Anan naan nll o ttt Tlf SSeS SSS ELE E CSCS ESSE CCCCCE EEC CCCUET CC CCT TOC

The constituency

The following article is an edited version and reprinted from TRACKS, a journal of artists’ writings, Volume 3 Number 3, Fail 1977.

In many respects the public of TRACKS is probably similar to that of commercial galleries for contemporary art. Two polls, conducted respectively in 1972 and 1973, at the New York John Weber Gallery, showed that 70% of 858 (first poll) and 74% of 1324 (second poll) gallery visitors who responded to a question- naire during a 2% week period each declared that they had a “professional interest in art.”

The readership of this publication, as the visitors of commer- cial galleries of contemporary art in New York, seems to be an extremely select audience recruiting itself from the ranks of the college-educated, middle, and upper middle classes. The professionally uncommitted public of the gallery, like the reader- ship of TRACKS with no professional interest in art, can hardly be suspected of representing ‘“‘the proletariat” or the mythical ‘man in the street”’.

Those who have a professional interest in art (artists, students, critics, the directors, curators and their assistants in museums and comparable institutions, gallery owners and their assistants, advertising and public relations executives, government and party bureaucrats in charge of the arts, art advisors of foundations, corporations and of collectors, etc.) influence, although not with an equal vote for everyone, frequently only in a nominal capa- city, which products and activities are to be considered “‘art” and how much attention should be paid to each artist and the often competing art “movements”. Many members of this diverse group are not independent agents but act rather in behalf of employers and clients whose opinions they might have internalized or cannot afford disregarding.

By no means is the art quality of a product inherent in its substance. The art certificate is conferred upon it by the culturally powerful social set in which it is to be considered art, and it is only valid there and then. The attribution of value, particularly if this value is not supported by the needs for physical survival and comfort, is determined ideologically. Unless one invokes God or the quasi-divine inspiration of a disembodied party, the setting of norms and their subtle or not so subtle enforcement, throughout history, is performed by particular individuals or groups of people and has no claim to universal acceptance. Their beliefs, emotional needs, goals and interests, no matter if the particular cultural power elite is aware of and acknowledges it, decide on the ever shifting art criteria.

Usually there is no quarrel about the existence of ideological determination if it emanates from a political or religious authority. The fact that man-made value-systems and beliefs reflecting parti- cular interests are also at work in liberal surroundings is not quite as readily admitted by the liberal culture mongers.

The validation of certain products as contemporary high art, which, of course, guides future production whiie feeding on the concensus of the past, obviously is not independent of the art industry’s economic base. A cursory look at the art-world in liberal societies might therefore lead to the conclusion that it is, in fact, as stringently controlled as the cultural life in societies where street cleaning equipment is called out to take care of deviant art, where a palette of blood and earth is used or an occasional blooming of a thousand flowers is announced with great fanfare.

It is true that the trustees and per force the directors of many big museums probably agree with the declaration of one of their director-colleagues: “‘. . .we are pursuing esthetic and educational objectives that are self sufficient and without ulterior motive. On those grounds the trustees have established policies that exclude active engagement toward social and political ends.-’

Such policies pretend to be based on the sociologically and philosophically untenable premise of a self-suffucient education and free-floating aesthetics while ignoring that a museum, by its very existence, actively engages in the promotion of social and political ends. Thus man museums which constitute some of the more powerful agents in the validation and distribution of art are closed for a whole range of contemporary work, and if applied consistently, also to many works of the past. Such a ban has the further effect of seriously impairing the economic viability of the incriminated works in commercial galleries, another of the major validating agents. Therefore in fact, if not by design, this posture has far-reaching consequences and leaves a politically neutral stance far behind, if such a thing exists at all.

The idealist notion of an art created out of and exclusively for “disinterested pleasure’ (Kant), a claim contradicted by history and everyday experience, is upheld by formalist art theory as promulgated and normatively established by Clement Greenberg and his adherents. Formalist thinking, however, is not confined to his accredited followers; it reigns wherever formal qualities are viewed in isolation and their pure demonstration becomes the intended message.

This theory of cultural production and dissemination obviously overlooks the economic and ideological circumstances under which the industry and formalist theory itself operate. Questions as to the content and the audience and beneficiaries of art are heresy for a true formalist. Neither contemporary thinking in the social and political sciences nor psychoanalytic theory sup- port such views. The pressures and lure of the world do not stop respectfully at the gate to the “temple”, Giscard d’Estaing’s term for the Paris Centre Pompidou(!), or the studio door.

It is not surprising then that the designers of public spaces and the corporate men who dominate the boards of trustees of cultural institutions in the U.S. are so fond of these 19th century concepts of art for art’s sake. The fact that many works done in this vein today are abstract and enjoy avant-garde status no longer Poses a problem and now is often seen as an asset in the hunt for cultural prestige. The corporate state, like governments, has a natural allergy to questions such as “what” and “for whom’? Unwittingly or not, formalist theory provides an alibi. It induces its clients to believe that they are witnessing and participating in important historic events, as if artworks which are purportedly done for their own sake still perform the liberating role they played in the 19th century.

Aside from this powerful ideological allegiance and con- fluence of interests, the curators, critics, artists and dealers of the formalist persuasion, like the producers and promoters of any other product or system of messages, have also an economic

siueig pur]

saindoy

Amphibians

SUPQOEISNI_)

spiuyony

SOSNPOPA

Coelenterates

% Protozoans Protophytes

Protists

From the sea to fresh water

interest in the maintenance and expansion of their position in the market. The investment of considerable funds is at stake.

In spite of these constraining forces, it is demonstrably false to assume that their control over the art-world in liberal societies is complete. Examples could be cited in which certain cultural products are censored outright or discouraged from surfacing in one corner and accepted or even promoted in another corner of the same liberal environment. Although in all these in- stances ideology or more crudely apparent financial considera- tions also guide the decisions, the individuals and social forces behind them do not necessarily share the same beliefs, value- systems and interests.

The consciousness industry, of which the art industry is an integral but minor small shop operation for a custom made output, is such a far flung global operation, with so many potentially conflicting elements, that absolute product control is impossible. -It is this lack of total cohesion and the occasional divergence of interests that secures a modicum of “‘deviant’”’ behaviour.

The relative openness to non-conforming products — not to,

be equated with so-called pluralism — is further aided by the con- sciousness industry’s built-in dialectics. For it to remain viable and profitable, it requires a pool of workers and a clientele with the judgment and the demand for ever new forms of entertainment, fresh information and sensual! and intellectual stimulation. Al- though rarely in the foreground, it is the “deviant” elements that provide the necessary dynamics. Without them the industry would bureaucratize and stagnate in boredom, which is, in fact, what happens in repressive environments.

The millions of white-collar workers of industry, teachers, journalists, priests, art professionals and all other producers and disseminators of mental products, are engaged in the cementing of the dominant ideological constructs as well as in dismantling them. In many ways, this group reflects the ambiguous role of the petit-bourgeoisie, that amorphous and steadily growing class with a.middle and upper middle income and some form of higher education, oscillating between the owners of the means of produc- tion and the “proletariat”? This embarrassing and embarrassed class, in doubt about its identity and aspirations and riddled with conflicts and guilt is the origin of the contemporary innovators and rebels as it is the reservoir of those most actively engaged in the preservation of the status quo.

The general art public (not to be confused with the relatively small number of collectors), the public of museums and art centres, comes from the same social pool. It is a rather young audience, financially at ease but not rich, college-educated and flirting with the political left rather than the right. Thus there is a remarkable demographic resemblance between the art professionals, the art public at large, and probably the readership of this journal. Apparently art is no longer the exclusive domain of the bourgeoisie and nobility as it was in the past.

Decades of doctrinaire interpretation of only a few aspects of the economic base have prevented us from adequately understand- ing the complexities of the art-world and the even more complex functioning of the consciousness industry, of which the art world

Jy

MEETING in school library April 25th at 2:00 pm to deal with the task of developing new staff for X newsletter. This will also be an appropriate time for anyone wanting to speak about defining the Newsletter’s scope and codes. We'll see you there. —co-editors

appears to be a microscopic model and a part. Nor have we learned to understand the elusive character of the expanding petit-bour- geoisie in industrialized societies, which has become a considerable force in the consciousness industry and among its consumers. It seems to play a more important role in societal change than is normally recognized.

Nothing is gained by decrying the daily manipulation of our ‘minds or by retreating into a private world supposedly untouched by it. There is no reason to leave to the corporate state and its public relations mercenaries the satisfaction of our sensuous and mental needs nor to allow, by default, the promotion of values that are not in our interest. Giyen the dialectic nature of the con- temporary petit-bourgeois consciousness industry, its vast resources probably can be put to use against the dominant ideology. This, however, seems to be possible only with a matching dialectical approach and may very well require a cunning involvement in all the contradictions of the medium and its practitioners.

--Hans Haacke

if the spirit moves me,I'll drop in on Press Gang's Open House at 603

OA Powell.From 7 pm.

The constituency

The following article is an edited version and reprinted from TRACKS, «Journal of atss* writings, Volume 3 Number 3, Fall 1977

In many respects the public of TRACKS is probably similar to that of commercial galleries for contemporary at. Two polls, Conducted respectively in 1972 and 1973, atthe New York John Weber Galery, showed that 70% of 858' (first pol) and 74% of 1324 (second poll) gallery visitors who responded to 4 question- rare during 2 2% week period each declared that they had 3 "profesional intrest in art.”

The readership of this publication, asthe vistors of commer- cial galleries of contemporary art in New York, seems to be an extremely select audience reeruiting itself from the ranks of the college-educated, middle, and upper middle classes. The professionally uncommitted public ofthe gallery, like the reader Ship of TRACKS with no professional interest In art, ean hardly be suspected of representing "the proletariat” or the mythical “man Inthe street”

‘Those who have a professional interest inart (artists students, erties, the directors, curators and ther assistants in museums and ‘comparable institutions, gallery owners and. thelr assistants, advertising and public relations executives, government and party bureaucrats in charge of the ars, art advisors of foundations, corporations and of collectors, ete) influence, although not with an equal vote for everyone, frequently only in a nominal capa: ‘ity, which products and activities are to be considered “art” and hhow much attention should be paid to each artist and the often competing art “movements”. Many members ofthis diverse group tre not Independent agents but act rather In behalf of employers and dents whose opinions they might have internalized or cannot ford disregarding.

By no means isthe art quality of a product inherent init substance. ‘The at cetifieae is conferred upon it by the culturally Powerful social set in which iti to be considered art, and tis nly valid there and then. The attribution of value, particularly if this value is not supported by the neds for physical survival and ‘comfort, is determined ideologically. Unless one invokes God oF ‘the quasi-divine inspiration of a dlsembodied party, the setting of norms and their Subtle oF not so suble enforcement, throughout history is performed by particular individuals or groups of people and has no claim to universal acceptance. Their beliefs, emotional ‘needs, goals and interests, no matter If the particular cultural power elite is aware of and acknowledges It, decide on the ever Shifting art extra.

‘Usually there Is no quarel about the existence of ideological determination if emanates from a politieal or religious authority. ‘The fact that manmade valuesystems and belief reflecting part cular interests are also at work In liberal surroundings isnot quits {8 readily admitted by the liberal culture mongers,

“The validation of certain products as contemporary hgh art, which, of course, gudes future production while feeding on the concensus of the past, obviously Is not Independent of the art Industry's economle base. A cursory look at the at-world in liberal societies might therefore lead to the conclusion that it is, in fat, as stringently controled a8 the cultural life in societies where street cleaning equipment is ealed out to take care of deviant art, where a palette of blood and earth Is used or an ‘occasional blooming of a thousand flowers is announced with beat fanfare

is true that the trustees and per fores the directors of many big museums probably agree with the declaration of one of theit directorcoleagues:.. we are pursuing esthetic and educational ‘objectives that are self suficient and’ without ulterior motive, On those grounds the trustees have established polices that ‘exclude active engagement toward social and politcal ends.”

‘Such policies pretend to be based on the sociologically and philosophically untenable premise of a self-suffucient education and freefloating aesthetics while ignoring that a museum, by is very existence, actively engages in the promotion of social and politcal ends. “Thus man museums which constitute some of the ‘more powerful agents in the validation and distribution of art are closed for a whole range of contemporary work, and i applied consistently also to many works ofthe past Such a ban has the further effect of seriously imparing the economie Viability of the incriminated works in commercial galleries, another ofthe major validating agents. Therefore in fact if not by design, this posture has fareeaching. consequences and leaves 2 palilly neutral stance far behing, if such a thing exes at al

‘The idelist’notion of an art created out of and exclusively for “disinterested pleasure” (Kant), a. claim contradicted. by history and everyday experience s upheld by formalist at theory 2 promulgated and normatvely established by Clement Greenberg and hisadherents. Formalist thinking, however, isnot confined to his accredited followers; it reigns wherever formal qualities are ‘viewed in isolation and’ their pure’ demonstration becomes the Intended message.

This) theory of cultural production and dissemination ‘obviously overiooks the economle and ideological circumstances lunder which the industry and formalist theory itself operate, Questions as to the content and the audience and beneficiaries of art are heresy fora true formalist. Neither contemporary thinking Inthe social and politcal sciences nor psychoanalytic theory supe Port such views. ‘The pressures and lure ofthe world do not stop respectfully atthe gate to the “temple”, Gisard d'Estaings term forthe Paris Centre Pompidou(!), or the studio door,

It i not surprising then that the designers of public spaces and the corporate men who dominate the boards of trustees of cultural institutions in the U.S. are so fond ofthese 19th century concepts of art for art's sake. ‘The fact that many works done in this vein today are abstract and enjoy avantgarde status no longer ‘poses a problem and now Is aften seen as an aset in the hunt for ‘cultural prestige. The corporate state like governments, has 3 ‘natural allergy to questions such as “what” and “for whom? Unwittingly or not, formals theory provides an alibi. induces Its clients to believe that they are witnesing and participating in Important historic events, a if artworks which are purportedly done for their own sake’ still perform the liberating role they played in the 19th century

Aside from this powerful ldeologieal alleplance and con- fluence of interests, the curators, etc, artists and dealers of the formalist persuasion, like the producers and promoters of any other product or system of messages, have also an economic

Pree

From the ea to fresh water

Interest in the maintenance and expansion oftheir position inthe market. The investment of considerable funds isa stake,

In spite of these constraining forces, It Is demonstrably false to assume that thelr contol over the artaorld in Hberal societies Is complete. Examples could be cited in which certain Cultural products are censored outright of discouraged from surfacing in one corner and accepted or even promoted in another Corner ofthe same liberal environment. Although in all these in Sances ideology or more crudely apparent financial considers: tions also guide the declsons, the indWviduals and social forces bbchind them do not necesariy share the same beliefs, valve systems and interests,

‘The consciousness Industry, of which the art industry fs an Integral but minor small shop operation for 2 custom made output, 1s such a far flung global operation, with so many potentially, Conflicting elements, that absolute product control impossible, Its this lack of total cohesion and the occasional divergence of lnerests that secures a modicum of “devant” behaviour

“The relative openness to non-conforming products — not to, be equated with socalled pluralism ~ is further alded by the con Sclousness industry's builtin dialectics, For it to remain vale and profitable, it requires a pool of workers and a ellentele with ‘the judgment and the demand for ever new forms of entertainment, fresh Information and sensual and intellectual stimulation. AL ‘though rarely inthe foreground, it f the “deviant” elements that provide the necesary dynamics. Without them the Industry Would bureaucratize and stagnate in boredom, which fs, In fact, ‘what happens in repressive environments,

‘The millions of white-collar workers of industry, teachers, Journalists, priests, art profesionals and all other producers and Aisseminators of mental produets, are engaged In the cementing fof the dominant Ideologeal consructs3¢ well 3¢ In dsmantling them. In many ways, this group reflects the ambiguous role of the peti-bourgeoisl, that amorphous and steady growing class with a middle and upper middle income and some form of higher education, osellating between the owners of the means of produc. ton and the “proletariat” This embarrassing and embarrassed ‘lass in doubt about its Identity and aspirations and riddled with Conflicts and guile is the origin of the contemporary Innovators tnd rebels at Its the reservoir of those most atively engaged In the preservation ofthe satus quo.

‘The general aft public (not tobe confused with the relatively simall number of collectors, the public of museumsand art centres, comes from the same social pool. Iti a rather young audience, financially at ease but not rich, college-edueated and flirting with the political left rather than the right. Thus there [sa remarkable ‘demographic resemblance between the art professionals, the art public at large, and probably the readership of this joural ‘Apparently artis no longer the exclusive domain ofthe bourgeoisie and nobility a it was nthe past.

Decades of doctrinalre interpretation of only afew aspects of the economic base have prevented us from adequately understand- Ing the complenitis ofthe artworld and the even more complex functioning of the consciousness Industry, of which the art word

5 nnn nee

MEETING school library ‘April 25th at 2:00 pm to deal with the task of developing new staff for X newsletter. ‘This will also bbe an appropriate time for anyone wanting to speak about defining the Newsletters scope ‘and codes. We'll see you there. eo-editors

FRAIL EE PEE EOE

DAA RAAAADAAAAAAAAA AAA eA Dne ANTAL TTA LTT LOSS SSS SLES LULOLUCTTLESSLCTSSS CTO

Melntyre

appears to be a miroscopie model and apart. Norhave we earned {o understand the elusive character of the expanding petitbour- cose in industrialized societies, which has become a considerable force in the consciousness Industry and among Its consumers {It seems to play 2 more important role in soctetal change than i normally recognized.

Nothing Is gained by decrying the dally manipulation of our minds or by retreating into a private word supposedly untouched by it. There ts no reason to eave tothe corporate state and is public relations mercenaries the satisfaction of our sensuous and ‘mental needs nor to allow, by defiult, the promotion of values {that are notin our Interest. Giyen the dialectic nature ofthe con {temporary peitbourgeoisconslousness industry, its vast resources probably ean be put to use against the dominant ideology. Ths, hhowever, seems fo be possible only with a matching dialectical approach and may very well require a eunning involvement In all the contradictions ofthe medium and its practitioners,

{£ the spirit moves me,I'll drop in on Press Gang's Open House at 603

Powell.From 7 pm.