London

Art in Ruins

Gimpel Fils

Political art does not exist, unless one’s conception of the political either features the sign as the agency of social change, or privileges the acquisition of information as a kind of political consciousness. Representations in art of the political, however, abound. It is precisely the willful confusion of these two registers—coupled with and fortified by the institutionalized separation of art and social practice—that sustains and legitimizes the practice of so-called political art.

The critical and curatorial celebrations of such art generally suppress the difficult and embarrassing contradictions that sustain the fallacy that esthetic form plus political content necessarily yield a political effect. Theodor Adorno already saw that art in capitalist society is ambiguous; it is at once a negation and an affirmation of the social world that gave it voice. Herbert Marcuse suggested that

Sign-in to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. Please sign in below.

Not registered for artforum.com? Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW and save up to 65% off the newsstand price for full online access to this issue and our archive.

Order the PRINT EDITION of the September 1991 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.