"I want an art more complicated than that"

The class discussion on the Dustin Kidd article "Harry Potter and the Function of Pop Culture" reminded me of a poem I had read for class a few years ago entitled "Jerk" by poet Jeff Derksen which was originally published in his book Transnational Muscle Cars, so I wanted to share it.

--

Jerk (from Transnational Muscle Cars) by Jeff Derksen

The sun glints off the chrome

bodies of the gondolas

of late capitalism

as they labour up the mountain.

The mountain is named

after a commodity. Art has made this

a nonalienated view. Is that what

we asked it to do? If "each day seems

like a natural fact" and if "and what we think

changes how we act" should art not

reveal ideology

rather than naturalize it?

These old idealisms, they burn me up

These old idealisms, what do they cover up?

You had a lovely critique

and you looked great, sexy

really, the way your world-market

pants might shock the bourgeoisie

into consciousness. But these days

I'm yearning not for a little outside

to call my own, although I like good

design too and do feel that the "workers"

(morphed "multitude") also live

outside of quotation marks

in this "the highest stage"--

but now I'm wanting transformation

rather than "structural adjustment"

to go with the primitive accumulation

and worn contradictions. Not more

of these natural facts ("globalization is").

But back to this "ocular centric" art

as social goggles, the artist as

ophthalmologist. I want to see

the real relations

but you've got Nikes on and I like you

so I have to try and understand. And if

that shirt's from The Gap, then one arm was sewn

in Malaysia, the other in Sri Lanka. Why then

is it hard to "see" ideology when you're

wearing it? Is it "out there"? Or deeper inside

than even desire could get? That clarity

would lead to historical consciousness

is muddied to the point

where you wouldn't even recognize

your buddies once you got there. "Hey you

Louis!" (There is history

to spontaneity, anger, irony.)

"People have opinions / where

do they come from?" My idealistic belief

is that historical consciousness may come.

My sad cognitive mapping

is that over determined contradictions

don't lead to new social relations.

I want an art

more complicated than that.

--

Can art be more complicated than it is right now? We live in an age where discussing if art is really "Art" has become part of the accepted social dialogue. You can walk into any museum anywhere, and find people gathered around a very non-traditional post-modern work, and they will be discussing why and if it should even be considered art in the first place.

Pop culture "art"  I believe does become our "ophthalmologist" and our historian (and I do stipulate that I believe that most pop culture falls into the category of art - no matter what we think of its overall value to society). Art may not look like it did 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, but it becomes our windows to the world and the reflection of our society. The subway art of Keith Haring in the 1990s promoted activism through art and gave a voice to a group of people whose needs were not being addressed due to the social stigma of their disease. This is not so different from what Michelangelo accomplished in painting the Sistine Chapel, providing a pictorial reference of the Old Testament for people to draw from and reflect on.

I think art used to be something much more comfortable for people  to define before everything moved into digital and buyable - art was found in museums or parlours, it was played in theatres and concert halls, it was written by great men and women and had an aura of sophistication.  Art now seems kind of gritty in comparison. It does not always reflect a skilled hand (although many artists, even those who produce the most crude looking art, often are very skilled in their craft), and it not always subject matter we are comfortable confronting - does this make it any less valuable?

Kidd, when considering the Harry Potter novels notes that if there is any kind of social change that will be brought about by the Harry Potter novels, maybe "...this change will effect the removal of the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate culture, such that novels like Harry Potter will be appreciated within the institutions of legitimate culture without losing their popular status." I think this would be a fantastic thing - why should we restrict what we will consider art, and why should big "A" Art only be for the elite?