What kind of critical authority is unable to make a distinction between 
self-regarding and self-critical? What is worse is that he is blind to the 
possibility that the ideals of engagement and social effect are often the 
journalistic or administrative sentiments of art world redemptiveness. 
Career-building bullshit that cares. 

In writing approvingly of 'other artists [who] got on concentrating and 
developing the potential of art and society within a constantly changing set of 
socio-economic circumstances', Gillick joins a long succession of adolescents, 
young and old. His mistake is to think that an idealised world constituted by 
and in the fraction of the art world in which he participates professionally 
(and boy we mean professionally) is indeed a robust reality. This 'wor1d' is a 
chimera whose function is to tell him that he is indeed 'engaged' - or 
something. This is the idealisation - we might call it solipsism - which we and 
anyone who takes on a project of realism will seek to avoid (even if that 
realism is more often striven for than achieved). The first thing is to try and 
liberate oneself from various institutional determinations and from certain 
illusions concerning the power of art robustly to engage with and even 
recognise 'the world'. And insofar as we are liberated from these illusions, we 
are bound to locate our practice in relation to a material tradition in whose 
ruination we have tried hard to be complicit. There is no abnormal melancholy 
in this. Loss makes for the best approximations of necessity.


- Art & Language, 'Smugness' (Letter to the editor), Artmonthly, 
September-October, 2000, p. 18.

Art & Language have maintained a high level of scepticism about the politics of 
virtue that has dominated art theory, and much art practice, since the waning 
of Conceptualism. Theirs is a practice built upon refusing the consolations 
that much of the academic left have found refuge in during a period of 
political reaction, whether Althusserian 'theoretical practice' or subsequent 
discourse theories. Since the mid 1970s, many artists and intellectuals have 
seen their specialist 'intervention' in representation or culture as the 
decisive factor in the project for social change. In the end, such approaches 
to 'art and politics' boil down to the idea that if you write enough books, or 
paint enough pictures, capitalism (or patriarchy, or colonialism, or... ) will 
collapse under their weight. Galleries, publishing houses and bureaucratically 
assessed projects seem to have benefited more from this output than have the 
oppressed and the exploited. 
- Steve Edwards, 'Art & Language's Doubt' in Art & Language in Practice, Vol. 
2, Fundació Antoni Tàpies, Barcelona, 1999, pp. 249-255 (p. 254).

The mediocrity and corruption of the English art world, its absurdity, 
selfdeception, ersatz thinking and intellectual cowardice are in part due to 
the enormous number of individuals within it who are doing one thing while in 
fact 'thinking' they are doing another. 

Britain is full of teachers pretending to be 'artists', 'Artists' pretending to 
be French Philosophers, curators pretending to be revolutionaries, etc., etc. 
Now bourgeois art teachers pretend they are socialist artists - feeble work 
gets a righteous theme and is churned out monotonously by dullards. It is the 
same recurring problem: the historical conditions they are really in are 
ignored in favour of the historical conditions they want, need, believe, feel 
intimidated into supporting, feel as though they ought to be in. Recently there 
has been a crop of offensive volunteers to be experts, who will enable the 
people to appreciate lefty's art. That such obvious agents of bourgeois 
legitimation should be able to get away with this is evidence of how easy it is 
to intimidate the British with art and of how bogus the English art world is.

- Art & Language, 'Art for Society?' Art-Language, Vol. 4 No. 4, June, 1980, 
pp. 1-23.

...MANIK...JANUARY...2010...
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Reply via email to