Letters

It is intended that through the Static Pamphlet letters page a vibrant culture of criticism can be established. Static is keen to receive letters and comments covering all arenas of cultural activity, and pertaining to any geographical location. Static will attempt to publish every letter received, whatever the subject, but reserves the right to refuse to publish if the material is without significant merit or interest. The letters page presents the opinions of the letter writers, these are not necessarily the opinions of the Static Pamphlet Editors.
................................

This issue...

Becky Shaw replies to Mark Ramsden's letter of July 02 2003 (July 08 2003)
Mark Ramsden Hegel Dispirited (July 02 2003)
Kate Roberts "the aestheticisation of politics" (June 09 2003)

Hegel Dispirited Again...

Dear Mark

In your letter you explore James Heartfield's 'Hegel Dispirited' and its
manifestation in Brit-Art. I agree with you about Brit-Art as a 'ghoulish'
'resigned contemplation' but I also think Brit-Art, while having historical
significance, is yesterday's news. I'd like to explore a more current
artworld manifestation of the decline in the struggle between slave and
master, as evidenced in the hesitantly named 'socially engaged practices'.
This term is used to describe a group of practices involving the artist
working directly in, or attempting to create a new social context, for
example, 'Superflex's project 'Superchannel' where residents of a Liverpool
tower block worked with the artists and were given the skills and equipment
to develop their own web broadcasts. The term has evolved out of other
terms, 'new genre practices' and 'participatory practice' etc, while many
proponents claim their work is simply part of contemporary art.

These practices have developed from numerous standpoints, generally in
opposition to the art market. In the first instance they challenge the
convention of the sole, male genius, removed from the real world. They
attempt to create working relationships that step over hierarchies of access
and artistic language, perhaps an example of an attempt to address the
master slave relationship- artist as master of visual language, and the
people as slaves. On one hand this shows a positive enduring belief in the
communicability of artistic language, and a belief in change. On the other
hand, this causes two problems. Firstly this friendly semi-resigning of
authorship doesn't necessarily create the desired political change or social
inclusion- art is not, as the Blair government and its funding organisations
may have us believe, the machine of community building. The embarrassed
dodging of status and hierarchy through an 'accessible' language may then
simply confuse the public rather than communicate. While art practice should
reflect the concerns of the times (accessibility, community etc) artists
should keep faith in the public to grapple with difficult languages, rather
than stepping down to meet the public and trying to rub out the difference
between 'master' and 'slave'.

In these projects artists enter into a difficult terrain where they struggle
to both hand over and keep their authorship. This is a fascinating
circumstance, and the best projects, like Kristen Lucas's 'Celebrations for
Breaking Routine' represent an experiment with the social fibre, and an
accessible and positive reflection on adolescence and the potential for
change. Other projects like Santiago Serra's tatooed lines on the back of
addicts are incredible in their reflection on the artist's own position
within the market. The major problem lies when we stop being able to see
their potential for change in the quality of their communication, and
attribute them concrete political power, as in Wochenklausur's
interventions. The hope, to step over the master and slave relationship that
motivates these practices is admirable, but many artists risk losing their
most important asset- an advanced visual language and the capacity to be
critical. It must also be said that I am arguing the wrong way round-of
course artists aren't really the masters, but they feel themselves
responsible for a schism between power and the 'popular', and take steps to
address this in their work, while the real masters: government funding,
patrons etc enslave and often compromise artists.

Becky Shaw

Hegel Dispirited

James Heartfield provides an excellent explanation of Hegel's concept of the subject and its subsequent demise. It provides a welcome tonic for resurrecting the dead. The death of the subject - the end in the belief that human agency can change the world - is a particularly appropriate topic for discussion in contemporary art since it is so manifest in so called 'Brit-Art'. Brit-Art has raised many issues that preoccupy contemporary society, some political, and some courting controversy. Raising these issues has been interpreted as an act of political engagement. But rather than a desire to tackle a problem these works offer only a resigned contemplation. The art reflects a fatalistic attitude in which the artist tends to revel, in an angst, almost in a ghoulish way, in the horrors of life and its apparent futility. What is most telling of the times is that Brit-Art barely offers an opinion, leaving it for the viewer to interpret and judge. As Julian Stallabrass writes in his book, 'High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s',

'…it [Brit-art] purports to make no statement, solve no problem, merely places a dilemma before a public.'

This unwillingness to confer an opinion marks a low point in the struggle between the slave and his master. The unwillingness to give an opinion reflects not just a society deeply de-politicised but more fundamentally a lack of conviction and belief in the potentially positive contribution of an artist to society.

Mark Ramsden, Cambridge

Andrew Calcutt puts forward a very interesting argument why America and
Britain ('the West') invaded Iraq. He argues that the West was in search of a mission, and Iraq, the mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction and big bad Sadam provided a good excuse. I was against the invasion of Iraq and agree with Andrew's argument. But, what has this got to do with art and culture?

I understand that politics has become aestheticised and the government
certainly loves the authenticity of associating itself with art and culture.
But by analogising your political ideas within a play by Pirandello and
placing them on a website devoted to exploring culture, does this not
reinforce the aestheticisation of politics? I suppose there is also some
truth in the belief that life is politics and politics is about life. But,
we all know that art and culture is different from politics and at very
least the relevance of political ideas to art and culture needs to be
explained.

Kate Roberts