Frieze on Political Art

Hi Rob and list,

Yes - I read this, and I thought that Dan had some valid pointers,
especially in regard to that 'meaning' is floundering when residing on a
gallery wall. But, then what is a socially aware or reflective
individual/group to do? Are they to be seen as just noise makers,
expounding hollow rhetoric, rather than at least trying to acknowledge,
voicing genuine disdaine using, various political reasonings, via their
creative processes?

In respect of recusant work that refuses to tow the line to authority -
as in it is not going to change much of the world that we are liviing in
now anyway. I think that this is only partly true, because such a fate
accompli statement is almost like saying well - whatever you say and do
you have lost anyway, so why bother to try and change anything. Which is
bit slack…

I mean what is wrong in not towing the line - have we really gone so far
as to say that it is wrong to have a political voice?

In his article - he does not really venture far outside the white cube,
thus it is not really seeing other things that are happening beyond an
established art arena. Fair enough to some point - he is engulfed in his
work, but there is a lot more going on, as we all know. So, I cannot
take this article that seriously - for it is not being representative,
and looks inwards rather than outwards.

I have heard the 'value' judgement many times in reference to an art
piece or creative/political art, labeling as too literal, which really
means - bad art. This is such an opt out clause used too many times,
denying the creator a voice to express their creastive reasoning beyond
the imposed dialect of assumed purest-led sensibilities. Yes - sometimes
literal art can be bad, but only some of it, yes art can be bad, but not
necessarily all of it.

To slap one big sticker onto political art is to say all of it is bad -
which in its own way is a political act and an action of conservatism,
which to be honest is not helping any of us at the moment.

marc

http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.http.uk.net/



>"I fear that the symbols of recusance aren't going to effect much
change as they progress from studio to museum wall.
>Surface references can preclude discussion since they suggest that
deeper meaning implicitly resides in the work. The engage artist can
mistake reproducing historical images of political activism for activism
itself, and, as a result, is in danger of being no better than a
nostalgist, performing cover versions of other people's slogans. (As
Morrissey sang, 'I thought if you had an acoustic guitar, it meant you
were a protest singer'.)"
>
>http://www.frieze.com/column_single.asp?c8
>
>I tend to think of Wolfie Smith or the JPF rather than Rick, though…
:-)
>
>- Rob.
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

> In his article - he does not really venture far outside the white
> cube, thus it is not really seeing other things that are happening
> beyond an established art arena. Fair enough to some point - he is
> engulfed in his work, but there is a lot more going on, as we all
> know. So, I cannot take this article that seriously - for it is not
> being representative, and looks inwards rather than outwards.

i agree with Marc here… there's lots going on that has little to do
with a gallery wall, but still utilizes processes related to art. And
Sam Durant and Andrea Bowers are easy targets to attack when one's
looking for problematic "political art." But then, not many of their
critics really deal with the conceptual and material aspects of their
work, instead critiquing it as bad direct action - which it isn't. And
i'm not a big fan of their work, but to critique it based on its direct
political efficacy, just because it depicts images of protest, is odd.
Not many people critique Richter paintings in the same fashion.
Nostalgia, conflict and visual archives are certainly well-worn
subjects for traditional art practice, no?
when the author writes:
"Isaiah Berlin held that disagreement is a fundamental part of being
human. Art, in asserting itself politically, is a form of disagreement
with the way the world is. But then again, art is not inherently big

It's necessary to make distinction between history and posteriority.Some
works are in history(biggest example is Guernica,tragically empty Myth in
art history).Other example is Duchamp's work which existed in
posteriority(OK.let's try with *aeon*-time as ad continuum phenomena,and
*chronos*-signed or marked time).If we accept that "art isn't about
politics, however one defines it"than we can agree that Ducham's work IS
still politically subversive,but Guernica is fetish for ignorant,bad Symbol
for open political engagement.There's essential distinction between Politic
art proclaimed by consensus of different people(actually most of them
considered art history without any knowledge about huge different between
history and posteriori,a propos- you can find something about posteririty in
some of last Duchamp's interviews),and art which immanent contend political
engagement.So,Pollock- rudimental sign for post-war US expansion(they were
god boys in that time…for some of us:-),Warhol-ideology of death,guru of
hyper communism&equality,Beuys-re-animation\_\_\_re-socialisation,Europe is in
game again,Basquiat-color,image,gesture,text…prae DJ-star,spontaneity and
brilliance-eighties interregnum&illusion of peace and prosperity,Damian
Koons-schizoid projection of divided body/ethic(they are still not in class
of important artist,they are very close to them,because it's hygiene in
thinking about art-who is important ,and who is interesting artist.For
example Picasso is important,Braque is interesting,Pollock is important
Newman interesting,Daly important,Ernst interesting…etc).Following this
logic any of Picasso's"Nature morte"painted during II Word war is
politically art.
One of my priority is to develop bad English,because that's his destiny and
it must be dun on periphery.But it is boring,and I'm getting tired.Example I
used are from XX century.Still, I can't see any important
art(ist)inXXI.Everything I wrote tonight could be compressed in one
sentence,but will you belief me?
IMPORTANT ARTIST MADE IMPORTANT ART.ONLY THIS ART COULD BE POLITICAL.
We are not interested in interesting art.
MANIK


—– Original Message —–
From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>
To: "rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: Frieze on Political Art


> > In his article - he does not really venture far outside the white
> > cube, thus it is not really seeing other things that are happening
> > beyond an established art arena. Fair enough to some point - he is
> > engulfed in his work, but there is a lot more going on, as we all
> > know. So, I cannot take this article that seriously - for it is not
> > being representative, and looks inwards rather than outwards.
>
> i agree with Marc here… there's lots going on that has little to do
> with a gallery wall, but still utilizes processes related to art. And
> Sam Durant and Andrea Bowers are easy targets to attack when one's
> looking for problematic "political art." But then, not many of their
> critics really deal with the conceptual and material aspects of their
> work, instead critiquing it as bad direct action - which it isn't. And
> i'm not a big fan of their work, but to critique it based on its direct
> political efficacy, just because it depicts images of protest, is odd.
> Not many people critique Richter paintings in the same fashion.
> Nostalgia, conflict and visual archives are certainly well-worn
> subjects for traditional art practice, no?
> when the author writes:
> "Isaiah Berlin held that disagreement is a fundamental part of being
> human. Art, in asserting itself politically, is a form of disagreement
> with the way the world is. But then again, art is not inherently big
>