It’s about time that I updated this blog and said something new and somewhat worth while.
For the past few weeks, I’ve been in California visiting family and friends and doing a small bit of work. I came to the city prepared to buckle down on my presentation (which I am giving in February) and found that I was not meant to do that. Instead I listened to a lot of great music, went on hikes, found beautiful driftwood by the beach and met incredible people. Not too bad for a vacation, not too bad at all.
Now, as I am sitting in the San Francisco Public Library in the Mission District, I am trying to ease myself back into productivity mode. Though, the past few weeks haven’t been completely unproductive. Last week a friend and I visited this over stacked used bookstore in downtown Santa Rosa. Immediately I found myself turning pages in the art section, climbing up tall step-stools and looking to the backs of book pies. Amongst the coffee table Matisse books and the how-to-collage manuals I found a tiny paper back titled “Radical Perspectives in the Arts.” After reading the introduction I knew I had to buy it. The edition is a collection of essays edited by, Lee Baxandall, about the relation of the arts to capitalism, communism, class-values, patronage, property, realism, and the freedom of expression.
Baxandall begins by stating the definition of Radical, as defined by Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.
“Radical: 1.of or relation to the root: proceedying directly from the root... 2. Of or relation to the root or origin... 3. Marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional.
Radical does not mean extremist.”
He goes on to relate radical to fundamental and insist that we, as readers, must obtain a firm grip on the word as to re-define the meaning of words in our language, and deviate from the one-dimensional definitions we suppose are true.
By re-defining words such as radical we open up possibilities for new understandings and new relationships.
Another quote from the forward:
"The flaw at the very root of the arts in a class-hierarchical society of whatever era may be most penetratingly described in terms of Marx's concept of alienation. Class attitudes and class oppression are the interpersonal manifestation of it; but alienation permeates the individual to the marrow of his or her potential to realize personal abilities and to live happily. It is a psychological phenomenon with socio-economic foundations which affect - to stick only to the arts and to touch only highlights - the capacity to utilize one's aesthetic potential, the art-making or the craft process, and the market or patronage for art." (Baxandall 12)
Though what really struck me was Meredith Tax's essay "Introductory: Culture is not Neutral, Whom Does it Serve?" In this she explores the thesis that culture is not neutral politically. (of course right?) But she does this beautiful explanation interweaving poems by Brecht and Yeats and tying in Marx as well. One point she makes early on is about the absurdity of the art market and its relation to value. "It is only with the dominance of the capitalist system that the artist has been put in the position of production for a Market, for strangers far away, whose life styles and beliefs and needs are completely unknown to him, and who will either buy his works or ignore them for reasons that are equally inscrutable and out of his control." (22)
She goes on to explain that Marxist call this attitude towards production "commodity fetishism." A term I am sure many of you have heard. "Objects are regarded as though they had originated by magic and appeared in the shops, not as if they were made by people for other people to use." (23)
In her next section, she writes about 'High Brow' culture and 'low brow,'
mass culture. High Brow of course concerning students, intellectuals, upper middle class folks, you know the ones that are more likely to visit museums and fund the art market. Mass culture, in her words, "proletarianized art," comes from the "manipulation of a national fantasy life." (25)
She ends by writing this paragraph
"As politics must teach people the ways and give them the means to take control over their own lives, art must teach people, in the most vivid and imaginative ways possible, how to take control over their own experience and observations, how to link these things with theory, and how to connect both with the experience of others."
Now the academic in me is sleepy as the sun sets outside the large library windows. I want to say that, despite my efforts to push myself away from the traditional academic sphere, I can't help but embrace these essays. I am sorry for the lack of analysis, but I think it is more interesting for you to interpret what you will based off of the pieces I have selected.
In other news,
I met Amy Franceschini today for a mentoring session and a bit of tea in the mission. We spoke about a wide range of things, from working in institutions, to urban agriculture, to being a role model for future generations.
I've also been thinking about the idea of a third place. It is a place that is not the home nor work. A place for people to come and socialize on an equal playing field that does not cost money or is very cheap. Urbanism, social interactions, communication, spaces--- all good things.
Off to catch the Bart.
No comments:
Post a Comment