My Blog

So, a while back in 2001 when I was just out of grad school and convinced that I would be going to the Whitney Independent Study Program, I went on an interview with Ron Clark (who runs the Whitney ISP). During the interview I got into a discussion that turned slightly into an argument over trickle down Marxism. Now, I often blame this discussion for my not getting in, but to be quite fair there are plenty of reasonable reasons why I wasn’t accepted to that program. I had heard that Ron liked strong headed argumentative types and enjoyed a good discussion so I thought I would just put my thoughts about the Whitney program to the test. This blog is not a gripe session about the Whitney program but does use them as a compelling example of a particular form that Marxism has taken (particularly throughout the 80s and 90s).

I was arguing that folks like the October magazine crowd had used Marxist theory as a way to remove themselves from any reasonably legigle populist discussion. And… that the art that they held up as their best examples, resonated poorly for most art enthusiasts (expert and amateur alike). The question was about reception and possibly being suspicious of the comfortable niche that Marxist, feminist, post-colonial discourse (of their brand) had carved out for itself removed from questions of responsibility to a larger audience. In many regards, at the time, I thought of their rhetorical techniques akin to Reagonomics where the fruits of their thoughts were supposed to somehow trickle into popular thought via the structures of power already in place. It seemed to me that the stilted language developed through postmodern theory had served the role of enconsing a highly specialized academic sub-group that had no real radical revolutionary perspectives whatsoever, and yet, were managing to monopolize Marxist discourse in the art community.

Then something happened today that made me think of things another way. So I was looking at some proposals from a graduate intern student for potential exhibitions here. One of the shows was a bit more pretty. And one was a little more conceptual with some politics thrown in. One of the folks looking at the work described the more political/conceptual practice as more hipster/insider. I was suprised at this easy description. Political practice is an insider methodology? Beauty was a people’s project? That is: the question of beauty felt more populist and the political work felt more insider. This is a crass oversimplification of their feelings, but it is exactly what got me thinking. This stance that more intellectually driven, conceptual practice is an ‘insider’ methodology while beauty is populist goes directly against the teachings that I am familiar with. In my world, beauty is often a practice held up by the bourgoise to remove themselves from the embarrasing political realities of their status quo and exploitative positions. While political work, in theory, tries to address these concerns.

In this reversal, I think I hear the rumblings of much of the major populist rhetoric expounded by Karl Rove and co. The thing is: as opposed to being dismissive, I think there are kernals of truth in this. I think that there might actually be something populist about beauty and there might be something absolutely corrupt in stilted political language. My gripes with the Whitney ISP and the October crowd are based on similar anxieties. Where I sense that the rhetoric of activist practice is used as social capital against any form of revolutionary practice. That is to say: not only is much of the Marxist tradition in the arts simply ineffective, it is, in fact, purposefully deployed against any radical potential in the arts. It would be no surprise that this form of ineffective, bourgois, uber pretensious “theory” has had some results in completely turning people off the potentials of political practice baring anything close to meaningful.

Yet, it also poses dilemnas about the alternatives. Beauty, in itself, is not going to do us much good. Nor is holding onto some ardent anti-intellectualism. But there must be methods for being more discerning. How much of the intellectual tradition that we participate in has more to with the carving out a corner of the discursive market and how much is capable of concrete radical change? How do we go about tearing these two apart? To what degree do our own politics have more to do with subjectivity and social capital (and the markets of subjectivity) than any form of radical social change practice?

I raised these questions in an entirely different manner at Messhall in Chicago. I wasn’t articulating myself well at the time. I think Claire Pentecoste was saying, “But we must carve out our subjectivities. That is what we do.” I didn’t reply appropriately at the time, but the real question for me is not against creating subjectities, but the part where we delude ourselves about the intended goals of our own identities. When we spout marxist theory and end up praising completely unreadable conceptual work that only shows in Linz, what exactly are we up to? When our ideas seem to disconnect us rather than connect us to the potential of radical politics, what are we up to? Hmmm… it’s these questions that are on my mind, and I feel like they play themselves in the quest for meaning that haunts political processes today.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 21st, 2005 at 2:45 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.