William and Michael have been commenting about this Kuspit essay: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit9-11-08.asp
While Cheerskep has been complaining about this one: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-05.asp (just in case anyone else got as confused as I did) *************** I liked the following passage from from the 9-11-08 essay -- since I've often queried just what art as "critical intervention" has ever accomplished (other than the establishing a niche in the art market as well as university culture): "My point is that the theorizing of "advanced" art as "critical intervention" is an acknowledgement of its essential conformity to the conventions of "advanced" thought in "advanced" capitalism. They have become as much a part of its business as usual as the conventions of advanced art. The hypocrisy of advanced theory and the hypocrisy of advanced art correlate in the hypocrisy of advanced capitalism. Indeed, advanced art and advanced theory synchronize like shit and money -- traditionally called the devils shit -- in Freuds equation. The advanced work of art has become a luxury item, the artists expensive gift to the advanced capitalist, the most esteemed person in our society, all the more so because making money has become an advanced art in the minds of many, suggesting that the wealthy businessman has a creative gift. Thus the divine rights of the rich. The rich capitalist is a god in all but name, and he must be worshipped and appeased with the fruits of art -- a form of tribute and homage -- who rewards the artist by making him a rich capitalist -- deifying him." (and a side note to those who like correct errors in spelling -- my spell checking software found two errors in the above published article) ____________________________________________________________ Click for free information and quotes for interest only loans. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlfrInuFXaPO05uqIdrLAa7z gHMmSDT09D67XfnlIMWB9c8E/
