+++
Post by Max Herman, January 18, 2007
Now that Rhizome has been officially affiliated to a museum, there is a question whether it is able to provide any platform for discussion that might not be attractive to the museum/academia/gallery model of the artworld. When Rhizome started out, it was not tied to a museum so maybe it could be more independent. This is not for certain however, just a speculation.
Let us suppose, then, that Postmodernism is no longer the best choice of art-historical period, having been replaced as best choice by Networkism. Now let us ask whether Rhizome in its current state can be allowed to permit a discussion of Networkism. Being affiliated to the New Museum, Rhizome leadership might be under intense pressure to adhere to the following text found at the New Museum sites "History" section:
'But even as it settled into more permanent accommodations, the New Museum retained its spirit of experimentation and innovation, pioneering a groundbreaking curatorial philosophy that enacted in concrete, institutional terms the intense theoretical debates then crystallizing around the concept of “postmodernism.”'
http://www.newmuseum.org/about/history/
This is only speculation however, as Rhizome has permitted discussion of Networkism and other non-Postmodernist ideas in the past. It could even be thought that the New Museum, whose mission statement is the very simple "New Ideas, New Art," would want Rhizome to allow a discussion of Networkism.
Then again, institutionalization always has a risk. I like the idea of security and lasting endurance for the Rhizome Artbase and Textbase, which I consider to be in large part something that I myself contributed to creating. Yet if the cost of that established funding is that no discussion is allowed to occur, or no one wants to discuss, then that could be a foolish paradise and less than ideal.
So, history has yet to declare if the New Museum will permit Rhizome to allow discussion of Networkism on its discussion board. There might also be questions whether we can discuss anything negative, such as a negative interpretation of an artwork or artist, which I have not seen in years on Rhizome. There was recently a negative review of Jeff Koons on Artforum, so perhaps negative critique is permitted at times. Yet Artforum does not permit a discussion of Networkism.
Without a doubt national security must be preserved and that includes the economic base. But sometimes discussion of alternatives and somewhat negative criticism is beneficial to the creation of wealth in the market model, by what is called "creative destruction." Therefore, we might wish to try to discuss a bit more without going overboard. That could be the way forward into the new art-historical period.
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe now online
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
Postmodernism and the New Museum
-
Type: discussion
Comments
+++
One good thing about Postmodernism is that it allows criticism of liberal democracy but it is not such an intense criticism that its own existence, much less the existence of liberal democracy, is really injured. I don't believe that art should jeopardize the political-economic reality that makes its own function–the aesthetic evolution of humanity–most possible. This can even extend to agreeing not to discuss alleged crimes by the U.S. government. It is OK to forgive those crimes tacitly by refraining from discussing them explicitly, and by only doing so generally, all the while giving liberal democracy the benefit of the doubt. Forgiveness in such matters applies to individuals and groups, and it is a basic law of ancient Greek systems theory that without forgiveness you cannot have a system.
However, we should not jump from the above to the idea that only Postmodernism can forgive liberal democracy and advance human aesthetic evolution. There could arguably be another art-historical period that could also do so, and could also perhaps both do so better and yield other advantages such as a better connection to science, medicine, politics, economics, and other branches of life with which Postmodernism has, like Freudianism, long lost credibility.
Therefore it would drastically behoove the New Museum, and by implication Rhizome, to act as a free space where alternatives to Postmodernism can develop. Although some long-time adherents of Postmodernism would perhaps not like that so much, they have no claim to veto power.
Since other establishments have greater instututional imprinting from the Postmodernist model, Rhizome can act as a bringer of new ideas and forms. If Rhizome were to abandon the quest for a new art-historical period, after Postmodernism, and simply try to graft itself onto older Postmodernist entities like an ivy, that would be silly and quite unnecessary.
Thus I encourage everyone to question in your own mind and intellectual circle whether Postmodernism is the best possible art-historical period for the 21st century, and if not, what kind of a period would be better. Doing this, I think, if done with the typical amount of self-restraint and conscience, can take a form that will not jeopardize either Rhizome or global liberal democracy at all unduly. In fact, I think stalling and delaying is more of a risk.
This just for your contemplation and consideration,
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe online now
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++