Tuesday, 12 October 2010

touched by fire...administration


The bureaucracy within the institutions which makes the Cultural Industries have acclimatised themselves,and,wholeheartedly embraced the totalising language of the Market place,and in so doing have debased the "artist" of her/his Socratic right-to reject conformity,inevitability and unoriginality. There are no democratic choice systems within the market ideology.The essence of the marketplace and its ideology is essentialist,which effectively denies the possibility of engagement and its proximity to real change.People,or,customers/consumers,are subordinate to its temptations which,in turn,gives force to the authoritarian nature of the system and creates the illusion of democratic participation.

The Cultural Industries have nothing to do with creative discipline, but every thing to do with power.Power starts from a defined system which denies the anarchic scope of creativity.No matter what it says in its defence, the industry and its bureaucrats fail to embrace the actual chaos which emanates from the process of creativity and experimentation.It only real concern is the normalisation of difference..Its reality is a system which beneath the ornamentation offers only a standardised,monitored,streamlined attraction more suited to entertainment and immediate sensation rather the disruption of the"now".

The "now" creativity desires the acceptance of the new establishment and the new elites.Of course,the deeper understanding of the terminology associated with "establishment has been debased by a language of over use and attraction.We have a tendency to re brand meanings in order to justify the existence of individuals or groups who are in power at any given period,most notably those individuals we envy the most.

The idea of the "establishment"is concerned less with the actual exercises of power than with the the established bodies of prevailing opinion which powerfully, and not openly,influence its exercise to exist.The "establishment"is not a power elite in the imagined terms of its impact on our envy.If its members have any connections with power blocks in culture or society,it is not these connections which give them their particular influence. If they represent actual interests,it is not their representation of these interests which make them members of the "establishment". Indeed I would go so far as to suggest is that the one significant fact about the "establishment" is that it represents nothing in the national life.It as its roots in no class,gender or race;it responds to no deep seated national instinct.It is this rootlessness which is seen by its defenders as its main virtue, and by its opponents as its most distressing fault.Its defenders have of course found a euphemism for this rootlessness:they refer to it as disinterestedness.It must be disinterested,they argue,because it represents nothing.

No comments:

Post a Comment