Guaraná Power hangover? Superflex review in LA Times.

Christopher Knight slams the Superflex show at REDCAT in the LA Times, essentially saying Superflex engages in the dull turf of Corporate Conceptualism and "offers nothing to think about."

I can't help but wonder: did Christopher wake up with a mind-clouding Guaraná Power hangover, or is he simply drunk off old-fashioned notions of art?

Christopher finds Superflex to be socially productive, agreeing with their politics, but seems to have no place for this in his purely aesthetic conception of art. The days when humanities were for generating thoughts and artists for generating aesthetic objects has long disappeared, and in doing so has opened up new territories for thinking, reflection, and socially relevant art.

Superflex, and etoy for that matter, is located somewhere in this context, providing ideas about ways in in which we can use existing social machines (corporations, structures) to organize and generate social differences while also accepting them. Failure to recognize this model seems to be a failure to understand the chaos of contemporary culture and the possible role of art within it.

Perhaps, in the end, its Christopher Knight's article that offers nothing to think about. He has his opinions, but what about ideas? Ideas are mobile. We can work with those.



No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post. twisting values since 1994