[-empyre-] Three Little Words

[John Haber]

Are artists, any artists, complicit with a venal, oppressive system? 
Must they be? Or is the whole idea just more politically correct garbage?

First, though, let me thank you for the chance to join you. I have been 
reader on the Empyre mailing list for a long time, and I have 
contributed before. Here, though, I get to try my hand at a topic that 
almost by definition defeats everyone. I also get to join the author of 
a favorite book and maybe the definitive statement on complicity in the 
arts, “Sweet Dreams.” I got to review it once, in fact, and thus cover 
some of the same ground from a different perspective.

I propose to talk this one through in three installments, over the next 
three days, hoping that after that I can join the discussion more 
actively even while traveling. Thus, my apologies for such an evasive 
introduction today. It might help, I shall argue, to tease out 
“complicit”, not to mention “system.” Take just three little words -- 
“explicit,” “implicit,” and “complicit.” They might sum up three 
attempts at escape.

If that has you looking for an exit, I shall conclude a version of this 
for my own Web site with a present-day test of artists who can laugh at 
the system. They can also become stars of the show while hiding their 
names behind a collective, the Bruce High Quality Foundation. Since that 
review has already appeared on line, I shall not impose it on you here, 
just the original stuff. (Or is originality part of the nexus?)

Before the language lessons, though, I shall start with a summary of the 
plight of the artist, as background. It sounds like Postmodernism 101, 
but forgive the recap before I look for another layer of history in the 
dictionary. If it seems too familiar, feel free to skip ahead! Where 
Johanna Drucker has taken up complicity with the culture industry, here 
I shall focus on contexts of politics and the art world.

John Haber
http://www.haberarts.com/blog/