article_8946464

8/2/2019 article_8946464

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article8946464 1/16

Grant Kester

The Sound ofBreaking Glass,Part II: Agonismand the Tamingof Dissent

Continued from ÒThe Sound of Breaking Glass,Part I: Spontaneity and Consciousness inRevolutionary TheoryÓ in issue 30.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThere is no possibility of escape ÉÐ Graciela Carnevale, ÒProject for theExperimental Art SeriesÓ (1968)ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊLet me go, IÕm an artist.Ð Protestor being arrested during a 1968demonstration at the Museo Nacional de Bellas

Artes in Buenos Aires1

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs I noted in the first part of this essay,revolutionary action in the Leninist traditionmust be guided by an overarching politicalstrategy (the ÒscienceÓ of socialism) devised byalienated members of the bourgeoisintelligentsia, and subsequently ÒcommunicatedÉ to the more intellectually developedproletarians.Ó For Voline, action is defined as thestraightforward liberation of the redemptiveenergies of the working class. Debray brings us athird model of agency. For Debray, action is

purely instrumental, determined only by militarynecessity, but nevertheless capable of inspiringfervid devotion and self-sacrifice amongpeasants and the urban working class. He relieshere on the tradition of the revolutionary atent‡t(attack or assassination), an act of exemplaryviolence directed at the representatives of anauthoritarian regime, and intended to emboldena larger uprising. Debray, like Lenin, fears thespontaneous energies of the working classes andinsists on their necessary guidance by foquistacadres, who will help them grasp the nature oftheir own oppression and determine the stepsnecessary to overcome it.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIt was, of course, not uncommon for LatinAmerican artists to embrace revolutionarypolitical rhetoric in the 1960s. In their famous Assault Text , delivered to the Argentine museumdirector Romero Brest in August 1968, JuanPablo Renzi, Norberto Puzzolo, and RodolfoElizalde declareÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊthat the life of ÒCheÓ Guevara and theactions of the French students are greater worksof art than most of the rubbish hanging in thethousands of museums throughout the world. Wehope to transform each piece of reality into anartistic object that will penetrate the worldÕsconsciousness, revealing the intimatecontradictions of this society of classes.Ó 2

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊGraciela Carnevale also sought toÒpenetrate the consciousnessÓ and Òreveal thecontradictionsÓ of class society. In this task shefound it necessary to adopt the foquista Õs callousdisregard for pain and suffering. In her case, theviolence of guerrilla warfare is directed notagainst the military forces of the Ongan’adictatorship, but against its potential victims:

the students, artists, and intellectuals attendingthe Ciclo de Arte Experimental in Rosario. This

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

0 1 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


0 2 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


doubling or reiteration of aggression wasnecessary in order to force her audiencemembers out of their ÒpassivityÓ and to Òprovoke[them] into an awareness of the power withwhich violence is enacted in everyday life.ÓAccording to Carnevale,ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ[t]he reality of the daily violence in which weare immersed obliges me to be aggressive, toalso exercise a degree of violence Ð just enough

to be effective Ð in the work. To that end, I alsohad to do violence myself. I wanted eachaudience member to have the experience ofbeing locked in, of discomfort, anxiety, andultimately the sensations of asphyxiation andoppression that go with any act of unexpectedviolence. 3

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs Carnevale suggests, only the artist cangrasp the interconnected totality of violencewithin modern society,ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊfrom the most subtle and degrading mentalcoercion from the information media and their

false reporting, to the most outrageous andscandalous violence exercised over the life of astudent. 4

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊRather than needlessly exacerbating theanxiety of viewers already on the edge afterweeks of police brutality, CarnevaleÕs action canbe seen as therapeutic in nature. She willadminister a kind of homeopathic remedy, inwhich the patient is treated with the dilutedversion of a substance that would otherwisecause illness. Hence, the ÒdiscomfortÓ createdby physical confinement in the gallery willproduce a heightened awareness of the far moredamaging repression imposed by the Ongan’aregime. However, as IÕve already noted, this eventoccurred after protests among the intelligentsiaof Buenos Aires Ð most recently the occupationof the University of Buenos Aires Ð had beencruelly suppressed. If Argentines were ÒpassiveÓit wasnÕt due to a lack of awareness on their part,but rather to an all-too-immediate recognition ofthe violent consequences that would result fromany act of resistance.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhile Carnevale sought to precipitate somesort of cathartic response from the audience,they were reluctant to break the glass and freethemselves (although some did attempt toremove the door hinges). ItÕs impossible toaccurately reconstruct their responses over fourdecades later. However, itÕs conceivable thattheir reluctance was due less to their failure tograsp the Òreality of daily violenceÓ than to thefact that they knew they were part of an artproject, and were hesitant to damage the galleryand risk injuring themselves by shattering a plateglass window. At least some of them were willingto let the performance run its course and await

the artistÕs return. In this case, the audienceÕsreaction may tell us more about the perceived

sanctity of the gallery space or norms ofauthorial sovereignty than it does about thepolitical environment in Argentina at the time.The passerby who eventually freed them, on theother hand, may have simply assumed thegallery-goers were in genuine danger and actedaccordingly.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Acci—n del Encierro reveals some of thesymptomatic linkages that existed avant-garde

art practice and vanguard political movementsduring the late 1960s, especially as they relate toquestions of agency, resistance, andparticipation. Foquista action was Janus-faced.On the one hand, foquistas sought to inspire andradicalize the working class and peasantsthrough their own exemplary discipline and self-sacrifice; and on the other, they ruthlesslyattacked the military forces of the ruling class.Carnevale collapses these two modes of foquistaaction: the inspirational and the instrumental,the pedagogical and the martial. In the figure of

CarnevaleÕs gallery-goer, poised betweenpassivity and freedom, awaiting the artistÕsintervention to raise and direct theirconsciousness of oppression, we discover aparallel to the foquista Õs struggle to rouse themasses from their torpor and ÒimbueÓ them withrevolutionary fervor. At the same time, as I notedin the first part of this essay, Carnevale displacesthe guerrillaÕs characteristic aggression onto heraudience, who become surrogates for the absentagents of repression. This punishing andcathartic attack is directed not at the militaryand political elites who led the junta, but atthose Argentines who have been insufficientlyvigorous in their efforts to challenge it. Carnevaleherself becomes the foquista militant, declaringwar on the consciousness of the incarceratedviewer.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe anxiety, discomfort, and fear evoked inCarnevaleÕs ÒactorsÓ are the necessaryconcomitants of advanced art and politicalenlightenment Ð or rather, the goals of each areblurred. Carnevale offers a coercive model ofparticipatory art, in which Òthe spectators haveno choice; they are obliged, violently, toparticipate.Ó 5 Encierro thus functions as a kind ofbehavioral experiment in which there are onlytwo possible outcomes. Either the participantsdo nothing, thus confirming their passivity andcomplicity with power, or they break free anddemonstrate their capacity for revolutionaryaction. In each case the artist retains herposition of transcendence, while the viewers areinterpellated as corporeal bodies, trapped orsequestered, placed under inexplicableconstraints, and then set ÒfreeÓ to act and be judged. This reduction of agency to a simple act

of physical resistance or accommodation(representing the liberation or containment of

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

0 3 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


Graciela Carnevale, Encierro y Escape (Entrapment and

Escape) , 1968. Documentation ofan action at the ExperimentalArt Circle, Rosario. GracielaCarnevale Archive. Photo: CarlosMilitello.

the participantÕs Ònatural impulsesÓ) isemblematic. CarnevaleÕs work fails to engage thedifferentiated subjectivities of those people shechooses to confine. They function instead asrepresentatives of a generic politicalconsciousness, symbolizing the Argentine peopleas a whole in their opposition to, or complicitywith, Ongan’aÕs dictatorship.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCarnevaleÕs work exhibits the essentiallypropositional nature of much Conceptual art. Inparticular, conceptualism marks a shift from

previous concerns with the generative nature ofprocess or physical production (as in AbstractExpressionism, for example) toward a notion ofart as the presentation or framing of an assertion(about the viewer, the nature of art, or society).The locus of creative agency lies in theconstruction of a spatial or formal system intowhich the viewer is introduced and allowed alimited range of action, predetermined by the

artist. Typically, the gallery space undergoessome physical modification Ð the strategicremoval of a wall, the locking of a door, theinstallation of video surveillance equipment Ðwith the intention of revealing hiddencomplicities to the viewer (the economictransactions that anchor the ostensiblydisinterested display of art, the panoptic natureof modern society, and so forth). 6 Whether actualviewers ever experience these insights is ofsecondary importance. ItÕs necessary simply tocreate a space, an apparatus, within which such

insights might possibly be induced. Theaesthetic quality of semblance or virtuality isthus preserved through the hypothetical natureof a conceptual practice in which propositionsremain untested and largely rhetorical. As SolLewitt famously declared, ÒWhen an artist uses aconceptual form of art, it means that all of the

0 4 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


0 5 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


planning and decisions are made beforehand andthe execution is a perfunctory affair.Ó 7 We mightsay, as well, that the reception of the work bydiscrete viewers is equally perfunctory from theartistÕs perspective. While CarnevaleÕs Acci—n delEncierro involves a relatively reductiveunderstanding of the viewerÕs agency, it does atleast allow for some verification of her workinghypothesis. Even if the viewer does nothing at all

in response to the work, they nonethelessconfirm the artistÕs a priori assumptions abouthuman nature (inaction is equivalent to passivityin the face of political repression).ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhile CarnevaleÕs work shares certaingeneric features with a broader range ofConceptualist practices, it is also informed bythe specific conditions of Latin American artduring the 1960s and 70s. In particular, herdirect engagement with the authoritarianOngan’a regime was in marked contrast to themore detached, quasi-philosophical concerns

often encountered in Conceptual art in theUnited States and Europe. AmericanConceptualists such as Douglas Huebler, JosephKosuth, and Lawrence Weiner were preoccupiedwith relatively abstract epistemologicalquestions (e.g., the semiotic contingency ofaesthetic or linguistic meaning). 8 As historianMari Carmen Ramirez notes, the ÒcriticalityÓ ofEuro-American conceptualism was most oftenproduced through forms of self-reflexivityfocused on the discursive and institutionalconstruction of art. In much Latin Americanconceptual work, this criticality was directed atthe political and social structures ofauthoritarian regimes and the mechanisms ofneo-colonial domination. Ramirez states, Òthefundamental propositions of Conceptual artbecame elements of a strategy for exposing thelimits of art and life under conditions ofmarginalization and, in some cases, repression.Ó 9

Writing in 1970, Brazilian artist Cildo Meirelesidentifies a transition from ÒartÓ to ÒcultureÓ inLatin America:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIf Marcel Duchamp intervened at the level ofArt É what is done today, on the contrary, tendsto be closer to Culture than to Art, and that isnecessarily a political interference. That is tosay, if aesthetics grounds Art, politics groundsCulture. 10

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThis shift from art to culture is often figuredas a loss or abandonment, as art surrenders itsprivileged immanence to the brutalinstrumentality of vanguard politics. ÒUnlike thepolitical vanguard,Ó Romero Brest writes in 1967,the artistic avant-garde Òdoes not have an aim toachieve.Ó11 More recently, critic Jaime Vindel, inhis essay ÒTretyakov in Argentina,Ó warns that

Argentine artists during the 1960s Òtook the riskof abandoning the dissensual specificity of their

Ôways of doingÕ in order to merge into acontinuum that would end up subordinating theiractivities to the teleology of revolutionarypolitics.Ó The implicit valorization of ÒdissensusÓ(with respect to what? to what end?) issymptomatic. In making this point Vindel drawson Susan Buck-MorssÕs analysis of the tensionsbetween avant-garde art and vanguard politics inrevolutionary Russia. Buck-Morss observes:

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn acquiescing to the vanguardÕscosmological conception of revolutionary time,the avant-garde abandoned the lived temporalityof interruption, estrangement, arrest Ð that is,they abandoned the phenomenologicalexperience of avant-garde practice. 12

Argentine Artists Committee,Ê Tucum‡n Arde , 1968.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHowever, as weÕve already seen, thequestions of agency and instrumentality that areraised at the intersection of the aesthetic andthe political cannot be so easily resolved into asimple opposition between autonomy andsubordination, spontaneity and premeditation.Certainly, avant-garde art carries its own not-so-secret teleological desires (the reformation ofsociety through the incremental transformationof individual subjectivities), which are evident inCarenvaleÕs mechanistic picture of humanagency and resistance.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊInterruption and estrangement may wellarise from the viewerÕs experience ofsimultaneity, but they are no less goal-driven intheir orientation. Within the singularphenomenological matrix of the avant-garde,who, precisely, is having their consciounessinterrupted? And who claims the right to presideover this interruption? For both the foquista andthe artist, the viewer, the peasant, or the laborerarrives unformed and in need of renewal orconversion (whether through inspiration orprovocation). Each assumes a proprietary or

custodial relationship to the consciousness ofthe Other. Buck-MorssÕs defense of lived

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

0 6 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


temporality over the heedless indifference ofteleological thinking to the here-and-now is welltaken. However, lived temporality unfolds inmany ways outside those defined in terms ofinterruption, estrangement, and arrest. And therelationship between artist and viewer can beproduced through many different forms ofinteraction and engagement, aside from asupervisory provocation.

Douglas Huebler, Duration Piece #31 , 1974.

Agonism and AntagonismInterpellated as equals in their capacity asconsumers, ever more numerous groups areimpelled to reject the real inequalities whichcontinue to exist. This Òdemocratic consumercultureÓ has undoubtedly stimulated theemergence of new struggles which have playedan important part in the rejection of old forms ofsubordination ÉÐ Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (2001)13

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs IÕve suggested, the synchronicitybetween the artist and the revolutionary,between aesthetic and political protocols, is acentral feature of cultural modernity. It entails,however, a significant set of displacements. Theactions of the revolutionary are directed towardtwo different constituencies and are defined by

distinct forms of affect. First, the revolutionaryseeks to reveal the ÒtrueÓ nature of domination

to the working class via fairly traditional forms ofevidentiary or ÒrealistÓ documentation (e.g., theuse of Òexposure literatureÓ by the Bolsheviks).Here the revolutionary assumes a conventionalpedagogical role relative to the proletariat. At thesame time, the revolutionary seeks to provokeand attack the bourgeoisie and the capitaliststate, both as an example of properly militarydiscipline (to be emulated by the working class)

and in order to solicit a violent reprisal from theinstitutions of bourgeois power, which will serveto mobilize and cohere the working class inresponse (or, at the very least, to win the supportof sympathetic factions within thebourgeoisie). 14 In doing so, the revolutionarypotentially increases the suffering of the workingclass (as they become targets for possibleretaliation), but with the goal of securing theirultimate liberation. The revolutionary doesnÕtattack the working class directly, but ratherhopes to incite the state to do so in order to

precipitate a revolutionary Òevent.Ó TherevolutionaryÕs violence is reserved for thebourgeoisie, who will first be provoked, and thendestroyed.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs CarnevaleÕs work demonstrates, avant-garde artistic production often collapses thesetwo modes of address: the education andconsciousness-raising of the proletariat and theprovocation and punishment of the bourgeoisie.The result is a form of artistic practice in whichprovocation itself is assigned a pedagogical role,and an increasingly generic implied viewer (thebourgeois who refuses to acknowledge thesuffering in which he is complicit), whosepresumed ignorance is the necessaryprecondition for this same pedagogical function.CarnevaleÕs work has gained renewed attentionin recent years as part of a more general re-affirmation of aesthetic conventions that defineavant-garde art as a form of aggressivedisruption intended to increase the viewerÕsawareness of his or her own culpability indominant forms of power. Thus critic ClaireBishop, one of the leading exponents of thistendency, insists on the transformative potentialof Òawkwardness and discomfortÓ in the viewerÕsexperience of contemporary art and praisesthose artists who are willing to place theirsubjects in ÒexcruciatingÓ situationscharacterized by Ògrueling duration.Ó 15 Ratherthan promoting a reviled Òsocial harmony,Óadvanced art, according to Bishop, mustpromote a cathartic Òrelational antagonismÓcapable of Òexposing that which is repressed.Ó 16

One of the most well known exemplars of thisapproach is Spanish artist Santiago Sierra, whopresents viewers with various tableaux of

exploitation and subordination (workers paid tohold up walls for extended periods, addicts

0 7 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


tattooed in exchange for a fix, and so forth). Ascurator CuauhtŽmoc Medina contends, ÒSierraÕswork is designed to produce constant shockÓ ashe Òblows the whistle on the fraud that prevailsin the history of emancipation.Ó 17

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe writings of philosophers Ernesto Laclauand Chantal Mouffe have played an importantrole in these debates. Bishop cites Mouffeextensively in her influential essay ÒAntagonism

and Relational Aesthetics,Ó published in the journal October . Laclau and Mouffe first gainedattention in the mid-1980s for their attempt todevelop what we might think of as a postmodernconcept of political resistance. Poststructuralisttheory, ranging from Jacques LacanÕs critique ofego psychology to Michel FoucaultÕs research onthe necessary interdependence of resistanceand power, did much to discredit existing notionsof agency and identity (both collective andindividual). However, while poststructuralisttheory was quite good at exposing the various

forms of complicity that accompanyconventional models of volitional action andcollective identity, it was less helpful in providingalternatives. Laclau and Mouffe sought todevelop a political theory that was consistentwith the emerging insights of poststructuralisttheory, while also allowing for coherent and

effective forms of resistance. Theirreconstructive effort began with a criticalreappraisal of the Marxist tradition. Laclau andMouffe hoped to preserve some components ofthat tradition (in particular, Antonio GramsciÕsconcept of ÒhegemonicÓ political formations)while discarding the embarrassing Hegelianbaggage (for Laclau and Mouffe, the proletariat is just another transcendent subject in need of

deconstruction).ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn their idiosyncratic merging of Marxismand poststructuralism, Laclau and Mouffe cameto view the de-centering of the subjectprescribed by continental theory not as a barrierto the development of organized politicalresistance, but rather as a key moment in thelong march toward democratic pluralism. 18

Drawing on the work of Lacan, they sought tochallenge the primacy of class as a privilegedsignifier in the Marxist tradition, arguing that allforms of identity must be seen as provisional or

contingent. Social or political conflict isnÕt,ultimately, the product of historically specificmodes of economic domination, but rather, ishard-wired into our epistemological orientationto the world, as we vainly seek to recover amythic sense of plenitude and ontologicalwholeness. Unable to accept our fragmented and

0 8 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


dependent condition, we insist on seeing othersas threats to a fictive subjective integrity.Fortunately, this debilitating and destructivetendency can be corrected. We need only learn torecognize and embrace our intrinsically dividednature or, as Lenin might say, be brought to theproper level of consciousness. This insight, thisawakening, will allow us to maintain our capacityfor political agency without succumbing to the

often violent defensiveness associated withconventional identities based on fixed notions ofclass, community, nationality, or ethnicity. Thegoal of revolution is no longer the liberation of asingle oppressed class, ethnicity, or gender, but aglobal reconfiguration of our relationship todifference in all its guises and forms, leading to asociety based on a non-instrumentalizingÒagonistic pluralism.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊConflicts between self and other wonÕtdisappear in this brave new world, nor shouldthey. In fact, they are the very stuff of radical

democracy, and a constituent of humansubjectivity itself. We simply need to acquire amore reflective relationship to conflict (becomingÒadversariesÓ rather than Òenemies,Ó as Mouffewrites). They advocate not the elimination ofÒconflictÓ (either through enforced consensus orthe random splay of postmodern indeterminacy)but rather, its Òtaming.Ó 19 A destructiveantagonism must be domesticated and turnedinto a healthy agonism, because otherwise ournatural propensity for violence andinstrumentalization will lead us inevitably towardfascism. The echoes of Schiller are evident:before we can engage in political action werequire a process of transformative, essentiallyaesthetic, re-education. Thus Laclau and Mouffeargue for a re-tooling of individual humansubjectivity in such a way that we can treatantagonists as peers or colleagues rather than asexistential threats or potential victims. Mouffewrites:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊthe aim of democratic institutions is not toestablish a rational consensus in the publicsphere, but to defuse the potential of hostilitythat exists in human societies by providing thepossibility for antagonism to be transformed intoÒagonism.Ó By which I mean that, in democraticsocieties, while conflict neither can or should beeradicated, nor should it take the form of astruggle between enemies (antagonism), butrather between adversaries (agonism). 20

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn this suitably ironic form of participatorydemocracy, we contend over substantive issuesand differences while preserving an awarenessthat all differences are contingent, and any finalresolution is impossible. Thus, the adversary isÒthe opponent with whom we share a common

allegiance to the democratic principles of Ôlibertyand equality for allÕ while disagreeing about their

interpretation.Ó 21 But how will people come toaccept difference without antagonism? How willthey be prepared for agonistic interaction?According to Laclau and Mouffe thistransformation will be brought about, in part,through our exposure to the works ofphilosophers, whose task it is to bring us into aproper consciousness of the world. As Mouffenotes:

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPolitical philosophy has a very importantrole to play in the emergence of this commonsense and in the creation of these new subjectpositions, for it will shape the Òdefinition ofrealityÓ that will provide the form of politicalexperience and serve as a matrix for theconstruction of a certain kind of subject. 22

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPerhaps what is most striking about Laclauand MouffeÕs work, aside from their relativelyexalted view of the efficacy of academicphilosophy, is the readiness with which theytranspose a set of hermeneutic procedures

derived from poststructuralist theory (primarily,the process of revealing the contingency of thoseforms of subjectivity or knowledge that wenormally experience as natural or given) into aformal political program. If we could only imbuethe broader public with the reflectiveconsciousness of a Derrida or a Lacan, a more just and equitable society would inevitablyfollow. The consciousness of the master theoristbecomes the normative model of politicalenlightenment toward which we should allaspire.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn fact, the recognition that our individual orcollective identity is contingent is no guaranteethat we wonÕt still seek to harm other people (asevidenced by the violence associated withfootball matches in Europe, to pick one of manypossible examples). As human beings, we havean impressive capacity to maintain twocontradictory beliefs at the same (in this case,the awareness that a given collective sensibilityis arbitrary, and the willingness to act out on thebasis of this sensibility in an extreme ordestructive manner). The epistemological ÒtruthÓof a given mode of collective identification is offar less importance to most people than theoften intoxicating forms of affect and agencythat this identity can sanction. In some cases,we might understand collective identificationless as a precondition than as a pretext for theseforms of agency. Moreover, what we think of as aparadigmatic bourgeois subjectivity, associatedwith the erosion of certain fixed hierarchies andallegiances, is defined precisely by themobilization of our capacity for affectiveinvestment and the creative re-invention of theself. As Slavoj Žižek has noted, the fluid and

mobilized notion of the self celebrated by Laclauand Mouffe is itself a key constituent of

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

0 9 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


contemporary capitalism:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI think one should at leasttake note of thefact that the much-praised postmodernÒproliferation of new political subjectivities,Ó thedemise of every ÒessentialistÓ fixation, theassertion of full contingency, occur against thebackground of a certain silent renunciation andacceptance : the renunciation of the idea of aglobal change in the fundamental relations in our

society É and, consequently, the acceptance ofthe liberal democratic capitalist frameworkwhich remains the same , the unquestionedbackground, in all the dynamic proliferation ofthe multitude of new subjectivities. 23

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn their attempt to ontologize conflict, toascribe our capacity for violence to someingrained resistance to the devastating truth ofLacanian lack, Laclau and Mouffe end up elidingthe contingency of resistance itself, itsdependence on historically specific formationsof power and difference (of which capitalism is

one of the most significant in the modern period).Conflict, of whatever kind, becomes a problem tobe solved through the acquisition of the propertheoretical insight that, once internalized, willeffectively heal the individual and, eventually,society at large. Laclau and MouffeÕs analysis ofpolitical resistance thus remains oddly abstract

and distant from the exigencies of politicalpractice itself.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn fact, substantive political change duringthe modern period has routinely involved

episodes of violence, physical occupation, armedinsurrection, and systemic forms of refusal (e.g.,general strikes, riots, sit-ins, passivedisobedience, and boycotts). It is preciselythrough the intersection of conventional politicalparticipation (voting, ÒagonisticÓ debate andopinion formation in the public sphere, and so

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


forth) and these decidedly ÒantagonisticÓ formsof extra-parliamentary action, that real changesin the distribution of wealth, power, andauthority have been achieved. 24 Thus, theÒtamingÓ of conflict advocated by Mouffe onbehalf of an agonistic pluralism entails amisleading and incomplete view of societaltransformation. In this respect, she presents anantithetical counterpoint to RŽgis DebrayÕs vexed

impatience with the Òvice of excessivedeliberationÓ and his single-minded reliance onarmed resistance as the source of politicalinsight. Both neglect the essentially capillarynature of change, the performativeinterdependence of the physical and thediscursive, the collective and the individual, andthe essential points of pressure and counter-pressure exerted along this continuum.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMouffe believes that artists can play animportant part in the civilizing mission ofÒagonistic pluralism.Ó While they canÕt claim to

offer anything like a Òradical critique,Ó accordingto Mouffe, this doesnÕt mean that their Òpoliticalrole has ended.Ó Rather, once they havediscarded the Òmodernist illusionÓ of theirÒprivileged position,Ó artists can contribute tothe Òhegemonic struggle by subverting thedominant hegemony and by contributing to theconstruction of new subjectivities.Ó 25 In order tocreate these Ònew subjectivities,Ó art will joinwith political philosophy to produceÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊcounter-hegemonic interventions whoseobjective is to occupy the public space in order todisrupt the smooth image that corporatecapitalism is trying to spread, bringing to the foreits repressive character. 26

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÒCritical artisticÓ practices, according toMouffe, Òfoment dissensus,Ó seeking to Òunveilall that is repressed by the dominant consensusÓand make Òvisible what the dominant consensustends to obscure and obliterate.Ó 27 What isstrangely absent from this veritable orgy ofunmasking and disruption is any meaningfulaccount of the actual reception of the initialrevelatory gesture. The complex process ofrepresentation is reduced to a kind ofunmediated, theophanic epiphany.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMouffe writes as if the ÒtruthÓ of capitalismwere a simple objective fact, as if the only thingpreventing emancipation is an adequateknowledge of a clear and singular reality that hasbeen deliberately suppressed. 28 Once havingreceived this truth, the viewer will naturally andspontaneously feel compelled to take uprevolutionary struggle. But the repressive natureof capitalism is hardly a secret. In fact, what ismost telling about many contemporaryresponses to capitalism (as it launches itself

against the remaining vestiges of the publicsector in the United States and now Europe) is

the almost masochistic enthusiasm with whichthe ÒdisciplineÓ of the market has beenembraced by those most likely to suffer itsnegative consequences. The success of the TeaParty is a case in point. In the United States,certainly, the Republican party has found it arelatively simple matter to make many working-class people angrier about federal funding forNational Public Radio or the pensions of

librarians and school teachers, than they areabout the unprecedented concentration ofwealth among the upper class, massive bailoutsfor Wall Street banks, or thirty years ofincreasingly regressive tax policies that haverobbed their children of access to a decenteducation. While the Occupy Wall Streetmovement offers some hope of developing acounter-narrative capable of challenging theperceived inevitability of neo-liberalism, its long-term efficacy has yet to be determined. Certainly,its focus on the ÒprocessÓ of deliberative

democracy (often at the expense of operationalefficiency) and its trust in the spontaneousemergence of political insight out of consensualexchange would have been anathema to bothLenin and the Debray of the late 1960s. 29

Erik Gšngrich, Picnic City , 2001, part of the project One Day in theRoom by Oda Projesi, Galata- İstanbul project space, June 10, 2001.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊGiven MouffeÕs readiness to sacrifice theautonomy of art to the exigencies of Òhegemonicstruggle,Ó it is somewhat surprising that ClaireBishop has emerged as one of her mostenthusiastic art world adherents (as notedabove, BishopÕs ÒAntagonism and RelationalAestheticsÓ essay is heavily indebted to Laclauand MouffeÕs writing.) Bishop has, in fact, beenhighly resistant to any challenge to theÒprivileged position of the artist.Ó 30 Moreover,

she has regularly expressed her fear thatÒaesthetic judgments have been overtaken by

1 1 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


ethical criteriaÓ in the evaluation ofcontemporary art. Her analysis assumes, ofcourse, that ethics and aesthetics constituteentirely separate and distinct modes of criticalevaluation and, presumably, domains ofexperience. Bishop argues that certain criticsand curators (myself included) have abandonedall properly aesthetic evaluative criteria andÒautomaticallyÓ perceive all collaborative

practices Òto be equally important artisticgestures of resistance.Ó In this view, as Bishopcontends Ò[t]here can be no failed, unsuccessful,unresolved, or boring works of collaborative artbecause all are equally essential to the task ofstrengthening the social bond.Ó She accusescurator Maria Lind of ignoring the ÒartisticsignificanceÓ of groups such as the Turkishcollective Oda Projesi Òin favor of an appraisal ofthe artistÕs relationship to their collaborators.ÓAs a result, LindÕs criticism is Òdominated byethical judgmentsÓ as she Òdownplay[s] what

might be interesting in Oda ProjesiÕs work asart.Ó31

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBishop has yet to provide her readers with aworking definition of art which would allow us todetermine what she herself believes isÒinterestingÓ about Oda ProjesiÕs work. Thisconfusion is compounded by her failure, thus far,to offer any detailed case studies of thoseprojects that she identifies with the Òethicalturn.Ó However, IÕm less concerned with thelogical coherence of BishopÕs claims than withthe form that her argument takes, and theunderlying set of assumptions on which itdepends. These can reveal much about theongoing continuity of the vanguard / avant-gardedynamic I outline above. While concepts of ethicsand aesthetics are clearly central to BishopÕsanalysis, she provides no substantive definitionof either term. We can extrapolate one possibleset of definitions from her critical writing. Whenshe condemns an Òethical turnÓ in contemporaryart practice and criticism Bishop seems to bereferring more specifically to the ways in whichsome artists engage questions of agency and thesovereignty of the artistic personality. Thus, ifcreative agency itself becomes a point ofintervention, reflection, and re-orientation in agiven work, if the artist complicates the divisionbetween ÒartistÓ and ÒviewerÓ in some way, orconcedes any decision-making power orgenerative control to participants, their work canbe accused of subordinating aesthetics to ethics.There can be no other explanation for artisticpractice of this kind than the artist's simplisticdesire to reproduce an ÒethicalÓ model of inter-subjective exchange (in the form of na•ve Òmicro-topiasÓ that seek only to Òsmooth over awkward

situationsÓ). This ethical gesture is dangerouslyutopian because it assumes that itÕs possible to

eliminate all forms of violence, hierarchy, ordifference in social formations. At the same time,it is politically suspect because it implies acorollary belief in the mythic ÒconsensusÓ of theliberal or Habermasian public sphere, which willinevitably repress or deform the identities ofindividual participants.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊConversely, artists who treat their subjectsin a deliberately objectifying or instrumentalizing

manner (e.g., Vanessa Beecroft, Santiago Sierra)are engaging in a legitimately ÒaestheticÓpractice precisely because their work challengesthe Òcommunity of mythic unity,Ó disabusing theviewer of the na•ve belief that one can evermitigate violence and objectification in inter-subjective exchange. By amplifying orexaggerating this violence (paying poor people tohold up a wall, endure tattooing or masturbate inthe gallery), these ÒaestheticÓ works forceviewers to acknowledge their own complicity,their own deplorable capacity for violence, which

they would otherwise attempt to repress or deny.The real and symbolic violence enacted by theseÒaestheticÓ artists against their subjects isultimately intended for their viewers, who willexperience a shameful self-recognition in the actof passive witnessing. This shock will be all themore effective because it occurs in a spacededicated to forms of recreational artisticconsumption and visual pleasure. Thus, SierraÕswork Òdisrupt[s] the art audienceÕs sense ofidentity,Ó according to Bishop, and is capable ofÒexposing how all our interactions are, like publicspace, riven with social and legal exclusions.Ó 32

Rather than striving to produce a ÒharmoniousreconciliationÓ or Òtranscendent humanempathy,Ó Sierra will Òsustain tension,Ó andsolicit Òawkwardness and discomfortÓ inviewers. 33 These ÒaestheticÓ projects refuse toindulge the viewerÕs desire for the false solace ofaesthetic transcendence, where they can, for amoment, ignore or forget their inevitableinvestment in circuits of power, domination andprivilege. It is the artistÕs job to prevent preciselythis act of transcendence and denial bysubjecting the viewer to a cathartic, andcorrective, shock.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊFor Bishop, any project that suspends, eventemporarily or provisionally, the authority of theartist as the empowered agent who supervisesthis cognitive disruption becomes ethical andnot aesthetic. In the very act of solicitingreciprocal modes of creativity, in breaking downor challenging the adjudicatory distancebetween the artist and the viewer, thecollaborative artist becomes complicit with theentire sordid mechanism of violence, exclusion,and repression on which all collective social

forms are based.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe contradictory nature of BishopÕs

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

1 2 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


analysis is evident in this description. While shelaments the intrusion of ethics into the domainof the aesthetic, she nevertheless identifies theprimary locus of ÒaestheticÓ experience in thestrategic production of shame or guilt in theviewer (in order to awaken a presumably dormantethical sensibility). In an interview from 2009,Bishop praises Santiago SierraÕs projects, suchas Workers Facing a Wall (2002) and Workers

Facing a Corner (2002), as Òvery tough piecesÓthat Òproduced a difficult knot of affect. If it wasguilt, it was a superegoic, liberal guilt producedin relation to being complicit with a position ofpower that I didnÕt want to assume.Ó 34 ItÕsdifficult to understand how any model of artisticproduction that assigns to the artist the task ofeliciting Òliberal guiltÓ in the viewer does notentail an ethical function. In fact, it suggeststhat the very core of BishopÕs ÒaestheticÓpractice is a form of ethical supervisionexercised by the artist over the consciousness of

the viewer.35

It is this adjudicatory distance,between the artist and the viewer, that Bishop ismost concerned to defend, and which mostclearly separates the ethical from the aesthetic,relational kitsch from advanced art, and na•vecomplicity from subversive criticality in herunderstanding of art.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBishop returns us, finally, to GracielaCarnevale, subjecting her audience toÒdiscomfort, anxiety É and the sensation ofasphyxiation and oppressionÓ in order toÒprovoke [them] into an awarenessÓ of theÒreality of daily violence.Ó Over the past century,avant-garde artistic practice has remainedremarkably consistent in its understanding ofthe aesthetic as a zone of punishment andremediation. The consciousness of the viewer,the Other, is a material to be Òexposed,Ó Òlaidbare,Ó and made available to the artistÕs shapinginfluence. In his na•ve and untutoredÒspontaneity,Ó the Other can never achieve full orcomplete consciousness without the requisitediscipline imposed by aesthetic experience (orthe leadership of a vanguard intelligentsia). TheartistÕs sovereignty, on the other hand, isabsolute, and the artistic personality itselfremains both exemplary and inviolable.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs IÕve argued elsewhere, the collaborativeart practices of the past decade and a halfsuggest that the generation of critical, counter-normative insight can occur outside thisconventional, dyadic structure in which theavant-garde artist engenders consciousness inan unenlightened viewer. 36 A more thoroughexploration of these practices requires us toreconsider many of the underlying assumptionsof advanced art itself, especially as these have

been informed by a particular understanding ofrevolutionary theory. In analyzing this work itÕs

necessary to overcome the tendency to simplyproject the specific social and institutionaldeterminants of the museum or gallery spaceonto the widely varying sites, situations, andconstituencies that are characteristic ofcontemporary collaborative and activist artpractice. More specifically, itÕs necessary toovercome the long-standing tendency to framecritical analysis around the assumed

characteristics of a hypothetical bourgeoissubject, regardless of the specific class identityor cultural background of actual viewers andparticipants. It requires as well some ability todistinguish enforced consensus from the formsof shared experience necessary to act bothcreatively and collectively. In the process, we candevelop a more nuanced account of receptionand aesthetic experience in contemporary artand, perhaps, in the broader field of politicalresistance as well.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

1 3 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


Grant Kester is Professor of Art History and Chair ofthe Visual Arts department at the University ofCalifornia, San Diego. His publications includeÊ Art, Activism and Oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage(Duke University Press, 1997, editor),Ê ConversationPieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art(University of California Press, 2004) andÊ The One andthe Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a GlobalContext (Duke University Press, 2011).

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1The protest targeted theawarding of the 1968 BraquePrizes by the Frenchambassador to Argentina. SeeHoracio Verbitsky, ÒArt andPolitics,Ó in Listen, Here, Now! Argentine Art of the 1960s:Writings of the Avant-Garde , ed.InŽs Katzenstein (New York:Museum of Modern Art, 2004),296.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2

Here is Luis Camnitzer, from aconference presentation in1969: ÒThe second possibility isto affect cultural structuresthrough social and politicalones, applying the samecreativity usually used for art. Ifwe analyze the activities ofcertain guerrilla groups,especially the Tupamaros andsome other urban groups, wecan see that something like thisis already happening. Thesystem of reference is decidedlyalien to the traditional artreference systems. However,they are functioning forexpressions which, at the sametime they contribute to a totalstructure change, also have ahigh density of aestheticcontent. For the first time theaesthetic message isunderstandable, as such,without the help of the ÔartcontextÕ given by the museum,the gallery, etc. ÉÓ LuisCamnitzer, ÒContemporaryColonial Art,Ó inConceptual Art: A Critical Anthology , ed.Alexander Alberro and BlakeStimson (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1999), 229 -Ð230.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ3This and above quotes are fromGraciela Carnevale, ÒProject forthe Experimental Art Series,Ó inListen, Here, Now! Argentine Artof the 1960s: Writings of the Avant-Garde, 299.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ4Ibid., 299.


ÊÊÊÊÊÊ6See, for example, Dan GrahamÕsTime Delay Room (1974) andMichael AsherÕs Untitledinstallation at Claire CopleyGallery in Los Angeles, also from1974. Here is one contemporarycriticÕs response to AsherÕs

piece: ÒAll that stuff on the wallsis gone, along with every bit ofprivacy. Actually viewers donÕtintend social interaction. Theycome to look at art. But withoutknowing it, they are an integralpart of the work they see. Howunsettling, and uncomfortable.There are no visualentertainments to cast intentgazes upon, security in thealtered proportions of the roomwhich now seems so long andnarrow. Are we in the rightgallery? No. Yes. Shall we walkaround a little and then saunterout the door, or shall we say thehell with it and stomp on up LaCienega shaking our heads. Oh,

of course, the show isnÕt up yet.Oh, it is!Ó Kirsi PeltomŠki, ÒAffect

and Spectatorial Agency:Viewing Institutional Critique inthe 1970s,Ó Art Journal 66(Winter 2007): 37Ð38.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ7Sol Lewitt, ÒParagraphs onConceptual Art,Ó Artforum 5(June 1967): 79Ð83. Republishedin Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology , ed. Alexander Alberroand Blake Stimson (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1999),12.Compare this to Thomas

HirschhornÕs similar formulationin a 2005 interview withBenjamin Buchloh:

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÒ... my idea was that I wantedto make sculpture out of a plan ,out of the second dimension. Isaid to myself, ÔI want to makesculpture, but I donÕt want tocreate any volumes.Õ I only wantto work in the third dimension Ðto conceive sculpture out of theplan, the idea, the sketch. Thatis what I want to make asculpture with: the thinking andconceiving, the various plans,the planning.Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊBenjamin H.D. Buchloh, ÒAnInterview with ThomasHirschhorn,Ó October 113,Summer 2005, 81.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ8ItÕs important to notoverstate this contrast, as thereare certainly examples ofConceptualist practice in theUnited States, including HansHaackeÕs work, along with earlyprojects by Martha Rosler, FredLonidier and Adrian Piper, whichreflect a much broaderunderstanding of the political.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ9Mari Carmen Ram’rez,ÒBlueprint Circuits: ConceptualArt and Politics in LatinAmerica,Ó in Conceptual Art: ACritical Anthology , 554. Ramirezspeaks of the effort to recoverthe Òethical dimension of artisticpractice,Ó paraphrasing March‡nFizÕs observation that Òthedistinguishing feature of theSpanish and Argentine forms ofConceptualism was extendingthe North American critique ofthe institutions and practices ofart to an analysis of social andpolitical issues.Ó Ibid., 557 and551.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ10Cildo Meireles, ÒInsertions in

Ideological Circuits,Ó inConceptual Art: A Critical Anthology , 233. Needless to say,this formulation (aesthetics =art, culture = politics) isproblematic and overlooks thenecessarily ÒpoliticalÓ functionof aesthetic experience, and ofthe very distinction betweenÒartÓ and Òculture.Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ11J. Romero Brest, ÒQuŽ es eso dela Vanguardia Art’stica?Ó (1967),cited by Jaime Vindel inÒTretyakov in Argentina:Factography and Operativity inthe Artistic Avant-Garde and thePolitical Vanguard of the

Sixties,Ó Transversal (August2010), multilingual web journal

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

1 4 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


of the European Institute forProgressive Cultural Politics(EIPCP). Seehttp://eipcp.net/transversal/0910/vindel/en.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ12Buck-Morss argues, ÒIt ispolitically important to makethis philosophical distinction inregard to avant-garde time andvanguard time, even if the avant-garde artists themselves didnot.Ó Susan Buck-Morss,

Dreamworld and Catastrophe:The Passing of Mass Utopia inEast and West (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2002), 62, cited byVindel.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ13Ernesto Laclau and ChantalMouffe, Hegemony and SocialistStrategy (London: Verso, 2001),164.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ14This was the case during thestudent protests in France inMay 1968, when the sons anddaughters of the middle classwere subjected to the kind ofviolence that had been visited onAlgerian immigrants and theworking class for many years,occasioning an outragedresponse. A parallel dynamicwas at work in the decision toinvolve high school students inthe marches on Selma in 1965.Images of attacks by Alabamastate troopers on peaceful youngmarchers were widely circulatedin the national media and led towidespread condemnation ofAlabamaÕs state government,and by extension, theinstitutions of Jim Crowsegregation. These reactionsplayed a key role in providingbroad national support for thepassage of the 1965 VotingRights Act. See Robert Mann,The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey,Richard Russell, and the Strugglefor Civil Rights (New York:Harcourt Brace and Company,1996).

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ15Claire Bishop, ÒThe Social Turn:Collaboration and itsDiscontents,Ó Artforum (February2006): 181. With Bishop, theavant-garde commitment toÒdifficultÓ or hermeneuticallyresistant art (previouslyarticulated via a discourse ofabstraction) is transformed into

a commitment to work that isÒdifficultÓ by virtue of itÕsexposure of the viewerÕseconomic or social privilege as aparticipant of the art world.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ16Claire Bishop, ÒAntagonism andRelational Aesthetics,Ó October 110 (Fall 2004): 79. It should benoted here that in this essayBishop fails to account for theevolution of Laclau and MouffeÕsthought since the mid-80s. Inparticular, she ignores the keydistinction Mouffe introducesbetween ÒagonismÓ andÒantagonismÓ beginning in thelate 1990s. As I will suggest, this

distinction has significantimplications for BishopÕs

analysis.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ17CuauhtŽmoc Medina,ÒAduana/Customs,Ó in SantiagoSierra , catalog of the SpanishPavilion, Venice Biennial 2003,curated by Rosa Martinez(Madrid: Ministerio de AsuntosExteriores, Direcci—n General deRelaciones Culturales yCient’ficas/Turner, 2003), 233and 17.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ18Benjamin Bertram notes, ÒForLaclau and Mouffe, the de-centering of the subject is a keymoment in the great modernexpansion of pluralism. Thedeath of ÔManÕ (whichaccompanies the death of thecentered subject), however, doesnot entail the end of humanistvalues. In fact, Laclau andMouffe want to envision a ÔrealhumanismÕ (i.e., a historicizedhumanism).Ó Benjamin Bertram,ÒNew Reflections on theÔRevolutionaryÕ Politics ofErnesto Laclau and ChantalMouffe,Ó boundary 2 22 (Autumn1995): 86.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ19Mouffe writes, ÒAccording to myconception of Ôadversary,Õ andcontrary to the liberal view, thepresence of antagonism is noteliminated but Ôtamed.ÕÓ ChantalMouffe, ÒFor an Agonistic PublicSphere,Ó in Democracy Unrealized: Documenta 1Platform , ed. Okwui Enwezor etal. (Ostfildern-Ruit, Germany:Hatje Cantz Publishers, 2002),91. In their strenuous efforts todifferentiate themselves fromHabermas, Laclau and Mouffeoften rely on a caricaturedportrayal of an ostensiblyhegemonic ÒconsensualÓ modelof democracy, against whichtheir own approach can be seenas constituting a radicalcritique. In practice, however,the difference betweenÒagonisticÓ democracy and thefree exchange of contendingopinions in a Habermasianpublic sphere is minimal.Habermas certainly never claimsthat the result of debate in thepublic sphere is a binding anduniversal consensus, or thatpolitical agents canÕt retain areflective understanding of thecontingent basis of politicalidentity itself. As John Bradynotes, ÒThere are, I think, very

few people who would claim thatcontestation and agonisticpolitical relations are not partand parcel of politics, do notbelong to the very fabric ofpolitical practice. Habermascertainly has never denied this.ÓJohn S. Brady, ÒNo Contest?Assessing the AgonisticCritiques of JŸrgen HabermasÕsTheory of the Public Sphere,ÓPhilosophy and Social Criticism30 (2004): 348.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ20Mouffe, ÒFor an Agonistic PublicSphere,Ó 90.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ21

Ibid. ItÕs unclear how theÒcommon allegiance to É

democratic principlesÓadvocated by Laclau and Mouffedoes not also imply some formof ÒconsensualÓ agreement.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ22Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London: Verso,2005), 19.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ23Slavoj Žižek, ÒHolding thePlace,Ó in Contingency,Hegemony, Universality:

Contemporary Dialogues on theLeft, ed. Judith Butler, ErnestoLaclau, and Slavoj Žižek(London: Verso, 2000), 321.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ24As noted above, the Civil Rightsmovement in the AmericanSouth involved both ÒagonisticÓpolitical action as well as formsof nonviolent protest and violentconfrontation (from the Selmamarches and Freedom Riders tothe use of 23,000 federal troopsto integrate the University ofMississippi by force, leading totwo deaths and hundreds ofserious injuries). The forces ofreaction have, historically, notbeen inclined to adopt a properlyÒironicÓ and reflexiverelationship to political conflict,and it seems highly unlikely thatthey could be brought to do so byexposure to the right kind ofpolitical philosophy.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ25ÒIn fact this has always beentheir role and it is only themodernist illusion of theprivileged position of the artistthat has made us believeotherwise. Once this illusion isabandoned, jointly with therevolutionary conception ofpolitics accompanying it, we cansee that critical artisticpractices represent animportant dimension ofdemocratic politics.Ó ChantalMouffe, ÒArtistic Activism andAgonistic Spaces,Ó Art &Research: A Journal of Ideas,Contexts and Methods 1(Summer 2007): 5.


ÊÊÊÊÊÊ27Ibid., 4. MouffeÕs use of agonismas a model for politicaldiscourse can be read againstRenato PoggioliÕs thoughtfulanalysis of Òagonistic sacrificeÓ

(on behalf of Òthe people,Óposterity, and so forth) as a keycomponent of the modernartistic avant-garde. RenatoPoggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde , trans. GeraldFitzgerald (Cambridge:Belknap/Harvard UniversityPress, 1968), 61Ð77.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ28At the same time, Mouffecharges art with the task ofÒgiving a voice to all those whoare silenced within theframework of the existinghegemony.Ó Thus, art issimultaneously the mechanismby which the repressed will be

brought to consciousness (viathe disclosure of Òthat which

has been repressedÓ) and thechannel by which these sameindividuals will be ÒgivenÓ avoice. This confusion issymptomatic of the tensions Ioutlined earlier in my discussionof vanguard politics. Mouffe,ÒArtistic Activism and AgonisticSpaces,Ó 4Ð5.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ29An instructive comparison canbe made here between OccupyWall Street (OWS), which is at

this stage only very looselyorganized, and the extremelydisciplined command structureof the Republican Party and itÕsaffiliated ÒactivistsÓ in theUnited States. A typical exampleis the REDMAP Project(REDistricting Majority Project)of the Republican StateLeadership Council, which isdeveloping a set of coordinatedstrategies to exploit the re-districting process in order toensure Republican dominationeven in states with Democraticmajorities. The far right wing inthe United States hasconsistently exhibited asophisticated understanding ofthe interrelated mechanisms oflocal, regional and nationalgovernance at both the symbolicand the institutional level,extending to active involvementin school board and town councilelections. This Òground upÓactivism, combined with a wellcoordinated system of messagecontrol and a centralizednational leadership, has led tothe creation of a formidablepolitical machine that has beenable to secure remarkablywidespread support amongworking-class and lower middle-class voters for a pro-corporatistmessage in the midst of themost severe economic downturnsince the Great Depression. Thepervasive success of thismachine makes the ability of theOWS movement to mobilize apassionate, albeit unfocused,resistance to capitalism all themore remarkable.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ30Bishop disparages Òthe ethics ofauthorial renunciation,Ó whichshe associates withcollaborative art practices.Bishop, ÒThe Social Turn,Ó 181.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ31The preceding quotes are allfrom ÒThe Social Turn,Ó 180Ð181.

Bishop complains elsewhere ofcriticism in which ÒAuthorialintentionality is privileged over adiscussion of the worksÕconceptual significance as asocial and aesthetic form ÉEmphasis is shifted from thedisruptive specificity of a givenwork and onto a generalized setof moral precepts.Ó Ibid., 181.Bishop appears to confuse thefact that some artists have amore reflective or criticalrelationship to conventions ofartistic agency with an absoluteabandonment of theprerogatives of authorship intoto . Most contemporary artistswho work through a

collaborative or collectiveprocess donÕt do so because of

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

1 5 / 1 6

01.12.12 / 17:29:02 EST

8/2/2019 article_8946464


their allegiance to an abstractmoral principle, but becausethey find that these processesresult in more interesting andchallenging projects, or provideforms of insight that aredifferent from those generatedby singular forms of expression.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ32ÒSierraÕs action disrupted the artaudienceÕs sense of identity,which is founded precisely onunspoken racial and class

exclusions, as well as veilingblatant commerce.Ó Bishop,ÒAntagonism and RelationalAesthetics,Ó 73.


ÊÊÊÊÊÊ34Julia Austin, ÒTrauma,Antagonism, and the Bodies ofOthers: A Dialogue on DelegatedPerformance,Ó PerformanceParadigm 5 (May 2009): 4. Seehttp://www.performanceparadigm.net/category/journal/issu e-5.1/.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ35While Bishop applauds Sierra forevoking a sense of Òliberal guiltÓin the viewer, she also praisesartists such as Jeremy Deller,Phil Collins, and Christian Hšllerfor not making Òthe ÔcorrectÕethical choice É instead they acton their desire without theincapacitating restrictions ofguilt.Ó Bishop, ÒThe Social Turn:Collaboration and itsDiscontents,Ó 183. Thedistinction here is clear. Whilethe artist may have transcendedthe humanist burden of Òguilt,Óthe viewer has not.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ35See Grant Kester, The One andthe Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a GlobalContext (Duke University Press,2011).

e - f l u

x j o u r n a l # 3 1

Ñ j a n u a r y

2 0 1 2 G r a n t K e s t e r

T h e

S o u n

d o

f B r e a

k i n g

G l a s s ,

P a r t

I I : A g o n

i s m a

n d t h e

T a m

i n g o

f D i s s e n

t

1 6 / 1 6

article_8946464

Documents