Liberals increasingly want to portray the identitarian and partisan divides as natural, quasi-biological ones. The result is not simply gross misunderstanding of the present political impasse; it’s also surrender to the conditions that perpetuate it.
Painting, drawing and sculpture, although they are always the bearers of ideological elements, and acquire significant aspects of their particular forms through socio-economic influences, are, as material practices, no more reducible to ideology than are childhood, spermatozoa, or, above all, ‘man’.
Part 1 of “In Defense of Art” is here; part 3 is here. I must be clear and explicit about the political position from which I am working. I therefore wish to make absolutely clear in what sense I am working within the Marxist tradition, and what sort of “Marxism”
Health is often taken for granted, but injury and convalescence force you to appreciate it. In the same way, the wreckage of mid-twentieth century art criticism and theory in grandiose socio-political “interventions” brings into focus a baseline psychological function of art. Peter Fuller saw the sickness in artists and critics
Politics for most people is a means to an end. If we fail to highlight solidarity and shared material interests over ideological purity or identity, we will fail to transform the abstract support of disaffected voters into actual engagement.
I fear that 2020 will teach the Democrats a costly lesson about the dangers of getting swept up in ideological movements distinguished more by political realism than enthusiasm.
“There are human beings attached to those things!”