paul jackson | culture and postmodernity

paul jackson | culture and postmodernity | June 2008

I’m drawing a blank on where to engage with all this, so perhaps I will take on [i.e. rant about] the debate rather than the content of an article. I may just be tired at the time of writing this, but I find “debates” like this exhausting. Summary in cartoon form...

Harvey: “Capitalism and class is the most important thing. Always. Marx called this long ago.”
Response: “Oh Harvey, you just don’t understand. We already do what you say we need to do, and we go further!”

Harvey stuck his neck out with Condition, he wrote the book quickly and found it easy, it is not so surprising that he didn’t do a good job, made mistakes, and talked beyond his expertise. When you write outside your safe zone, you are open for attack and that should be expected. He is writing about art and post-modernism, not his strong points, and of course he is going to examine them from a Marxist framework, he’s a Marxist.

Is Harvey a sexist? Yeah.
Did Harvey just not get the art? Yep.
Is all art a commodity? Yes.
Is art more than a commodity? Yes.
Is capitalism necessary to tackle? If you think the status quo need to be changed, yes.
Are cultural products a way to tackle the status quo and a window to understanding capitalism? Yes.
After this exchange is Harvey more aware of his sexism? Probably.
What are the material/daily life/social practices products of “culture” debates?...

To me, and maybe I’m just really jaded, the culture-economy debate seems only seems to produce an increase in the number of articles. Throughout I get the feeling of ‘pick a side’, which seems counter-productive. What are the stakes of this debate? Why is it so heated? It feels like an exchange of “I’m right” versus “No, I’m right.” There seems to be a lot of talking past each other. No one seems to do very generous reading of any texts. Both sides work in more external critiques, rather than internal critiques. Both sides say to the other: ‘if you had only read this, it would make a lot more sense’. But the critique that if only Harvey had read these authors then he would understand. No one can read anything. This writing against seems like such a waste of energy. When now, and at the time of this specific debate, conservatism and neoliberalism keeps growing.

Okay, if the contentious part is of Harvey, along with Jameson, is “postmodernism is nothing more than the cultural logic of late capitalism”, what does that mean? Let me try to take this apart. I’m being extremely generous and general, but I think it is safe to say most producers of po-mo art and thought are aware they exist in a capitalist world. Also none of these producers think they appear ready-made without influences or working outside or against traditions and they present social and political position. Alternately, the Marxist read of the “logic” of capitalism as obviously political and part of social relations (which includes art and culture). The hinge of the debate seems to be around the “nothing more”, but neither side, when pressed would say either a commodity or a piece of art is only one thing.

[I also think part of me that is frustrated is that now this po-mo art movement of the 80s is taught as a historical period in art schools…Are we in the same place?]


But is the point of contention around culture or art? Or is it really how Harvey (aka Marxism) can not or will not incorporate gender, race, ability, post colonial…what later Harvey smushes together as the politics of difference.

Was this exchange productive? For Harvey, I think it was, it seems to be as he tries to engage with these topics in later writing.
Anyway, I have to say in terms of transformative documents (be that a painting, novel, theory, books, song) rather than say transformative moments (social and political practices, daily life, work relations), I was more inspired, provoked, challenged, and learned more about class relations, relations of power, the politics of difference, the politics of space, from this play, than anything I have read by David Harvey:

Small Metal Objects
http://www.nowtoronto.com/stage/story.cfm?content=161376

“The Toronto production’s taking place at the Eaton Centre, in the big area outside the south entrance to Sears. As it’s been throughout the show’s two-and-a-half-year globe-trotting history, the effect is coloured by whatever space it’s performed in and the people watching.

In the show, the two corporate slicksters try to coerce Gary and Steve to hand over the drugs, and use every financial, verbal – and in the case of the female character, sexual – trick to do it.

The audience confronts power, money and friendship up close and personal. And we’re implicated, too. Seated in a formal raised seating area with those headphones, we can hear what the miked actors are saying. But passers-by are just as curious about us as they are about the four people intermingling among them.

“There are two narratives that play out,” explains Bruce Gladwin, the company’s artistic director and director of this show. He’s tall, lanky and laid-back, like an Aussie Lyle Lovett. I can easily see him having the patience and openness to deal with actors of different capabilities.

“There’s the narrative between the four actors, with a somewhat traditional script, and the narrative that’s played out between the audience and the general public. Power keeps shifting. Sometimes the power sits with the audience, who can feel quite confident and comfortable. But then someone will come up to you and ask what you’re looking at. And the same thing happens in the script. You’re never sure who’s in control of the situation, the two dealers or the buyers.”

The fact that two of the show’s characters are played by intellectually challenged actors ups the stakes. But this isn’t a gimmick.”