1. Sam

    Spot on. However, is there anything to be frightened of?

    All this trite PR babble is clearly nonsense to anyone literate in the academic fields these hacks are mining. Yet it’s so parasitic and substance-free I don’t see how it could, in the end, influence anyone’s thinking about anything. These writings don’t constitute thoughts and have no real world application. It’s like trying to buy something with Monopoly money.

  2. Kat

    Sam caught it: Monopoly money. But Parsons is a big name with a real reputation. That’s kinda scary in itself.

  3. formerartstudent

    True, this probably doesn’t change what anyone thinks. Problem is, there are enough people out there—in academia—who already think this way. And are willing to fund the stuff. It is the kind of thing that gets grant money.

  4. Ivy

    Monopoly money buys things. It shouldn’t but it does. At least in art circles. Grant givers love anything called “radical speech.” It lets art bureaucrats pretend they are on the barricades.

  5. Sam

    All good points.

    When I say this empty language has no influence, I am noting how it trails and feeds off “real” academic disciplines, usually a half-generation too late. If anyone at Parsons associated with this show has waded through John Searle’s work on speech act theory I’ll eat my shorts.

    When I say “in the real world” I mean “outside the art world.” Art departments and museums will host performance and installation art because those “disciplines” are inherently dependent on a host. It’s a self-serving arrangement between the artist and institution. Art that can be commodified need not apply. It will be in people’s homes where it will last much longer than ephemeral stunts at Parson’s no one will remember except the vain curator and artists.

Comments are closed.