Steve D wrote, a while ago:
> I think, in short, that the role of the art-analogy is to help us
> imagine in a more vivid way how attractive it might be to try severing
> the ethics of self-transformation from the practice of appealing to
> scienctific or medical knowledge of the self. His targets are, as
> always, scientistic versions of Marxism, psychoanalysis, the
> psychology or sociology of the "normal", essentialist forms of
> "identity politics" and other modes of appealing to alleged truths
> about the subject that, in his view, have played a pernicious role in
> "recent liberation movements" and an even more pernicious role in
> institutions like hospitals, schools, prisons and courts.
>
> It is a simple analogy, and Foucault spends so little time elaborating
> on the analogy precisely because we don't need to know much about art
> to get the simple idea: self-invention does not need the guidance of
> scientific truth.
Steve, my point is that one cannot bring in the notion of "art" in this
seemingly innocent way. The concept of "art" and "aesthetics" is as much
infused and determined by institutionalized forms of knowledge and expertise
as are scientific or medical truths. As Hans Haacke said:
"There are no 'artists', however, who are immune to being affected and
influenced by the socio-political value-system of the society in which
they live and of which all cultural agencies are a part, no matter if they
are ignorant of these constraints or not ('artist' like 'work of art' are
put in quotation marks because they are predicates with evaluative
connotations deriving their currency from the relative ideological frame
of a given cultural power group). So-called 'avant-garde art' is at best
working close to the limitations set by its cultural/political
environment, but it always operates within that allowance.
'Artists', as much as their supporters and their enemies, no matter of what
ideological coloration, are unwitting partners in the art-syndrome and
relate to each other dialectically. They participate jointly in the
maintenance and/or development of the ideological makeup of their society.
They work within that frame, set the frame and are being framed."
I think that Baudelaire's ironic stance, which is a continuation of the
Romantic ironic stance, has a lot to do with this realization of
being within the frame, setting the frame and being framed. Unless one
has a proposal for an art that constructs itself differently, one will
run into trouble trying to envision 'art' as a viable basis for a life
that is not always already enmeshed in the institutions of this here
society.
-m
> I think, in short, that the role of the art-analogy is to help us
> imagine in a more vivid way how attractive it might be to try severing
> the ethics of self-transformation from the practice of appealing to
> scienctific or medical knowledge of the self. His targets are, as
> always, scientistic versions of Marxism, psychoanalysis, the
> psychology or sociology of the "normal", essentialist forms of
> "identity politics" and other modes of appealing to alleged truths
> about the subject that, in his view, have played a pernicious role in
> "recent liberation movements" and an even more pernicious role in
> institutions like hospitals, schools, prisons and courts.
>
> It is a simple analogy, and Foucault spends so little time elaborating
> on the analogy precisely because we don't need to know much about art
> to get the simple idea: self-invention does not need the guidance of
> scientific truth.
Steve, my point is that one cannot bring in the notion of "art" in this
seemingly innocent way. The concept of "art" and "aesthetics" is as much
infused and determined by institutionalized forms of knowledge and expertise
as are scientific or medical truths. As Hans Haacke said:
"There are no 'artists', however, who are immune to being affected and
influenced by the socio-political value-system of the society in which
they live and of which all cultural agencies are a part, no matter if they
are ignorant of these constraints or not ('artist' like 'work of art' are
put in quotation marks because they are predicates with evaluative
connotations deriving their currency from the relative ideological frame
of a given cultural power group). So-called 'avant-garde art' is at best
working close to the limitations set by its cultural/political
environment, but it always operates within that allowance.
'Artists', as much as their supporters and their enemies, no matter of what
ideological coloration, are unwitting partners in the art-syndrome and
relate to each other dialectically. They participate jointly in the
maintenance and/or development of the ideological makeup of their society.
They work within that frame, set the frame and are being framed."
I think that Baudelaire's ironic stance, which is a continuation of the
Romantic ironic stance, has a lot to do with this realization of
being within the frame, setting the frame and being framed. Unless one
has a proposal for an art that constructs itself differently, one will
run into trouble trying to envision 'art' as a viable basis for a life
that is not always already enmeshed in the institutions of this here
society.
-m