So continuing the post about “Leyenda Negra” I met with a good friend of mine, Edwin at his house on Friday, and brought my friend Craig (the one with the glass). 
Here’s what Mr. Clark had to say about Utopia…
“Utopia is a mental concept which to make real has to assume identity to be recognized, meaning to appear in mind as there the then moment would be Utopian and subject immediately to change, which results in the reality being non-Utopian as the result of action. One could say the introduction of time is Utopian, but the immediate moment passing destroys the Utopian essence of time. Time reveals all things in inspection to be flawed except ART. ART is then perserved. The real World is subject to criticism so it can progress. This progress is seen to be flawed in an endless process that essentially never reaches Utopia as an appearance or is NIHILISM. Utopia is the Modern Myth that governs the Enlightenment and Liberal thought. Utopia cannot appear, CANNOT REACH RECOGNITION IN BEING. This imaginary concept, known as Liberal thought, finds itself outside the ruling principle of understanding the time the persona is in as real time in perception beyond technical processes, which essentially do not express time but are continuous within fixed parameters of thought. Science, therefore, does not progress and is the Modern Illusion of progress. Science is the expression of the Illusion of progress. The conception of Utopia cannot be, therefore cannot ground the Human mind in reality as action. The conception of the moment offers progress.”
To me the most important part is the last statement about the conception of the moment. Specifically I find it cripling to fathom the potential for annihilation in the world today, and that, to me, is why political art (when it’s only a political statement) fails.
Political art is easy when it’s a knee-jerk reaction to go against whatever it’s protesting. Would it be fair to say that the great majority of general artwork is political in its creation? I really like the article on Paul Chan in Art Forum in the summer issue…
“Collective social power needs the language of politics, which means, among other things, that people need to consolidate identities, to provide answers…to make things happen. Whereas my art is nothing if not the dispersion of power…And so, in a way, the political project and the art project are sometimes in opposition.”
Scott Rothkopf, the interviewer, is also clear to point out…”Surely we could draw a line between his video installations and his on-the-ground involvement with certain activist groups…The point, then, is not so much to delimit the aesthetic and the political but rather to relish the productve possibilities of their mutual contimination.”
Mr. Rothkopf really hits it out of the park there with the sweet-sassy-mo-lassy pop of an art critic on his “A-game”. So when is it ok to have that “art as life” intent…that’s something for the next post.