April 19, 2004
Politics and art II
The conversation about politics and art continues apace. If you haven't read it, check out my previous entry and follow the links. Dan Green and Edward Champion have each posted thoughtful explorations of what it means to be an aesthete, in part in answer to my rather offhand characterization in the earlier post (think Oscar Wilde with the green carnation here). I could have been clearer: I was referring to the ultimate position on some sort of continuum rather than to individuals who consider aesthetic values paramount in all the nuanced ways in which it is possible to do so. But then I suppose I should have said that.
In a comment to the earlier post Edward Champion suggested that we are manoeuvring around a semantic difference, and I am increasingly convinced that this is, in part, true. We are all referring to "politics" at cross-purposes. I do in fact mean "by saying everyone is 'political' we mean everyone has his/her interests," as Dan Green puts it. He also writes, "If we are all 'political creatures who exist in the world,' are we not also 'sociological creatures,' 'historical creatures,' 'cultural creatures,' 'economic creatures'? Such abstractions are so cosmically extended as to be meaningless." To my mind the term "political" includes all these other ideas, but even so I don't feel that the term is meaningless. I suppose what I am really saying is that I am a materialist. That is how I look at things, at everything. That does not mean that I don't appreciate aesthetic values; it just means that I don't think they were inspired by the muses ("muses" meaning, something outside of history). This doesn't mean that I "prefer" politics over art; it means that I understand art — individual instances of it, our appreciation (or not) of those instances, as well as "art" as a concept or concepts — as arising from material conditions.
I am sympathetic to the irritation of people on the aesthetic side of this debate — if we should even put it that divisive way — when they feel that they are being patronized by the claims of the politicos that they are simply ignorant of the politics that are so manifestly there for anyone with eyes to see; sympathetic, because I myself am irritated by what seem to me to be parallel claims that my perspective is impoverished, that I am blinded by my agenda into merely exploiting artistic products for didactic purposes, that I can't even enjoy the beauty of a sunset without thinking of the pollution that is contributing to the display and cursing the multinationals that are destroying our grandchildren's birthright.
Not sure how to wind this up; clearly this is an old debate, but it rarely fails to draw us in. And as my mother used to say, usually in an (unsuccessful) attempt to end a conversation that was getting too fractious, "Well wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed?" Yes, especially as the quality of the disagreement has been particularly fine, of late.
Update (21/4/04): The discussion continues to be lively over at The Reading Experience.
My intent wasn't to imply that your perspective was invalid -- only that, semantics being what they are, it is precisely the individual who determines how political or aesthetic an individual piece of art is. In my experience, consciousness is too complicated for taxonomy. While it's helpful to have a few reference points, reference points alone don't fully explain perspective. It's part of the fun of reading and hearing what other people have to say.
To address the more pressing concern, with the exception of one murky evening in the mid-90s that involved copious amounts of scotch (the details having been corroborated by mischevious and therefore unreliable friends), I have never worn a green carnation. This is not to suggest that I am against carnations. I merely state for the record that I do not wear them. For one thing, I don't have a single shirt that will go with one (a shame, since I'm fond of the color green). For another, various Conde Nast publications have declared that the green carnation has been out of style since 1912. While my character prevents me from subscribing to what's hep or au courant like a maggot forever feeding on a pigsty, on the subject of flowers, I try to be careful and thus defer to the higher minds of Manhattan for these prudential choices.
Scribbled by Ed at April 19, 2004 05:05 PM | PermalinkI'm very glad to hear it. (They sound like such a ... dare I say it? An ugly flower.)
Scribbled by mj at April 19, 2004 05:21 PM | PermalinkSince you accept my redefinition of politics as "interests," (and these are indeed unavoidable), we probably don't disagree as much as I thought we might.
Actually, I'm a materialist myself (although I used the term "pragmatic"). In fact, to my way of thinking, the best works of art are supreme achievements of the materialist kind.
I'm among those who only came upon your blog relatively recently, but I've been reading it regularly and will continue to do so.
Scribbled by Daniel Green at April 19, 2004 06:59 PM | PermalinkAll friends again, good!
I'm also a relative newcomer to your blog, and have been enjoying reading it.
Scribbled by mj at April 19, 2004 08:34 PM | Permalinkhttp://webteam.unb.ca/cgi-bin/MT-2.21/mt-tb.cgi/478
Here's what others have to say about Politics and art II:
» Negative space,
or, Why I don’t trust æsthetes. from Long story; short pier
Which is funny, y’know, since I’ll forgive an artist almost anything if they can give me a clean pure hit of what it is I’m jonesing for. —This has been kicking around the back of my brain for over......[read more]
Tracked: April 24, 2004 06:47 PM