These comment was originally posted on Nettime as a follow up comment on Eric Miller, Patrick Lichty and Coco Fusco's writing.

It is posted here as I noticed that Fusco's satire produced quite a stir in rhizome as well.

comment follows:
_________________________

I was really glad to read Lichty's comments on Miller's short analysis, as he stated most of what I was thinking only much better than I could ever have. However, there are a few things that I would like to expand on. These follow:


Miller wrote:
>> But secondly: maybe I'm missing something, but why _does_ art have to be
>> political?
>

Lichty wrote:
>Art is always some sort of communicative statement, whether didactic,
>political, etc. Politics is only one component, one that frequently gets
>foregrounded, but only one aspect nonetheless. Therefore, politics are
>always there, but what politic is being communicated in context witht he
>rest of the statement (whose standards of beauty, cultural context, and so
>on) is important vis-a-vis the piece of art in question.
>

Miller wrote:
>Why can't it be based on abstract aesthetic beauty, or humor, or
>> contemporary cultural contexts, or scatology, or whatever pleases the
>> artist? I don't see why the context for meaning in art is required to
>be
>> sober and politicized in order to earn the label of virtuous and worthy.
>

Lichty wrote:
>Much of this can be attributed to cultural threads of the 80's and 90's,
>but again, numerous well-known artists who have taken strong political
>stands (Laurie Anderson, RTMark, Eduardo Kac, SRL, IAA) have done so in
>lyrical, hysterically funny, or even aesthetically pleasing ways. There
>is nothing wrong with the other threads Eric mentions, but there is an
>intellectualism within the art world that has almost required this sort of
>intellectual gymnastics, and in fact, I actually support it until it
>becomes far too obtuse, like much of 80's contemporary art, in which you
>had to read the Foucault library to get the inside joke, only to realize
>that it wasn't that funny.
_______________

I agree with Lichty's comment, but we should also note that a major part of this discussion is being affected by one of the most influential metanarratives of the 20th Century, the "narrative of Social Justice," which is largely based on Marxist thought. the inevitable problem that this narrative ran into was that its dogmatic premise on the "proletariat" did not necessarily apply to all oppressed individuals around the world. Sartre, who is hardly ever mentioned in post-colonial writings – except to expose him as an ethnocentric thinker, was one of the first to notice this problem in Algeria, and wrote about it fervently. We only have to read the preface to Fannon's book The Wretched of the Earth to realize this, as well his essay, "Colonialism is a system" among many others which can now be found in an excellent volume called Colonialism and Neocolonialism by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Post-colonial theory took the social narrative and used it to problematize the eurocentric powerstructure that is still in a decentralized privileged state. This is part of the late postmodern era of the late eighties and early nineties where Spivak and Said, among others, rose to the occasion to revitalize a stale moment (though not necessarilly in formal production) in creative and intellectual circles.

These sources are (what I consider) Coco Fusco's validating platform behind the satire on Josephine's review. The main thing that gives her such license is the undercurrent untouched premise within Marxist thought (now nicely mixed up with Nietzcheian premises as extra Deleuzean spices ) to fight formal tendencies, as these can only be seducing, pleasing and ultimately function through commodification in our world, thus leading to issues of taste based on "disinterestedness" and Bourgeois tendencies. This is the reason why Art can not be about aesthetics to Fusco or anyone holding on to "the social justice narrative."

And as I am aware of this, I must admit that I do endorse such a narrative as it is a good tool for theoretical situations in the classroom as well as studio practice, and – even better – everyday living. It gives one a sense of objectivity which can not ever be developed if one simply gives into the seductive aspects of process and development according to the exploration of form. This only leads to "eye candy" art – formally beautiful but extremely devoid of ideology. This would equal , in terms of everydayness, to the ideal consumer that corporate entities dream about.

I honestly, do not believe that the art community will ever find a balance in its incestuous fight between ideology and form. But I do not think we are interested in doing so. I was actually pleased to read Fusco's satire as it showed the limitations of language, as a form (which can be seducing), and yet how this one can be revitalized if the pun is right on the money. "L.H.O.O.Q."

Those who question Fusco's authority to present such a "modest proposal" should perhaps understand that it is done in earnest – or at least I would like to think so. If anything it is pointing to the possibility of net.art perhaps becoming too complacent with the fact that it is mostly not understood or fully institutionalized as of yet. net-art must not rest on its Laurels. Fusco's proposal is a wake up call to keep running and outproduce, once again.


Eduardo Navas
http://www.navasse.net