Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: aka bookish <swilbur-AT-bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re:avant-garde today?




On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Alan Sondheim wrote:

> Isn't the Art Strike somewhat lame? First, it was self-cauterizing, the 
> usual position of powerless artists. Second, almost no one I knew paid it 
> much attention (artists), even the most politically committed artists. 
> Second, it smacked of a problematic organization from elsewhere - and 
> third, connected, it's already an outmoded form. It did nothing in the 
> art world or outside of it, as far as I can see from here. 

I guess a judgment about the "lameness" of the Art Strike depends a great
deal on what you thought it was supposed to do. As a straight strike, it
was undoubtedly a bit lame. But the major propaganda organs of the strike
seem to be pretty clear about the strike being anything but straight.
Maybe, on the other hand, it was just equally lame, outdated conceptual
art, but...
> 
> I think we tend to forget the public owes us nothing whatsoever, and the 
> difficulty at least at this end is insertion, not withdrawal from a 
> non-existent partner. (I mean this as ungendered as possible.)
> 
Part of what works about the Art Strike, at least for me, is the sense
which seems to have been present from the beginning, that there was no
'partner.' The point was to to separate the cultural worker from ART,
opening what might be just an elaborate joke fairly sophisticated sorts of
labor theory/action. (The 'autonomia' mailart collection that i have here
by the computer makes the possibility of Art strike as self-valorization
seem less ludicrous than it might otherwise.) In any event, the sorts of
changes that might have occured as a result of the Art Strike aren't
likely to be the sort that will show up all that clearly...

> Alan
> 
-shawn
> 
>      --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------