A letter to a friend in philosophy.

I-

Went to this "Art and Politics" symposium last night at -------. Four faculty members representing different disciplines spoke: one lit, one art history, one philosophy, one music. The lit guy named --------- spoke about Adorno's aesthetic theory which I haven't read but would now like to. The philosophy professor chose a few different works of art to present because of their cleverness that was intended to induce an "Ahha!" response from the crowd. It sickened me so much I couldn't go to my night class. He bemoaned "identity", "singularity", "specificity", and "isolation" and called for a new "collectivity" that wouldn't be homogenizing. What upset me about this was (1) its utopian horizon, and lack of practical political response, and (2) its vagueness.

If art talks about politics, it can be vague, because often it will be trying to express ideas (or ideals) yet to be seen. Art's purpose however is not explicitally functional in the way, say, legislative deliberation is. But when politics describes itself (as this philosophy professor was doing) it cannot be as imaginatively utopian, and vaguely expressive. If this was the case, we lose control of our political ends, and resort to describing (I think, in this prof's terms) a "hole"; an unimaginable space of non-homogenizing collectivity, respecting specific identities. This "politics" ceases to be politics. Poltics is concerned with the functional, and practical aspects of social organization. The moment the language of politics attempts to replace art, it becomes an altogether different animal, perhaps coming closer to literature. This is fine, as long as this form of political speech recognizes itself for what it is; rhetoric that is not properly speaking political, but is emotionally evocative, and artistically imaginative.

Love you,

Acid Reflux is playing tomorrow and I'll have no one to go with :(.

-C