Artspeak article

I've read the article Laurie posted by David Thompson, Artspeak: How did 'Art bollocks' become the default way of writing about visual culture? Could Mao have the answer?. The position of the article is very familiar. (The reference to Mao is just as vacuous as he criticizes others for, but that is my aside.) I agree that the situation has been out of control for a long time vis a vis artspeak running amok. I agree that "Theory's near hegemony in literary and cultural studies" and "the political lockstep of postmodern criticism" is suspect and my agreement is based on the notion that hegemony and locksteps are always suspect. This is one of the great ironies it has always seemed to me - that the ideologies which uphold pluralism are themselves used for hegemony and lockstep. When I was a young artist in Toronto I considered the artist leaders within the community hypocrites for that reason. However, years later I am more sympathetic to the condundrum that working for change requires a focus and direction that easily appears as hegemony and lockstep to anyone not desiring the changes as well as those who may very well desire the changes but resist any whiff of hegemony without necessarily examining their attachment to bad smells. (I place my younger(?) self amongst the latter.) The major flaw for me in this article is the writer's seeming acceptance of something called "truth". I think it is a good thing that postmodernism cast such doubt on this notion and opened our eyes to its social construction. I would feel more sympathetic to the writer if he had articulated better what appears to be his main point that a facility with theoretical language can mask theoretical errors, fool people into thinking the writer is intellectually rigorous when s/he is not.

Although the article does not address them specifically, there are two issues I am interested in - the role of theory and theoretical language in widening the distance between art and culture, or art and society; and, the conflict between art serving a political function and art for art's sake. In fact, my two main issues are that distance (although not limited to theory's role) and that conflict! They guide my work as a cultural worker which is currently my dominant way of being in the world. I seek a coherence in my artistic practice if I ever have/make/take the time to make art that is. My impulses for artistic production continue to be grounded in the art for art's sake pov even as I find it untenable theoretically - speaking of conflict. More to follow I am sure.