Re: The Myth of Meritocracy in Fine Arts - addendum

Dyske,

I believe in right and wrong. Am I right or am I wrong?

You say there are no absolute truths. Do you believe that truth absolutely?

These are academic/rote philosophical disagreements. You start your essay by assuming that all aesthetic criteria for evaluating art are totally subjective and relative. You never expound on this assumption or attempt to justify it, you merely posit it as if we all took the same courses you took and were led to the same conclusions. You then proceed to base the rest of your argument on that one assumption. I disagree with your assumption. The fact that no one can "prove" that their opinion of a piece of art is "right" doesn't de facto "prove" that all opinions about art are totally subjective and relative.

Yes, if it's all totally subjective, then there is no merit (except in foot races, spelling bees, and algebra tests). In that case, why limit yourself to merely admiring saatchi's system-manipulating abilities? Britney Spears – creative genius (fame, $, and breasts)! Jeffrey Dahmer – master of the social sculpture! The unabomber – hybrid machine/man improvisationist extraordinaire! And you'd say, "I guess so, if they wind up in a lot of art history books." Kooky.

Relativism generally leads to poor art, because poor art is easy to make, and if no one is allowed to call poor art "poor," then poor artmaking is the course of least resistance most artists will take; particularly if they are assured that there is no aesthetic criteria by which they may be judged, and that it's all about the $. Portrait of the artist as gangsta rap promoter.

Ryan has more subtle disagreements with you, but allow me to summarize our disagreements:
I understand what you are saying, and we fundamentally disagree.

peace,
curt



Dyske Suematsu wrote:

> Let me add to my last comment, which I believe would summarize our
> disagreements here:
>
> Both Curt and Ryan seem to believe that relativism leads to a circular
> logic, therefore it is inferior. What I am saying is that both would
> lead to
> a circular logic. Since I have no problem with accepting circular
> logic, I
> can write from both perspectives. You two seem to believe that one
> side is
> flawed and the other side isn't. That is what I call "myth".
>
> -Dyske
>

On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 11:53PM, Dyske Suematsu <[email protected]> wrote:

>Both Curt and Ryan seem to believe that relativism leads to a circular
>logic, therefore it is inferior. What I am saying is that both would lead to
>a circular logic. Since I have no problem with accepting circular logic, I
>can write from both perspectives. You two seem to believe that one side is
>flawed and the other side isn't. That is what I call "myth".

Relativism is not circular logic. Circular logic is self-proving. Relativism is self-disproving since it cannot prove itself without becoming an absolute.

Relativism as practiced by Cultural Studies (etc.) is just a post-colonial rehabilitation of orientalism. Or crypto-slumming-it. There's nothing wrong with using or being inspired by the discourses of other cultures, societies or classes. There is something wrong with claiming that all discourses are created equal, save the one that declares this.

Relativism allows pre-existent discourse to be turned on any object. This priveleges deconstruction, turning the generation of text into an absolute. It is a political position. What kind of politics? Well, deconstruction is a paternalistic, appropriating activity.

Relativism is a discourse. Any discourse can be deconstructed. This applies to the discourse of deconstruction as well. When you deconstruct you tend to find politics and vested interests and disappointed lives. Relativism serves The Market and Cultural Studies. Neither have much to do with art.

Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one. Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to remain realistic.

- Rob.

hi Rob et al,

> Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one.
> Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one
> from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position
> relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action
> if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to
> remain realistic.

This sounds like a real politik take over of culture to me. How does one determine honesty and realism without looking at how any particular version of reality benefits (or not) certain people. This is neither relativism, nor deconstruction (proper) necessarily. If economics (the Market) can be accepted as a myth (what isn't according to Joseph Campbell), then why not aesthetics? and aren't myths/worldviews merely tools for ordering experience to serve whatever interests are creating them? What makes some 'givens' suspect and not others?
best,
ryan

On 26 Feb 2004, at 19:57, ryan griffis wrote:

> hi Rob et al,
>
>> Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one.
>> Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one
>> from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position
>> relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action
>> if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to
>> remain realistic.
>
> This sounds like a real politik take over of culture to me.

Possibly. I don't know what realpolitik is, though. :-)

> How does one determine honesty and realism without looking at how any
> particular version of reality benefits (or not) certain people.

Absolutely. I'd argue that doing so *is* honesty (in this context), and
that this evaluation determines its realism.

> This is neither relativism, nor deconstruction (proper) necessarily.
> If economics (the Market) can be accepted as a myth (what isn't
> according to Joseph Campbell), then why not aesthetics?

As I say, any myth can be useful. Since no-one has ever actually come
up with a satisfactory definition or test for aesthetics, I think it's
more of a myth than most. :-)

Eventually we get to the point where nothing is real, but since nothing
is real, there is no loss of reality to be mourned and everything is as
real as it can be and we can all go home.

> and aren't myths/worldviews merely tools for ordering experience to
> serve whatever interests are creating them?

Absolutely. Everything's an aesthetic.

> What makes some 'givens' suspect and not others?

I regard any *unexamined* given as suspect. There's the problem of
what's doing the examining, but we have to try, at least. Which I
regard as bootstrapping, not circular… :-)

- Rob.