Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:11:53 -0400
From: ostrow-AT-is2.nyu.edu (Ostrow/Kaneda)
Subject: re:endowment


>vis-a-vis ostrow......
>one considers the moral commitment...
>if che might be dismissed as an adventurer, then i might suggest adventure
>issa better than art...
>this inchoate place of contemporary art is filled with that what is only
>adaptive to this here power stasis driven by  getting by...
>the point of che is of course the irrational belief in believing in
>something beyond feasibility...
>one sees very little, if any, work today what is not re-presentation of
>accepted ideas, and why?
>ain't nobody anywhere near the idea of infiltrating the bolivian jungle
>with twelve people and the conceptual desire to eradicate social injustice.
>bruce nauman only approximates...
>

The problem Will is that Che and Hans Haacke, Nauman Barbara Kruger, Jenny
Holzer, et.al do the same thing aesthetizes politics and continue to
maintain a mythic social role for art.  Art is political when it is
produced in relation to a community in which it propagates shared values,
standards and criteria.  As with Che when you presuppose an audiernce for
your actions, if that audience is merely imagined disaster ensues.  Perhaps
because of the fate of such adventurers as che there isin't an artist that
we know of who is making work that is the equivalent of infiltrating the
bolivian jungle with twelve people and the conceptual desire to eradicate
social injustice.  My question to you is why aren't you?




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