÕs are quite worthless,because they not only start out witharbitrary assumptions, but depend onvague terms (Òsincere,Ó ÒimportantÓ and soforth) which can be interpreted in any wayone chooses.2

And here, with Orwell, we are exposed to a Òcrisisof criticismÓ: no matter how strong an argumentmight be for or against a work of art, the fact of awork of artÕs popularity, and the continuity of thispopularity, supersedes any and all claims ofsubstance. That is not to say that criticism hasno import, but rather that its only import may befound in its ability to sway public opinion Ð whichis in any event only secondary to sustainedacceptance. This could be one of the ways inwhich men write history; however, this mode isstill bound to the exigencies of chance,

contingency, and context, which is to say thatthere is no super-agency to guarantee outcomes.One possible way to reject this system would beto quite literally break it, attacking the objectÕsphysical substance itself. Here though, insteadof literary criticism, we would have the violenceof iconoclasm. On the other hand, if it were

    0    4    /    0    6

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC

8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 5/6

possible to break time, then the idea of an objectstanding up to timeÕs test would be much morecomplex.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn ÒWhat is the Contemporary?Ó thephilosopher Giorgio Agamben delineates aposition similar to this: the true contemporary isable to occupy a position against the grain of hisor her time, a position constituting a vantagepoint that allows for an investigation into how

those accepted topics came to be commonlyregarded.3 This state, which he calls Òbeing outof joint,Ó lends itself to revelations concerningthe ÒnatureÓ of the epoch we find ourselves in.One of the ways to achieve this position is bylooking back at precedents Ð other philosophers,writers, artists, and so on Ð who through theirown distance from our time, as well as their owntimes, can act as a lens through which to viewthe world around us, and, in a sense, speak to us.Beyond proving perseverance, this setupencourages an ethic, because the act of

preservation is a way to self-reflexivelycontemplate our own place. If this holds true,this self-reflection provides the Òmeaningsomething to someoneÓ that would constitutethe reason for an object to continue existing.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs intimated above, something that standsagainst or tests time, while also being able tostand with us in time, is an object that becomes,in a sense, not only contemporary, but alsoimmortal. Take for instance the first book knownto exist, The Epic of Gilgamesh, wherein the greatKing finds his ultimate glory not in achievingactual immortality but in attempting to do so, inthe story created and, most importantly,recorded. However, instead of proposing culturalproduction to be a way of creating postmortemlongevity for the author, letÕs suppose that anobjectÕs developing character as it is shaped byvarious generations creates a form of empathy,one that is not only emotive, but rational.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn closing, I would like to leave you with animage of the gardens at Koke-dera, or ÒMossTemple,Ó in Kyoto, Japan. Although moss is acommon element in landscape design, it is oftenused sparingly to promote a sense of softness,

set dialectically against hard and cold elementssuch as stones. This was probably the case here;however, over time, and due to the monasteryÕsinability to maintain the garden, moss began tooverrun and ultimately blanket the area. Insteadof rehabilitating the garden to its original state,the monks found pleasure in this more primitivelandscape and continued allowing the moss togrow. Now, instead of simple visual delight, thistest of time Ð the centuries needed to grow thismoss Ð presents a kind of evocative temporalcompression. More than mere nostalgia, this

compression acts as a trigger not unlike MarcelProustÕs involuntary memories, wherein

recollection of the past surfaces withoutconscious effort. Like in Proust, these feelingslead to a reflection of oneself in relation tonatureÕs inevitable cycles of growth and decay,producing the clarity of selflessness.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×

   e  -    f    l   u   x    j   o   u   r   n   a    l    #    1    3

  Ñ     f   e

    b   r   u   a   r   y    2    0    1    0    A    d   a   m    K    l   e    i   n   m   a   n

    T   e   m   p   u   s    E    d   a   x    R   e   r   u   m    ?

    0    5    /    0    6

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC

8/3/2019 Article 114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-114 6/6

Adam Kleinman is the curator at Lower ManhattanCultural Council in New York City and writes a columnfor Texte Zur Kunst entitled ÒNew York Letters.Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1Karl Marx, The EighteenthBrumaire of Louis Bonaparte(Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co.,1907), 5.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2George Orwell, ÒLear, Tolstoy,and the FoolÓ (1947), in TheCollected Essays, Journalism,and Letters, vol. 4, In Front of Your Nose, 1945Ð1950, ed. SoniaOrwell and Ian Angus (Boston:David R. Godine, Inc., 2000), 290.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ3Giorgio Agamben, ÒWhat Is theContemporary,Ó in What is an

 Apparatus? and Other Essays,trans. David Kishik and StefanPedatella (Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 2009).

   e  -    f    l   u   x    j   o   u   r   n   a    l    #    1    3

  Ñ     f   e

    b   r   u   a   r   y    2    0    1    0    A    d   a   m    K    l   e    i   n   m   a   n

    T   e   m   p   u   s    E    d   a   x    R   e   r   u   m    ?

    0    6    /    0    6

08.18.10 / 16:46:10 UTC