An open letter to critics writing about political art
- Stephen Duncombe & Steve Lambert
Here's the kind of letter I like! And I guess most of nettime does too.
Kudos to Stephen and Steve.
The problem is not necessarily
lazy criticism, but the fact that we don't have a developed vocabulary
with which to understand, and criteria with which to evaluate, political
art and activist artists.
This is absolutely correct. Both artists and critics need, not to
abandon museums, but to get out of their control halo a little more
often. Otherwise the considerations about political effectiveness have
one audience only: fellow professionals. And the profession demands both
abstruse concepts and an intractable style. My suggestion: write some
tracts. Do it regularly. Some of the profession seriously frowns on you,
then ignores you, which frees you up for the serious work requested here.
We don't train people to be good political artists in our art schools.
Most institutions are slow to adapt and are, at best, fighting the old myth
of the lone genius artist expressing their vision in spite of society,
rather than moving forward towards a world in which artists work
collectively in an embedded engagement with society.
Nor do we train people to be good political art critics (which means
also helping to make and propagate political art). I am willing to take
on board the seven questions, apply them to my own efforts and also
present them to students when I have the chance (coming right up). There
should also be a debate between critics about what political art is and
can be.
The seven questions seem to refer primarily to campaigns, where art
shades over into organizing and protest tactics. This is a tremendously
important part of political art. These days I would additionally argue
for a wider view, that does not deny the complexity of contemporary
society or even contemporary art, but seeks to activate the different
elements of that complexity for progressive ends. This view doesn't deny
the importance of museums or universities either (as I often tended to
do in the past). Instead it integrates the experience of aesthetic
intensities -- an experience which can be and often is had outside of
museums -- with other, quite different realms. The territorial
solidarity of movements. The communicational and tactical aspects of
campaigns. The analytic concepts of philosophy and social theory.
Together these make up the four fields or "fourfold matrix" that is
capable of producing ruptures in the social norm:
http://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/eventwork
I presented these ideas in a lecture at the gaudy new financialized
building of Cooper Union, precisely for Creative Time. It was at once a
good lecture, and the usual virtuoso-narcissistic performance of an
intellectual before a seated public in a building that's owned or at
least commanded by some kind of investment bank. Later, when the book
Living As Form came out with my text in it, I read my fellow critics'
contributions. Although I understand the importance and necessity of
publishing and speaking within official contexts - and respect Nato
Thompson for organizing this sort of thing - still I felt embarassed
that the discourse was so narrow, so ineffective. Eactly what Steve and
Stephen describe. I distribute my work widely, to many different
audiences and collaborators in different languages and countries, using
the Internet and giving the texts away, so it's not like I accept this fate.
Later I spoke at Zuchotti Park using the human mic. After lots of
dialogue someone came up to me.
-- "I was there at Cooper when you gave that talk. But isn't this what
you were really talking about?"
-- "Of course!"
What we need is art criticism that reinforces movements like Occupy -
and helps them grow stronger. I think the only way to do this is to
learn from and collaborate with the movements. Only the power of
movements can change sclerotic professions.
Call us optimists, but we assume anyone producing creative work to affect
power is doing it from a sincere and passionate place. If it's not working,
it's not because they don't care enough or aren't committed. It's because
we haven't developed a critical tradition that helps artistic activists
strengthen their work. Political art needs help.
This is why we need you.
Because we're all in this together.
OK, I hear the call. And it is a generous one. So how do we move forward?
Thanks, Brian Holmes
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
