Abstract
This article responds to the critique of Marxist thought in Alana Jelinek's This Is Not Art. Jelinek's aversion to theorising capitalism as a mode of production leads to limitations in how we push forward the compelling arguments advanced in her book about the supposedly a priori politicised nature of what the author describes as ‘lifelike art’. In particular, I propose that the concepts of hegemony, ideology and fetish are missing in her account in favour of an emphasis on power. These concepts, alongside dialectical thinking, can help us grasp what is specific about the present moment in which we see an increasing tendency within ‘lifelike art’ to embrace not only the state but also the market and capital more generally. Against Jelinek's vitalist emphasis on disciplinarity, however, I suggest that the analysis of artworks in our current moment necessitates a certain level of negative thinking. Not a negativity centred on the kind of dualistic antagonism derided in This Is Not Art, but rather one centred on a recognition that the meaning in emphasising art's self-consciousness, or self-critique, lies in the possibility this offers for reminding us of the current limitations to life.
Notes on contributor
Larne Abse Gogarty is a London-based writer and researcher currently completing a PhD at University College London (UCL) on the history of community art and collective practice in the USA. Larne is a convenor of the Marxism in Culture seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, and a member of the steering committee for the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Art at UCL. She has recently presented her research at the Associations of Art Historians conference, the Historical Materialism and the Radical Americas conference, and has forthcoming articles in Object journal and Historical Materialism. Larne also regularly writes criticism and features for Art Monthly. She has taught at UCL, and previously worked at Artangel and no.w.here.