From: EricMurph-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: paralogy and the Vortex


On 6/1 Giles made an excellent post where he expanded on some aspects of
Benjamin's views of the complex relations between art and politics.  He also
pointed out a strange paradox in Lyotard's own writing in connection with
art.  Namely, how is it that  someone who is popularly considered to be the
avatar of the postmodern seems to take a very modern position in discussing
art; even embracing the concept of the avant-garde, the high modernist
position par excellence?

There is an essay in the book "Judging Lyotard" entitled "Les Immateriaux and
the Postmodern Sublime" by Paul Crowther which also takes a similar position.

Frankly, I do not know how to answer this criticism, other than to suggest
that the problem may be not so much a philosophical one, as an historical
one, given the capacity of late capitalism to absorb and co-opt even the most
transgressive acts,  transforming heroin junkies into models and making poets
recite ad copy.

What seems ironic to me is that the art and architecture usually dubbed
postmodern tends to make everything aesthetic. All the world becomes a
spectacle.  High art and kitsch are are both put into the same blender and
all is rendered up for our entertainment as a consumable.  Even politics. 

Now this is precisely not what Lyotard is attempting, in my opinion.  He
argues for an art that calls into question the representations and the
metanarratives of society.  It contests their pretensions to totality, the
grand assumption that the only thing that exists is what appears on
television.  Art bears witness to something that cannot be represented, and
therefore continues to resist even in the face of global capitalism's
invevitable triumphs.  In short, Lyotard makes art political. The fall into
dandyism  is a risk, but never is a pre-determined outcome. We never know the
outcome of our artistic endeavors in advance because this is the very nature
of the activity.  Art is the attempt to hurtle one's self into unkown space.
 The only art that exists today which is valid for Lyotard is the one that
has not yet been defined.

I don't know if this constitutes an adequate defense.  I am curious to hear
what others have to say about this topic.