I Guess My Pink Hair Don't Cover Up My Red Neck

In the introduction to her conversation with Coco Fusco, Suzi Gablik states that it is the nature of the White intelligentsia to label multiculturalism a threat and to demean it with the term "political correctness".  On page 322, Fusco mentions that her education is what provides her the tools to enter into this discourse, and I think that access to even basic education is a far more important race issue than what a lot of the rest of the interview talks about. I find that intellectuals are more likely to be classist than racist (not that that is not often the same thing), but I am white so I may be wrong. I tend to find that intellectuals error on the side of being PC to the point of denying open discourse. We can look at this week's firing of Juan Williams from NPR radio as an example. Williams admitted a bias against Muslims. He did not admit to or condone any sort of giving in to that bias, he just stated that it existed.  For this he was fired. (He did later accept a 2 million dollar contract with FOX news, which may actually be a hate crime.) Regardless, I think the fact that the persecuted PC's refuse to admit their own biases, that even us liberals may have them, is ridiculous. I don't know anyone, of any race, gender, class, or sexual orientation that is wholly unbiased. The trick is to try to know your bias, understand where it stems from and see if you can deconstruct it once you have that understanding, not to just pretend like it isn't there. Let me be clear, politically I am the textbook bleeding heart liberal. I want healthcare and food stamps not fences and drones, but that does not mean that if I plumb the depths of that bleeding heart, that I do not find bias. I don't like that bias, but it does belong to me. I think that non-objectivity is vital to art, and that to pretend to be a totally evolved artist with no room for improvement is a joke.

This is why I loved Ron Graff's presentation. Honestly, a lot of his paintings I liked, but wasn't ecstatic over, but as a philosopher, he is right up my alley. I think I would be more interested in his work if it was more controversial, but I appreciate that he is painting primarily for himself. He has a type of unapologetic demeanor, tempered with self deprecation and a combination of talent and work ethic, that as an artist, I can only hope to one day emulate. I was a little worried about his suicide references, but on the other hand, they were pretty funny. Personally, I like to paint because I like to paint, not because I think it will save the polar bears. If I want to save the polar bears I'll vote, recycle and buy a motherfucking tote bag.

I think Danto's opening statement in his interview with Gablik, about how philosophy is trying to undermine the power of art was pretty spot on. I think that Gablik doesn't really like art, she likes politics and intellectualism and she likes believing she's right. I've been to those fundraisers where the night devolves from art auction to a bunch of winos sitting around the fire in Patagonia fleece singing Kumbaya. Maybe Gablik was there. She is so worried about the coming ecocatastraphe, that she totally dismisses Danto's mention of genocidal cultures. I feel that our species propensity for genocide and ecological destruction really bring to bear the question whether or not or demise is something to mourn. I feel like Danto's stance is that the good things we do may counteract that, and art may be one of those things. Art also relays understanding, which in all things is the first step to action. Or at least it should be.

Sorry. Suzi Gablik has officially gotten on my nerves.

***Above is a painting I did of zombie kittens eating a severed leg. This will not stop global warming, I promise.