The confusion of terms is immediate, but putting those aside, the concern for me is the for art to function beyond the professionalized world of art production, it need to provide points of access beyond the art historical or the "professional" debates of insiders that, while they ostensibly claim to be grounded in a larger cultural politics, are very often specialized, hermetic and, to the "laymen," indecipherable as to their relevance to the "real world."
As you know one of my common points of reference are the ideas of the philosopher Richard Rorty, who sought to move beyond what he saw as the paralyzing debates of both continental and analytical philosophy by a) reinvigorating American Pragmatism and b) more importantly seeking to transform what it is that philosophy does. By that I would argue that Rorty's project was to return philosophy to its origins grounded ultimately in action in/for/with the world and not, as it seemed to him, to become mired in highly esoteric debates on minutiae related to the continental or analytical philosophical traditions.
One hope I have for this forum is that we (or at least I and the rest of you :) ) can work towards applying this idea to art. To explore where and how art can engage culture more actively while still being good "art." To figure out how to locate work so that when it "works," it's effect is more durable than just a momentary disruption that fails to leave the site of professional art because it's interests (or reception at least) is grounded so narrowly in professional art structures. There is certainly work that does this, but I think it is fair to say that most doesn't or perhaps cannot because it cannot escape the market, cannot escape its "thingyness." Maybe there are no more compelling markets for art to function in (ghettoized in its own house so to speak) so some argue it is fatally undermined by its exchange value. (I don't agree with this necessarily, but I think we need to address this idea in order to produce in the face of reductive economistic moralism.)
I think we begin by agreeing on terms. What is a cultural product? What is a critical cultural product? What is the intersection between cultural products and cultural politics? How is "art" like other cultural products (like philosophy) and how is it different? Must art engage the market to reach other cultural sites of interest?
Please add more if they come to mind. I apologize for the stream, but I like the blog as a place for thinking out loud...
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've been struggling with this idea as well. Culture, art as cultural production, art which engages the market, art which is AWARE that it engages the market (Takashi Murakami!!) My hope is to make work that does engage those outside the art world at the most basic level possible. I don't like the idea that the work is made intellectually "accessible" to those not engaged critically in the art world, but that I strive to make work that can be experienced on a human level. This type of work must be capable of existing outside the market in order to be accessible. Outside the gallery, outside sanctified "public art" (although I do believe in RARE instances it is possible to keep one's work intact AND have it comissioned by the city) In order for me to make a living (or at least a second income-a taboo we like to ignore) I would hope that my work engages the art world at a critical level as well. This is where I beleive work such as that of Robert Smithson comes into play. Smithson was able to create critical, cultural productions of art outside of the art market, and engage the market at various levels. This is where I find that practice is crutial.
Post a Comment