Art Dirt: Political Expression in the Arts

I was excited to listen to the episode “Art Dirt: Political Expression in the Arts,” while in the studio today. It’s an evocative title, suggesting that the conversation might rigorously take on one of the most important issues of our day: the rise of authoritarian censorship, and how the art world might face this moment.

At a time when we are desperate for thought leaders to help us make sense of what’s happening, I was hoping that two art critics, platformed by one of the most respected arts publications in the country’s second largest state, might bring some heavy lifting to the topic which is demanding all of our mental energy right now. Trump’s second term has caught the larger liberal order flat footed: from the DNC and corporate media, to pop culture and academia, it seems no one can get a handle on the cultural connections that have lead us here, and too many are obeying in advance to censorship and the fascist frameworks of division and scarcity.

Unfortunately, this podcast conversation was not edifying in that way. Not only did the critics not take up the larger conversation of the times we live in, they also failed to bring up any concrete examples of neo conservative art world censorship within the state of Texas, such as the seizure of Sally Mann’s photographs by the Fort Worth PD. Glasstire has also repeatedly failed to report on the silencing of Palestinian and anti-war voices within the art world, so I suppose I shouldn’t have expected anything more.

But still, I will make my case against this episode, because the stakes are very high, and if we continue to platform unrigorous, insipid culture war brain rot of the 2016 era, the fascists will continue to gain ground. It’s hightime the art world gets serious about our role in the larger sociopolitical context; a neo-liberal framework doesn’t cut it any more. It is not only unproductive, but I think harmful, to platform the anemic musings of art critics stewing in the stagnant discourse of an out of touch, harmful institutional framework. Dean Kissick did not adequately make sense of our problems, but neither did this episode’s response.

The Harper’s article was weak in that it was motivated by nostalgia; Kissick’s biggest claim was that art just happened to be better when he was in his twenties, a fallacy so obvious as to be uninteresting. He also fails to realize how taste is informed by experience, and that what makes for important art is dependent not only on the sociopolitical context of the viewer, but cultural, personal, and aesthetic histories as well. Beyond this, Kissick’s article is dangerous because it makes space for a growing contingent of “post woke” cultural criticism, exemplified in the insidious discourses of the Red Scare podcast and the Dimes Square disaffects.

These are the cultural conversations that define our climate: while Joe Rogan offers an easy framework of nationalistic hate for nearly half of America, the other half is being torn to pieces: an increasing number of bad faith actors are sliding clandestine neo-con talking points into a liberal discursive climate unequipped to name these threats as such.

Hitting Kissick with the blunt tool of identity politics is ineffective and outmoded. Jessica’s response that “all art is political,” is not only sophomorically overgeneralized, it’s misapplied. She makes a straw man of Kissick’s arguments through vague implications, but never clearly names either his arguments nor her contentions. She is a critic who frames art within its political context, a useful and true element of all art. But nowhere in Kissick’s piece does he say otherwise, not that it matters, because she never quotes from the article. She seems to be wanting to place his argument in a lineage of upholding the western cannon, but her criticisms were so hedging and lazily dismissive that there was ultimately nothing to take away from her comments. If this is what art criticism looks like in Texas, then I think our state is wholly unequipped to take on Trump’s executive orders dismantling DEI and the NEA.

William’s major contention with the piece seemed to be on the question of contemporary art’s scale and scope. He pushes back on Kissick’s call for art to be more expansive in its ambitions, by arguing for a type of highly specialized regionalism that characterizes much of today’s curatorial decisions. As arts funding continues to dry up, more grant writing is finely tuned to the criteria of an increasingly scarce, pragmatic, and utilitarian value system. Kissick completely fails to understand these parameters as structural rather than cultural, because he is inherently a reactionary conservative. But William’s championing of it is also problematic, because a siloed art world is an inbred one, incapable of making sense of, and taking on, the grave dangers of the present. I was also depressed when he failed to conjure any meaningful connections within his summary of that Oxford 20th century art book.

After failing to make any sense of the Harper’s piece, they take on the Chappell Roan Grammy’s speech. William expresses suspicion of her healthcare advocacy, because apparently donating to an organization that supports mental healthcare for musicians is less effective than donating to a larger, more broad organization. This criticism would seem to fly in the face of his earlier argument for specialized arts institutions, but I think at this point any pretense to intellectual integrity is long gone. I’m impressed that he felt confident enough to challenge the efficacy of Chappell Roan’s actions after spending forty fives minutes defending the virtue signaling of arts institutions; he must think awareness raising is only effective within insular art world echo chambers, but unseemly when turned towards the larger public. I did like Jessica’s case for the artist as worker, that was the only enjoyably coherent part.