[-empyre-] complicit post

[G.H. Hovagimyan]

gh comments below:

On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Johanna Drucker wrote:

> But the legacy of Adorno’s aesthetics is problematic for us because  
> it has become academic, and because it is premised on a description  
> of the world and of art that have become formulaic.

gh comments:
I think I learned about Adorno from reading Artforum in the 1960's. He  
was referred to by art writers in support of the conceptual art of the  
time. I wonder whether anyone outside of Academia and the art world  
knows or cares about Adorno or Agamben for that matter. It occurs to  
me how bizarre a marriage the art world is taking academic theory and  
philosophy and melding it with the aesthetics of marketing and desire.  
In New York we often look to Europe for the theoretical underpinnings  
of art. It's an odd idea but it gives some veracity or credence to art  
works. The other verification is of course the market. If art sells  
than it must be good enough for someone to buy it.   As I've often  
quoted Rimbaud here it is again sort of paraphrased," all an artists  
needs is a poet and a patron. "  Of course poets were the first art  
theorists entrusted with the task of explaining an art work. The  
patron obviously gives monetary  support to the artist.  In the 21st  
century art world there is an art industry that includes Academia,  
galleries,museums, alternative space, artists collectives, art fairs,  
arts festivals etc.. all of these function as patronage to a greater  
or lesser degree.  The word complicit has a negative connotation as if  
being involved in these mechanisms has a taint to it. That's a strange  
notion.  I've aways thought an artists is part of a culture and times  
even as they stand apart from it and try to present their own work.

G.H. Hovagimyan
http://nujus.net/~gh
http://artistsmeeting.org
http://turbulence.org/Works/plazaville