Back and forth: culture war

This is a series of letters between Jason Walsh and Finbar Rosato, in response to Re-imaging modernism by Walsh and Art is always in a state of flux by Rosato.

All of the letters to date are collected here

Dear Finbar,

In your response to my analysis of ‘altermodern’ (forth, October 16, 2009) you effectively accuse me of philistinism while at the same time somehow being an elitist schooled in an outmoded modernism.

It seems to me your understanding of my argument is rather confused, on the one hand accusing me of rank populism while also implying that I am responsible for, or at least in support of, ‘wordy manifestos’ on the nature of art.

I will put aside your claim that I made sweeping generalisations except to say that such is the nature of journalism: my job is not to record every minute detail but, rather, to nail a story.

The ability to discriminate is one of the key characteristics of humanity – it is central to what it is to be a rational, thinking human subject. The fact that the art world has undermined its own ability to develop even the most inchoate set of criteria for making qualitative judgements is not my fault but the fact that I am able to call some works of art bad does not make me ignorant.

I note that you did not engage with the specific works that I mentioned in the article, namely Marc Quinn’s statute of Alison Lapper and Anthony Gormley’s stunt of putting people on the plinth. I therefore challenge you to write a cogent defence of Gormley’s effort as a work of art rather than an entertaining public spectacle. Indeed, it is my contention that the entire fourth plinth project is a telling example of a culture that is so brittle and unsure of itself that it can say nothing nor offer anything worthy of permanence.

You say, “Pluralistic and global are not dirty words and no-one should be fighting to hold onto the position as arbiter of absolute cultural value.” I say pluralistic and global are weasel words and culture can – and should – be judged by anyone. After all, the central idea of ‘culture’ in today’s politicised art is a lie and multiculturalism is even more craven and patronising.

As for ‘alter-modern’, I hold no brief for Bourriaud and agree with you that the entire phenomenon appears to be lacking in depth. Nevertheless, I am guilty as charged of holding what you call, “a kind of simplistic argument that art and it’s development is a kind of never-ending struggle of dynamic opposites.” I’m hardly the first to suggest that society develops in such a manner and would point you to the works of the Old Dead German interred in Highgate. After all, art, as with all cultural products, is a result of social relationships. Ironically it is you that bemoans the involvement of money in your rarefied sphere – at least I, crude Marxist that I may be, would leave art to whims of market forces as a way of seeing how some qualitative judgements can be made. People of the world: abolish the arts council, they have nothing to do but waste your money.

I submit to you that your defence of art amounts to special pleading, based on the fact that it is not only your chosen profession but also a central aspect of your being. As for me? Well, as Herbert Read wrote, albeit in a different context: to hell with culture.

Yours etc.,
Jason Walsh