Ice Flows of Polar Bear Woes

(Extended Comments from the Edge of Reason, a.k.a. couldn't post in comments section - "Too Much Hot Air")

I think we are in complete agreement. The current state of the art community is unique historically, yet within the cycles of history we probably are seeing the sixties and seventies. In place of Viet Nam we have the last spasms of democracy choking on the purses of the new robberbarons - multinational corporations (the "college of corporations" from Network). We have a populace disenfranchised by the learned helplessness from the gospel of consumption that has been declared the central tenet of the American Dream (shades of such were seen upon the return from WWII when the war machine needed to manufacture fresh fodder to avoid contraction). The new reach of capital into the realms of the biological will only serve to deepen the malaise of modern man circa Georg Simmel.

Indeed. The devil is in the details. Gentrification is a perfect example of the implementation of laissez-faire capitalism to improve a neighborhood through colonization and displacement rather than the alternative of investment in community, education, and reorganizing/strengthening the present community structures. Such efforts require centralized oversight, regulations with teeth that demand balanced competition and perhaps a larger initial investment that is less focused on speculation (Adam Smith's healthy capitalism that sounds eerily like socialism).

As to whether there is an inside/outside to capitalism I can only speculate. Where does the line get drawn? The studio, the classroom, the gallery, print media, private collections or auction block? Is it an internal struggle that becomes an aspect that influences creation? I think that's an opaque realm that is guided by education, media and ideology. The same question arises when a van gogh goes for millions at auction. Should the artist (heirs) see the fruits of the labor? Or has the art object been transported to a realm of its own power? That question underlines notions of ownership that change according to cultural structures. Could such an inquiry bear fruit? Absolutely.

With the rise of infotainment in place of actual news, the relativity of expertise has arisen much to the detriment of all. An overthrow of unchecked/unwarranted authority is nothing short of necessary, yet there must be a reassessment/restructuring of authority and its checks and balances in the power vacuum. We must establish another institution in its place, risk becoming that which we despise and attempt to ensure that the same mistakes are not committed.

The "beast" has been starved and as we watch it writhe we must prepare to rebuild.

It is in this sense that I find my charge. Examine the patient on the table, look to history, tradition, innovation and reframe the cost-benefit-analysis in our terms. Commodification is simply an extension of mimicry and should be addressed as such. Focus should perhaps lie on building the community. Our lives are more networked than any other time yet simultaneously more alienated, tribes mediated by technology. It is in this light that I find my muse, to illuminate the current state of things is to look to the past, yet it is essential to the move forward.

I motion for a thinktank of the arts. Divide and conquer can no longer rule the art community if it is to survive and thrive. The division of labor cannot rule what is a holistic process of creation. The art community is larger than ever before (as much because of population growth as the GI bill) and the only way to secure such a hydra from impacting the status quo is to sow/fund division and control through ownership. The corporate model is defined by capital. That cannot align with our goal. Whether our systems/methods become absorbed by capitalism later on is to be observed and considered yet remains immaterial - the inherent tragic/comic of human endeavors (adbusters becomes viral marketing, yet similar to Kandisky's avant garde the initiator is already two steps ahead). I donot argue for the end of specialization itself because that has been taken by Art Education. What I do posit is interdisciplinary collaboration, joint efforts at outreach, but most importantly the organization of a central structural support for such endeavors, our own network of "leadership schools" and Heritage Foundations. Ideologically I find in Deleuze's schizoanalysis that perhaps there is methodology outside of/in opposition to traditional structure that can afford us the authority of difference and the insight of chaos theory. We must reframe the debate by changing the language.

The republicans know what they need to do because they have a network of expertise that has studied effectiveness of measures, formulated strategory and most importantly have founded/funded an amalgam of ideologies to justify the immediacy of their actions no matter how mundane/extreme. This wealth of war strategy would be worthless without a well-oiled media hydra of their own. They have accomplished with less people and enormous monetary effort what took the radicals of the sixties an army to establish (underground newspapers, pirate radio, phone networks, church groups, etc.).

There is an army out there untapped by the art community. They marched for immigrant rights, they reported from the scene for alternative media, they marched to protest the war before it even started, they marched every WTO summit and they ranged the gamut from wacko to concerned citizen. The republicans found the pools of disillusioned evangelicals, disgruntled libertarians, and wary extremists. Now they are branching from "party politics," funding tea parties and reaping fresh corporate coffers full of our tax money. But theirs is a losing battle because it is always uphill. Yet they understand they have to throw more than money at their "problems," they must build a close-knit community that shares a common language specifically crafted toward their goals.

What is the alternative to becoming the capitalist? I'm not sure anyone can remember a time when such a question was asked (that wasn't undermined by the rubber bullets dipped in angeldust). What I can speak to is the origins of the studio craft and arts in general as always one of many hats never able to fully sustain the artist alone. Thus in this sense the predicament is a new one. Before suffrage there was no disenfranchisement. At the same time it does remain in league with the profile of sports careers insofar as wild success or financial stability are even a remote possibility.

I have no problem with a transparent supply chain but the intrinsic anti-capitalist nature of vertical monopolies cannot be justified by anyone but a robberbaron and if the laws on the books were enforced they would not exist.
Agreed, guns don't kill people but we do require the manufacturer to add a safety.

This is fun.
Best,
Sean

Translated by Django Engels Allende