[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>If manditory transgression is written into the job description of a
>particular group of individuals (artists), and if this is depended upon
>by another group(s) of people (art enthusiasts) for amusement and/ or
>reassurance, then how can those who wish to be 'truly' transgressive
>(within the sign/ language of 'art') act out anything more than a
>grotesque caricature of culturally reproduced expectations about their
>role (as artists)?

. . . . .  in relation to the above I always think of Crow's line that
the Avant-garde is (in its oppositional, transgressive position)
nothing more than the research and development arm of late capitalism.

Owen



Reply via email to