Gregory Sholette, ‘Disciplining the Avant-Garde’

Gregory Sholette does an interesting job detailing aspects of the relationship between art and government. In particular, his focus is on how certain producers or products of art are deemed either acceptable or not acceptable according to the government philosophy at the time. Writing from an American point of view, Sholette certainly has ample examples to illustrate the lengths to which a government will go in order to maintain order in the name of freedom and democracy.
Sholette highlights a fascinating development that occurred in the 1960s, when counter-cultural symbols were co-opted and sold back to the public by corporate America. Consumers were now able to buy not just products but an ‘alternative’ and ‘individual’ lifestyle. In the 1980s, a similar development followed on from this, whereby corporate management strategies adopted “experimental, avant-garde and even critical forms of culture.” (Shollete, p12) Employees, in offices potentially decorated with contemporary art, were encouraged to think ‘creatively’ in their new role as managers of their own self-gratifying activity. Keeping employees ‘happy’ was the key, “at least as long as happy-work leads to a product worthy of profitable exchange.” (Sholette, p11) Obviously this only describes the situation for a certain group of people, but it is nevertheless a disconcerting occurrence. Sholette points to a correlation between open and flexible management ideology and ‘tactical media’, the process by which amateurs or outsiders can exploit advancements in technology (cheap consumer-level electronics and expanded forms of distribution) to express their disenchantment with the wider culture. Both modes of being break the rules of engagement in an attempt to secure their own place in the world.
The underlying theme here is the lack of distinction between work and play, products and culture, and the ability of institutions to absorb any critique levelled against them. That any clear distinction between these poles ever existed is a debatable issue. Foucault would argue, via his account of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, that every subject embodies the means with which they remain under the rule of those with governmental power. However, it seems the concern now is that there exists a great similarity between the activities of those with power and those without, making any subversive activities harder to maintain.

References

Gregory Sholette, ‘Disciplining the Avant-Garde: the United States versus The Critical Art Ensemble’, in CIRCA: Contemporary Visual Culture In Ireland 112, Summer 2005, pp50-59