|
[- on expressionism and activism and ...
|
|
By monicaross, Section whatever...
Posted on Mon May 12th, 2003 at 06:28:35 PM EURODISCORDIA TIME
|
|
its quite difficult to know where to come in to discordia...so here goes... with some thoughts in response to a question i was recently asked by another artist and to trebor's and brian's discussion..." what did you do about the war?"
|
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
Although i carried out an art action during the 91 gulf war, my resistance to the invasion of iraq was of a different order, one that is not clear to me yet. it included the refusal to make art as response. as if to participate in the spectacle, to make what could only be a token gesture, would somehow indicate an inverted form of consent. as the invasion became imminent, related net art projects began to appear. the readiness of this instinct, far from seeming a demonstration of a utopian counter memory, began to have as depressing, and wearying, an effect on me as the happening - now- info-tainment of split screen, subtitled cnn.
the artist's question was an opener on trying to speak about the anguish produced by the gross intimidation of this event: an exercise of immutable force in which iraq was made an example to any who might attempt to oppose it. and about an art practice informed by political and ethical beliefs, but alienated from and doubtful of current activist forms as a means to address overwhelming power. what, we were thinking, is going on then in this compulsion to silence? is what seems to be inaction always a sign of being overwhelmed into ineffectiveness, of political dis-engagement?
as one bomber left the abraham lincoln aircraft carrier to deliver shock and awe to baghdad, other crew watched "the light show" on the ships monitors, in real time, from the comfort of armchairs, commenting, like theatre goers, on the live performance. In britain, it is a habit to use the word "political" to describe something which opposes the status quo. so that while the term "political art" implies an art that is identifiably critical of the status quo, it is hardly ever used to describe the cultural activities that support the status quo itself. do we just take that for granted? or do we forget? as brian indicates, the autonomy of art is, once again, at issue. but not only within the utopian spaces of counter action to which he refers.
the juggler of the paving stones in the "who is faking it?" discussion, may demonstrate a welcome counter image of power relations, but how does such an act translate into forms of agency which will counter the actual structure of these relations? to what degree is the subversive potential of the carnivalesque diminished when the dominant power structure has become a past master in the same metier? might how we get from the carnival demonstration of the arrangement of power to its actual re-arrangement, of necessity, now have to be through other, unspectacular, forms of agency? a different kind of work?
just now, in the west at least, we seem to be engaged, en masse, in cultural activisms/artforms whose expression , as discussed by trebor and brian, the status quo also comfortably tolerates within its own limits. some forms, particularily where dissent is diffused into display, into the spectacular, may even be welcome to it and synthetic to its interests. dissent as the spectacular performs a show of democracy, demonstrating it as real time images which counter the suspicion that democracy may now only be an illusion.
"The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organise the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves." walter benjamin. the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
walter benjamin. the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
the anti-war march in london was the largest single demonstration of political opposition to government that has ever happened in the uk. it occurred within a space of popular mediation that granted it the most generous tolerance. the polls against the war ran at higher percentages than the average turn out for the ballot box. and it made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the political stance of a government, which, more than any other in the history of the uk, can claim, electorally, to represent the constituency which protested against it.
while we are busy expressing ourselves, the tanks roll on regardless. as a strategy of gesture, can expressionism do much more than perform the apearance of our discontents? it is a spectacular form for raising awareness, inspirational. but can we expect it to take the burden of altering the same superstructure which purposively allows it to exist for its own reasons as a means to negate it? from reality tv to discussion lists to demonstrations: are we all participating in a state of techno-distraction where performing the power of expression is a glamour which we were always intended to mistake for power itself? while the agency of expressionism keeps up the appearances of utopian counter cultures, to privilege it as a solution to the dystopia from within which it erupts, may even be a mistake of unconscious complicity.
all manifestations of art, activist or any other, are always part of the complex social processes within which it is produced. that activist forms must stage and re-stage themselves differently, in a tactical cycle of appearance and dis-appearance, as brian mentions, to evade co-option, is necessary to their dynamic. but is there not a tyranny in this cycle itself? one that restrains a counter culture from sustaining its development and its diversification beyond the stage of tactical re -activism? is a counter culture always to be caught in a cycle of repetition which inhibits and disrupts itself as much, if not more, than the power structure it addresses? how does the cycle of activism's opportunism relate to that of the dystopia's own? what does it mean when particular forms of agency/art forms appear to have ascendancy over others? are they always the most appropriate or the ones most tolerable to the limits that the dystopia has already set in place? does the ascendancy of any one form play a part in hardening those limits? does it participate in silencing the development of other forms of agency which might work to counter the superstructure from less spectacular bases?
in terms of reviewing this cycle, might it, after all, be worth mining the inventory of art to re-think some of arts very old fashioned characteristics - the ability, for example, through one form or another, to remain?
|
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
|
|
