9.5 Theses: Art and Class – Chapters One and Two

Temporary Art Review is pleased to announce a new column on our site: BOOK CLUB.

For the first edition of BOOK CLUB we will review Ben Davis’s 9.5 Theses on Art and Class. Starting in October, a new post will be published every two weeks focused on each section of the book. For each section, Temporary contributors will initiate a discussion through the comments in the post and anyone may continue the discussion by contributing their own comments and observations on the text.








About the Book
In 9.5 Theses on Art and Class, Ben Davis takes on a broad array of contemporary art’s most persistent debates: How does creative labor fit into the economy? Is art merging with fashion and entertainment? What can we expect from political art? Davis argues that returning class to the center of discussion can play a vital role in tackling the challenges that visual art faces today, including the biggest challenge of all—how to maintain faith in art itself in a dysfunctional world.

9.5 Theses on Art and Class may be purchased directly from the nonprofit publisher Haymarket Books, a project of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change.

Got 4 friends who want to read this book also?
Check out Haymarket Books’ Book Club/Organizational Discount and get 45% off…


BOOK CLUB Schedule
October 7: Art and Class – Chapters One and Two
October 21: Art and Politics – Chapters Three, Four and Five
November 4: Art and Its Audiences – Chapters Six, Seven and Eight
November 18: Art and Its Audiences – Chapters Nine and Ten
December 2: Art and Theory – Chapters Eleven through Fourteen
December 16: Conclusions – Chapters Fifteen and Sixteen

We look forward to the discussions!


Please note that to prevent spam we must manually approve each user’s first comment. Since we are not always online, there may be a slight delay in the posting of your comment below. However, after your first comment has been approved later comments will appear immediately. Please check back regularly for new comments.

There are 22 comments

Add yours
  1. Sarrita Hunn

    “…the encounter between idealistic notions about what art can be and the far-from-ideal realities of art in the present can be a profoundly politicizing experience.” (4)

    There is so much to discuss in this book I have decided to start only with the Introduction and will write a bit more about the first and second chapters later on. Before starting a discussion on the relationship between art and class however, I think that it is important emphasize two points that I believe Ben Davis understated (at least in the introduction). The first is that economics as a field of ‘natural science’ is an unfounded, dogmatic myth. Economy’s place as the sole determination of our lives, justified through asserting its place through quantifying cause and effect relationships, is not scientifically founded. Many of the basic theorems (see Lehman Brothers) on which it bases itself have now proven false, and yet people continue to follow this logic unquestionably. To put it another way, a market-driven society is only considered the inevitable result of past circumstances defined from the present, and unless you want to believe in the inevitability of the future, then you must question this retroactive inevitability as well. For people under 30 it is increasingly difficult to imagine, but there was a time in the not-so-distant past when a market-driven economy (neoliberalism) was not the status quo, not the pervasive way of thinking about everything is our lives. Economics was one of many disciplines (like ethics, biology, etc.) that could be considered in questions of both public discussions (politics) and our individual private lives. As Davis states only once, “Since the 1970s, both the economy and its relation to the state have been decisively transformed, as neoliberalism pulverised old certainties about the social contract.” (Certainties about the social contract might not have really been than old, but that is another discussion.) Now economics has infiltrated both – in fact all – realms of consideration and we can barely make a decision without considering the stock market directly or how that decision might affect our (current and future) job prospects overall. Therefore, I find it a bit dangerous to only consider the economic problems of art because we would simply be reinforcing the very problems we are attempting to solve. Finding, as Davis said, “…a language with which to engage with the topic of artists’ economic position” (9) is simply not enough.

    Once the point is made (more forcibly I think) – that economics is only ONE way, one lense, within to consider problems in the world of art – then a class-based consideration of art issues can be extremely helpful. As a self-proclaimed Marxist, Davis lays out fairly well the problems with a “Marxist Ideology.” But equally understated (as the framing of economics itself), is the role of finance in our current situation. As soon as the gold standard was removed, along with Depression-era regulations within banking and investment (among other things), an ever-increasingly amount of money could be made simply from other money (though finance) instead of through labor directly. (A simple discussion of material and immaterial labour doesn’t quite get to this point because in the end the are both still forms of labour.) And it is through finance, through the stock market most specifically, that a generational (young -> old) class (poor -> rich) struggle on international proportions has been waged – and for which no immediate solution is in site.

  2. "Michael" Cunningham

    As an artist with a day job, placing the middle-class outside the primary power structure of the capitalist system and placing the ideal of art making for personal expression solidly within the middle-class speaks strongly to my personal experience. In effect I use my working-class labor to purchase a middle-class self-identity. I rarely sell artworks and the money I spend on making art vastly outstrips the occasional payments. But I can spend ridiculous amounts of time making finely crafted objects with no concern for their marketability because my art has no obligation to sustain me financially. As much as I would love to be making art full time, my day job frees me up to make exactly what I want and only what I want. I may only get to make art two nights a week, but those two nights are mine solely and entirely.

    • Danny

      Michael, I resonated with your description of your life, and how you’ve reconciled these spheres of making a living and making art. I’ve come to similar terms within my own life.

      • "Michael" Cunningham

        Danny – Nice to hear from a fellow day-jobber. Blithe’s comment below, “people identify themselves more through their desired kind of work (even if its not how they spend the majority of their time) rather than how they earn their income,” speaks directly to our lot and accurately reflects my own self-identity.

  3. Christine Wong Yap

    Sarrita, I love your comments that economics is only one lens through which to view and analyze the world. Great qualifier, especially because in future chapters, Davis will dismantle other writers’ perspectives only to suggest more economic and political analysis without always satisfyingly explicating what he means.

  4. James McAnally

    The disconnect of “idealistic notions about what art can be” and the realities of art can be a politicizing experience is an important starting point. This book is interesting to me because it has a consistent undercurrent of dissatisfaction and action, wanting to move us from one place to the next. “A more realistic starting point for action” is necessary now because I think artists are largely politicized (due largely to dissatisfaction) but we haven’t overcome how to move from “what art is.” The theoretical framework of Marxist critique has been so thoroughly separated from lived experience (especially in the art world, where it remains flippant yet pervasive) that it is rarely helpful in provoking action. We quote Marx in curatorial statements without ever acting on it.

    We idealize the conditions of an artistic career to the point that we can live within the contradictions of our own actions and the contradictions of the structure of the art world more broadly in the hopes that at some point we arrive at some kind of success. Because we wish we were tenure-track, we will accept adjunct. Because we desire market success, we allow for inequality. Because we don’t hate the system, we just hate that it hasn’t worked for us. To me, that is the way in which the neoliberal mindset seems inevitable for most artists. We cannot separate our idealizations from its idealizations; our success from its idea of success. We don’t have a “realistic starting point for action” because we can’t imagine a realistic vision of an artistic practice that is successful-sustainable-equitable-experimental-free.

    • Netta Sadovsky

      Well, we can’t embody that artmaking haven if we want the work to be seen by anyone. Since part of deciding to be an artist includes the context the work will exist in (no art without a viewer), in our culture, being an artist must include working within the structure of the capitalist (“art world”) system. Unless we choose to label our community some small radical subgroup of marxist farmers, we subject ourselves and our work to contradiction.
      Aren’t most principled professionals in that same bind? Like lawyers who believe in fair representation of poor people in court, but must enter the private sector to secure any power to make change.

      • James McAnally

        Doesn’t that underscore the point that the way things are “seem inevitable?” I don’t criticize any artist for choosing to work within the system of the art world and don’t think many even feel a contradiction between the art world and their artistic practice. I do think, however, that most feel that it has failed them in some way and this creates, as Davis says, a highly politicized environment. The question is what to do with that energy – if it returns to a feeling that the system we are inscribed within is the only one possible and we must engage on its terms, that just produces a deeper feeling of powerlessness. Whatever options are open to us, that is certainly the worst.

  5. Christine Wong Yap

    So far (I’ve read almost through chapter 14), I think chapters 1 and 2 are the strongest and most central.

    Chapter 1, Art and Class, is where Davis outlines his particular understanding of Marxism, which informs his analysis throughout. I couldn’t possibly summarize everything here—but would like to urge readers who haven’t yet gotten the book to read it themselves.

    Like Michael Cunningham, above, and many other artists who work day jobs, what’s most compelling to me in these two chapters is the idea that the autonomy of art-making places artistic practice within the middle class (chapter 1).

    I’m resistant to the notion, because I’m so used to thinking of myself as working class, and the complexity of moving between jobs, relative levels of autonomy, and therefore, classes, can be confusing. It’s hard to overcome the common understanding of middle class identity as tied to income and financial stability, especially when the tenuousness of your or your peers’ day jobs as adjunct professors, artist’s assistants, and art technicians, are very immediate and reified every day.

    Essentially, the concept is an interesting thought experiment for me, but I’m not sure what would make it meaningful in my daily reality….

    For that reason, I would have loved to hear more about working artists motivated by the same “non-pecuniary factors” as small business owners (page 14). I think Davis’ economic orientation renders these factors invisible or un-analyzable, as he certainly doesn’t devote much attention to them, and then only sparingly in chapter 6, Art of Inequality, and chapter 7, The Agony of the Interloper.

    For the same reason, I found the following (chapter 2: 9.5 Theses on Art and Class, page 36) problematic:

    “8.7. There is no reason why the immense quantity of artistic talent that currently exists, unable to find purchase within the cramped confines of the ‘professional art world,’ could not be put to work generalizing art education, thereby providing itself with a future audience.”

    This is a bit flippant, assuming that the 90% of working artists would like to teach or would make good teachers, and that the conditions of teaching art are better than other occupations. Many of my peers are adjunct art professors—a position that is extremely vulnerable. (I choose to avoid teaching, as the amount of paid labor compared to actual working hours seems borderline exploitative.)

    8.8. This kind of common identity could form the basis for organizing as something more than individual agents, each working on a separate project….”

    Adjuncts are finally building much-needed movement towards organizing. (See http://adjunctaction.org/about-us/, a project of the SEIU.) Good for them.

    But as a solution for what to do with “the rest of us” artists who don’t sustain themselves financially through their art practices, it’s a bit of a letdown. The idea that artists are un-organizable until they join organized labor movements as laborers in a different field (education) seems unimaginative.

    • Blithe

      Sorry, I am late to the game here. Great discussions! A couple of things to respond to here, one Davis leaves out entirely in his book the role of those who work for art institutions or in the gallery world. He only focuses on artists, this oversight seems really crucial to me especially when talking about Art & Class. How can you discuss art & class without acknowledging the broader base of art workers? The people who are fundamentally responsible for making sure art hangs on walls! There isn’t a lot of data on this sector of workers, but they are a critical part of analyzing the economic conditions in the arts.

      I hear you Christina about being resistant to the notion of artist as middle-class. For one, I think its an extremely limited view of understanding how people identify with class positions. Class consciousness is extremely complex, and I think looking at class solely from the Marxist economic perspective feels very narrow, especially since the very NATURE OF WORK has changed so much.

      Also, want to point out there are many organizing initiatives around adjuncts. Specifically the NYU struggle with UAW has gone on for years…

      I will say that one thing that I find very helpful in Davis’s argument is that he highlights how important the “kind of work” is in terms of forming identity. That people identify themselves more through their desired kind of work (even if its not how they spend the majority of their time) rather than how they earn their income is a powerful contribution in terms of thinking about organizing in the arts.

      • Sarrita Hunn

        I think this point is really important about art workers…not only because they have such an under-recognized role in the actual material function of the institution and gallery world, but many artists also work in these roles – and while they may not have labor leverage in their own art practices, they might as professionals in these support fields (art handling, adjunct teaching, etc.)…

      • "Michael" Cunningham

        Blithe – I’ve only read the first two chapter’s but Davis does mention gallery workers, in passing, in Chapter 2-4.2 because these working class employees counter the premise of 4.0, “The sphere of visual arts has weak relations to the working class.” But although Davis feels obligated to admit the existence of art laborers, he doesn’t really seem very interested and in 4.3 dismisses the importance of any working class links to the visual arts. “The form of labor at the heart of the sphere of the visual arts, the production of artworks, remains middle class.” As I read it, Davis seems uninterested because working class folks in the visual arts are in no way categorically different from farm workers, carpenters, computer programmers or anyone else that sells their labor as a commodity – there’s nothing particularly art-world about it. Of course, I think the fact that many of these gallery-workers, etc. are artist and that they may have taken on these jobs as part of some art world aspirations is interesting and worth consideration. I think the self-identity as artist you mention, even when it’s not how one earns their keep, can be an important factor in why people take-on, and stay in, working-class art-world jobs.

        I also find it interesting that the list of positions with working class links in the visual arts includes nonprofessional museum workers. Presumably this makes professional museum workers either middle class or ruling class. These professionals are employees, but I guess they must not be selling their labor as a commodity, they must be benefitting from their own autonomous labor – they have agency in a way other employees do not.

    • Netta Sadovsky

      I also felt that 8.7 was condescending, and basically describes the current model. Artists unable to find a place in the professional art world are putting themselves to work providing art education. That’s not a solution unless those artists happen to also be inspired by the very different challenges of art education.
      What artist has forgotten about the option of teaching, ready to be “put to work”?

  6. Jessica

    Christine, to your last point, there is an organization called W.A.G.E. which seeks to organize artists and arts organizations to hold them accountable for paying artists a fee/living wage. This is a little more direct and to the point, rather than trying to organizing under some other field like teaching: http://wage.thepresentgroup.com/

    • Christine Wong Yap

      Thanks Jessica for reminding me of W.A.G.E. I enjoyed the results of their study in the past, and I returned to their site upon your reminder to see that they’re developing a Certification of NYC non-profits. It’s not organizing artists per-se, as much as it is raising the issue with non-profits, but it’s an exciting start.

  7. Jessica

    I can’t help but think of Lewis Hyde’s “The Gift,” when I read these chapters and this discussion, because he makes a distinction between the gift economy -things that have value apart from money – and the market economy – which allows an individual to amass fortune (or not, in my case). The class distinctions seem to exist within the market economy, and I wonder if there are class distinction in a gift economy. Perhaps in this place and time, it is idealistic to think that there is any sort of gift economy, or that this is what artists are concerned with.

    • Sarrita Hunn

      I have not read this book (though I suspect it maybe a good description of the immaterial value of art), but I am skeptical of any other type of ‘economy’ that claims to an alternative to the predominance of a neoliberal mindset. I am equally skeptical of “generosity” as an ‘alternative’ that encourages artists to willingly give even more (of their time, money, etc.) without the expectation of getting anything in return. If art asks questions, then artists at least seek some answers (in form of new questions) and this intended interplay to me seems at odds with gift-giving.

      I am interested in others’ thoughts on this matter though because perhaps I am missing some component that truly re-frames the possibilities…especially if re-framing the possibilities means attributing many different values to art (social, cultural, political, etc.) instead of just one (economic).

      • Christine Wong Yap

        I read some of The Gift years ago (it was more ethnographic/anthropological than my interest could sustain) but the main point I took away was that gift-giving is a way of forming a social bond. What’s important is not the object itself or its value, but how the transference of an object initializes or maintains a relationship of reciprocity. I think there were examples of how the object wasn’t necessarily inherently precious, and circulation increased its symbolic value. He also talked about Tlingit potlatchs, and how they sort of redistribute wealth (if I remember correctly) and reinforce group/community identity.

        I can’t say if Hyde addressed non-material gifts, such as gifts of time, labor, advice, support, etc. I think for artists, those are the kinds of reciprocal relationships / informal self-/ peer-organizing, that are key for survival, but are certainly not going to displace a neoliberal mindset in any effective scale without some type of mass organization…

        I suppose Time Bank is one way to try! http://e-flux.com/timebank/

        (Also BTW did you know NYC has a Time Bank? Crazy. http://www.nyc.gov/html/timebanks/html/home/home.shtml)

  8. Sarrita Hunn

    With so desperate of a situation, artists – like so many critics Davis mentions in chapter one – maybe simply want to give up on the ‘art world’ all together. This implies, however, that one accepts an ‘art world’ definition of art.

    In response, Davis offers his “theory of the classed nature of artistic labor….” (9-10) Similar to limiting the view of art’s problem through economics, Davis states “Viewing class struggle strictly through the lens of wealth versus poverty also seriously narrow our understanding of the stakes; the dignity of working conditions, guarantees of steady employment, the right to grievance, and the intensity of the working day are all classic concerns of working-class struggle–and all of them are about more than the number on a paycheck.” (12) He continues, “The working class is distinguished from the middle class not by how its member have more modest houses or watch different TV shows but by the level of authority they have over their own conditions of their own work.” (13) This class distinction sets in opposition to neoliberal quantifiable asset-driven claims (here by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation) that the middle-class should be defined (contrary to the US Census Bureau’s own calculations) by having “Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox.” (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty)

    Davis further differentiates; “…a fairly clear line of demarcation exists between middle-class and capitalist mentalities: middle-class agents are focused on their own needs or simply maintaining their autonomy; capitalist business people act in the name of profit, as “capital personified.”” (14) In other words, most people work as a means to other ends (living expenses, fulfillment, even retirement) but capitalist work ‘for profit’s sake.’ (Perhaps a parallel to ‘art for art’s sake’ could be drawn here?) Davis gives the example of a doctor (who job it is to heal people) whose work life (through joining a health care conglomerate or large private practice) increasingly includes the administration of other people – in order to maximize the profits of the whole enterprise. When the time spent in maximizing profits outweighs the time spent healing people, the doctor has become a capitalist.

    With Davis’ middle-class definition based on autonomy, artists become, “…the representative of middle-class creative labor par excellence.” (14). This approach at least helps explain why, despite economic logic to contrary, more and more people are interested in being artists (which again also proves why an economic logic is faulty). But while, “Visual artists have a level of independence that other creative workers don’t. This fact does not mean that they live in some paradise free of exploitation…” Here, Davis discusses W.A.G.E. (as Jessica as mentioned in the comments earlier), well-known issues of compensation and (rightly) the importance of, “…how artists need more legal protection.” (18) Then Davis wanders a bit to discuss the plight of many artists (with commercial galleries) and the “immaterial labor” of the ‘creative industry’ as a whole (video game programmers/developers) and makes an (important?) distinction between more ‘autonomous’ contemporary artists and relatively labour-driven jobs as “two different class-based notions of creative labor.” In other words, despite the word “creative” in freelance/employment positions, many jobs (in design, etc.) that are lumped in with “fine arts” have more in common with the ‘alienated’ working-class of Marx than contemporary working artists’ class conditions. To quote Davis, “As Carl Andre, once an advocate of identifying radical art with blue-collar labor, said in 1979 when asked to join in a global “artist strike” again the system, “From whom would artists be withholding their art if they did go on strike? Alas, from no one but themselves.”” (24)

    In conclusion (to this chapter) as Davis himself states, “clarifying the class dynamics of contemporary artistic labor,” (24) does help to think outside of the dichotomy of art being purely A) a commercial and corrupt commodity or B) emotional and/or pure. Unlike Davis, however, I am not sure that this class consciousness discussion of the ‘art world’ is sufficiently ‘real’ nor that art theory’s “fantastically overblown claims” are any less ‘real.’ One might even argue that art theory has not “overinflated…its own importance” but in fact has not (in the US in particular) taken itself seriously enough as a potential agent for transformation. One only needs to consider the misguided appropriation by US art programs of French theory (in support of ‘postmodern’ relativism) to consider the lack of rigor. Or, more generally, the Americanization of Bauhaus ‘aesthetics’ (via MOMA) stripped of any socialist content. In contradiction to Davis, the important thing, in fact, may be not to lose a “sense of self-importance,” but to realize art (in Davis’ own definition) provides a ‘theory’ of freedom, through autonomous labour, that stands in opposition to the neoliberal/capitalist (profit-driven) model prevalent in our own world today. (25) In other words, this is where the value of Davis’ class conscious discourse ends and artists themselves (through the creation of new lenses/possibilities) must take over. Do not give up!

  9. Sarrita Hunn

    CHAPTER TWO: 9.5 Theses on Art and Class
    In this second chapter, Davis represents his 9.5 Thesis on Art and Class, the main points of which are summarized by the first statement in each section. In many ways, these are the assumptions that Davis is making – and either you agree with them, and his whole thesis makes sense, or you don’t, and it starts to get a bit confusing. To quote them:

    1.0 Class is an issue of fundamental importance for art.

    2.0 Today, the ruling class, which is capitalist, dominates the sphere of the visual arts.

    3.0 Though ruling-class ideology is ultimately dominant within the sphere of the arts, the predominant character of this sphere is middle class.

    4.0 The sphere of the visual arts has weak relations with the working class.

    5.0 The idea of “art” has a basic and general human sense on which no specific profession or class has monopoly.

    6.0 Because art is part of society [1.1] and because no single profession has a monopoly on creative expression [5.0], the values given to art within the sphere of contemporary visual arts will also be determined in relation to how “creativity” is manifested in other spheres of contemporary society.

    7.0 Art criticism, to be relevant, should be based on an analysis of the actual situation of art and the different values at play, which are related to different classes….

    8.0 The relative strength of different values of art within the sphere of the visual arts is the product of a specific balance of class forces; there can be more or less progressive situations for contemporary art, even in a capitalist world, depending on the strengths of these different classes and what demands they are able to advance.

    9.0 The sphere of the visual arts is an important symbolic site of struggle; however, because of its middle-class character, it has relatively little effective social power [4.5].

    Again, I think Davis does a generally good job at diagnosing the problem – but then lacks many (viable) alternative visions. As an example, 2.5-2.9 lays out very clearly the “role for art” as defined by the ruling/capitalist class which values art as a luxury good, an investment, whitewashing (“giving back” to the community), “a symbolic escape valve for radical impulses” and a tool for “self-replicating” its own ideology. That is all fine and good, but what other values for art (for the working and middle classes?) does Davis provide? I believe the section 5.0 tries to provide an answer but I find it confusing a bit romantic. If art is “conceived as creative expression in general…slightly less fundamental than eating or sex…[then] every human activity has an artistic component, an aspect under which it can be viewed as “creative.”” This gets a little too close to ‘everything is art’ territory for me personally. I do, for example, think that art is a specialized field with it own vocabulary and discussions, not any different than biology or mathematics in some sense, and so I don’t lean toward such a populist view. But, I do appreciate Davis’ later observations in the These 6.0+ section when he points out how “exaggerated intellectual significance is given to the importance of the middle-class “art world” to escape the reality of the extent to which contemporary creativity is dominated by impersonal industry.” I think this interesting point can be seen in these two essays going around at the moment criticizing TED Talks and their mystification of technology and creativity… http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/ted_talks_are_lying_to_you/

    And finally, I believe it is in the 8.0+ section that Davis finally offers some ideas on how to ‘strengthen the value of art.’ His suggestions include increasing public funding (duh) and making public institutions more accountable (see Occupy Museums). He then has some program specific suggestions which include: “offering[ing] venues for artistic activity that are not necessarily aimed at the rich or already initiated” and a large scale funding effort toward projects that “investigate, explore and support, on a large scale, alternative definitions and sites for creativity…” Just as I don’t believe this entire discussion about class/economic concerns will help us get out of a market-driven way of thinking, I am not sure more funding/money (even toward these aims) is an inherent answer either. Instead, I think his strongest ideas come in the final section [9.0+] where he suggests linking “the fight for art to the fight for education.” While I totally agree with Christine’s criticism (earlier in the comments) on the shortsightedness of this suggestion, I think the main point here is that the ‘problems’ in the ‘art world’ are the same problems in the world (in general). The problem with the cost of MFAs, for example, is not unique to the art world – it is just that there is an even more exaggerated difference between the cost of the degree and the job prospects afterwards than other fields. So, while I agree artists and educators could gain much from teaming together, I think even greater lengths could be gained by recognizing artististic practice at a very basic level for what it is – self-employment. Artists have the same problems that any other freelance/self-employed person does including tax, legal, health, etc. So, if artists cannot strike (from themselves), maybe teaming up with other self-employed/freelancers to pursue issues of common interest (like access to health care, child care, etc. – in addition to education) could be a truly productive option…..

  10. J GILL

    Being ignorant of the art world, you will need to filter my comments & questions with your greater knowledge –

    • What is success?
    • How is meaning (of the art, and life) connected with success?
    • What is the obligation (to art, and the art world) of the artist?
    • What is the gift mix of each artist, and how does that inform their practice?

    I have my own answers to these questions, (and they don’t seem to depend on cultural structures). How can a round peg fit into a square whole? One must be satisfied with who one is, or at least realize that to go outside the bounds of who they are, can lead to all sorts of perversions. Whereas, some artists think that this approach justifies their perversions in their quest for success – that their perversions represent a real reality.

    To dream of better structures for art (atmosphere? – no) … can have some value. But often, dreams are ONLY dreams. Can one really deal with all that structural stuff? – but of course, if the message of the art itself deals with a new structure … The question is, can you win this bet. Will this approach have any authenticity, but that is assuming (and I believe this to be so) that good art needs authenticity, versus just mirroring some sloppy shallow image of some sloppy shallow ‘reality’ that is taken to be ‘profound’ or should I say just real. Being real is not really that great a reason for art, is it, that is, if it is crap, that is … fallen. But if in the expression of the fallen, life is expressed …

    Enough for now.

Post a new comment