Vanguardia: Socially engaged art and theory

Vanguardia

Vanguardia

Socially engaged art and theory

Marc James Léger

Manchester University Press

Copyright © Marc James Léger 2019

The right of Marc James Léger to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by Manchester University Press

Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 5261 3489 9 hardback

First published 2019

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset in 10.5 on 12.5 pt Bembo Std Regular by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction: a thousand contradictions

1  Alter-globalisation, revolutionary movement and the state mode of production

2  A brief history of Occupy Wall Street

3  Vanguardia

4  Psychoprotest: dérives of the Quebec Maple Spring

5  The unrealised extravagance of the avant garde: Test Dept and the subsumption of labour

6  No strawman for the revolution

7  Beyond socially enraged art

8  The only game in town

Notes

Index

Acknowledgements

The chapters of this book cover a range of social, political and intellectual phenomena that have affected and informed cultural production since the early 2000s. In particular, the advent of social practice or socially engaged art encapsulates the sense that postmodern theory and culture wars were not adequate responses to the crises of global capitalism. As cultural research on the left, this book does not present the various reasons why, to cite Clement Greenberg’s famous claim in ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch,’ socialism is the best means to keep modernist culture moving, but rather, in neoliberal times, the ways in which contemporary culture is able or not to sustain the vision of a world beyond capitalism. This book is dedicated to the comradely encouragement of those people who have helped me make a small contribution to this end.

My deepest gratitude goes to Cayley Sorochan for her cheerful companionship and support over the years. During the Quebec student strike, Cayley and I formed the Badiou-Žižek book bloc, a unit of two in a sea of red militancy. My affections also extend to my dearest friend, Rosika Desnoyers, with whom I have had the pleasure to discuss my ideas and research. Thanks are due to the many people who have been involved in one way or another with the original publication of the texts in this book, in particular Claude Lacroix, Oliver Ressler, Vicky Chainey-Gagnon, Jennifer Gradecki, Karen van Meenen, Gregory Sholette, Deborah Fisher, Benjamin Fraser, Alexei Monroe, Imanol Galfaroso, Sean Sayers, Jorinde Seijdel and Sven Lütticken. Special thanks go to Emma Brennan and Manchester University Press for their support of this publication. A word of appreciation also goes to the artists and designers who generously contributed their visual works to this project: Bruce Barber, Gregory Sholette, Oliver Ressler, Petra Gerschner, John Jordan/The Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army, Occupy Together, David Shankbone/Occupy Wall Street Creative Commons Project, Jeremy Deller, Phil Collins, Designers United, Brian Layng, Adam Turl, Guy Debord, G.U.L.F., Janez Janša, Janez Janša, Janez Janša, Winnie Wong, sub Rosa, Institute for Applied Autonomy, École de la Montagne Rouge, Critical Art Ensemble, Brett Turnbull/Test Dept, Strike Debt Bay Area/Sandy Sanders, PublixTheatreCaravan, Not An Alternative, Thierry Geoffroy, Isaac Julien, Oree Originol, Shepard Fairey/Amplifier and Jonas Staal/Artist Organisations International.

The following credits the original place of publication for those texts that are reproduced in whole in this volume. A shorter version of ‘Alter-globalisation, revolutionary movement and the state mode of production’ is published in the catalogue A World Where Many Worlds Fit/Un monde dans lequel plusieurs mondes s’inscrivent (Lennoxville: Foreman Art Gallery/Bishop’s University, 2010). A short version of ‘A brief history of Occupy Wall Street’was published as ‘Leftist Notes on Occupy Wall Street’ in the online catalogue for the 2012 exhibition Capital Offense: The End(s) of Capitalism. The chapter ‘Vanguardia’ is comprised of previously published book reviews: ‘Art and Activism in Parallax,’ a book review of Gerald Raunig’s Art and Revolution: Transversal Activism in the Long Twentieth Century (2007) and BAVO’s Cultural Activism Today: The Art of Over-Identification (2007) was published in Art Journal 68:3 (Fall 2009): 108–11; ‘Revenge of the Surplus,’ a review of Gregory Sholette’s Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture (2011) was published in Monthly Review 63:8 (January 2012): 58–63; the review of Gregory Sholette and Oliver Ressler, eds. It’s the Political Economy, Stupid: The Global Financial Crisis in Art and Theory (2013) was published in Afterimage 40:6 (May/June 2013): 37–8; ‘Avant-Garde vs. Collaborative Art,’ a review of Grant H. Kester’s The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context (2011) was published in Afterimage 39:6 (May/June 2012): 38–9; the review of Critical Art Ensemble, Disturbances (2012), was published in C Magazine #117 (2013): 56–7; the review of Nato Thompson’s Seeing Power: Art and Activism in the 21st Century (2015) was published in Afterimage 43:4 (Jan/Feb 2016): 40–1; the review of Yates McKee’s Strike Art: Contemporary Art and the Post-Occupy Condition (2015) was published online at Marx and Philosophy Review of Books (17 April 2016), as were the reviews of Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen’s Crisis to Insurrection: Notes on the Ongoing Collapse (2015) (27 November 2015) and Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt’s To Defend the Revolution Is to Defend Culture (2015) (17 March 2016). ‘Psychoprotest: dérives of the Quebec Maple Spring’ was co-written by myself and Cayley Sorochan and published in Benjamin Fraser, ed. Marxism and Urban Culture (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2014), 89–111. ‘The unrealised extravagance of the avant garde: Test Dept and the subsumption of labour’ is a review of Graham Cunnington, Angus Farquhar and Paul Jamrozy, Test Dept: Total State Machine (Bristol: PC Press, 2015) that was originally published as ‘Maximalism on a Scale You Rarely See’ in the electronic journal PDF 2 (2015). ‘No strawman for the revolution’ was originally published in the International Journal of Žižek Studies 10:3 (2016): 1–27, and ‘Beyond socially enraged art’ was published online in Open! Platform for Art, Culture & the Public Domain (27 October 2015). A few lines are also drawn from my article, ‘Democracy Without Guarantees,’ published in esse: arts + opinions 92 (Winter 2018): 11–13.

Introduction: a thousand contradictions

What can culture contribute to radical political practice in the age of global markets, neoliberal austerity, neo-imperial militarism and environmental end times? Advocates of socially engaged art and art activism want to do something to change the world and not passively contemplate all of life’s contradictions. The keyword and the modus operandi of social change today is not the political party but the activist network, the ad hoc involvement of participants around a pressing social problem, who later recombine around other issues. Everything else in the world of museums, biennials, art fairs and auction houses seems to amount to little more than institutional and economic power affirming the status quo. But project work and activism is difficult to sustain without some kind of institutional support, least of all financial resources. A sign of the times is a June 2017 proposal by a New York state congresswoman to provide $10,000 of student loan forgiveness to cultural workers who provide social services to children, adolescents and seniors. Another is a graduate programme in social practice art at a university in Indiana that teaches courses in ‘social entrepreneurship.’ If the neo-avant gardes were sublated by the culture industry, social aesthetics are embedded in neoliberalism’s precarisation of life and labour. This process of recuperation is most evident in relational aesthetics, with its transformation of the relations between people into relations between people as art things. It is less obvious, however, in the case of art actions that are organised by leftist activists who know all too well what they are up against. The challenge for socially engaged art, as it vies with other kinds of art practice, is to be able to engage not only with social contexts but to challenge capitalist social relations. From a Marxist perspective, what, we might ask, is the class function of socially engaged art in today’s global neoliberal regimes? The political imaginary of progressive academics and art institutions responds positively to new art practices that propose ameliorative solutions to local problems and empowerment for minority constituencies, especially as such practices correspond to the non-ideological, horizontalist and participatory ethos of social movements. Moving away from big ideological struggles towards micropolitical social change, art activism threatens to supplement rather than challenge neoliberal governance. The neoliberal project emerged in the 1970s as a business-led effort to reorganise power around the interests of capital and at the expense of labour and the vestiges of the welfare state. While the rhetoric of neoliberalism promotes free markets and free trade, the corporate state subsidises capital and supports monopoly power.¹ Just as neoliberal government policy destroys social programmes and social safety nets by orienting these towards market calculation, and just as it undermines unionised work through privatisation, outsourcing, offshoring and flexibilisation, it calls on virtuous citizens and groups to fill in the cracks that it otherwise pushes more and more people into. In the context of the real subsumption of labour in advanced post-Fordist economies, the field of culture is today a paradoxical component of this system of lived domination. Whether one wishes to accelerate this process or slow it down, it seems inescapable.

Vanguardia makes the case for a renewed avant-garde praxis in the fields of both art and politics. In the relative absence of an organised, effective and democratically-based left, the task of the avant garde is to elucidate the contemporary workings of capital and to support the existing forms of progressive cultural and political expression, however weak and disoriented they may be. Vanguardism is work in leftist militancy. It is neither high theory, produced by the ‘traditional’ intellectual in their so-called ivory tower, nor is it simply ‘organic’ grassroots pragmatism, defined solely by fieldwork with people who are otherwise too busy with projects to question the broader effectiveness of their work. Socially engaged art and theory is autonomous in the sense that it is not always immediately useful, yet it constitutes engaged praxis by providing concepts and works with which to makes sense of our predicament.

Written between the years 2010 and 2018, the texts assembled in this book are militant cultural research undertaken after the recent ‘communist turn,’ which is informed by such eventful broadsides as Alain Badiou’s The Return of History and Slavoj Žižek’s The Year of Dreaming Dangerously.² The substance of such so-called ‘post-Marxism,’ and indeed, of the intellectual influence of Žižek and Badiou, is privileged in these pages over liberal-left, micropolitical, schizo-anarchist, identitarian and countercultural trends in contemporary art and politics. Addressing the political and cultural movements that coalesced around anti-globalisation protest and the ‘movements of the squares’ in Greece, Spain, Egypt, Brazil and the United States, Vanguardia detracts from a moribund ‘end of ideology’ postmodernism and relates the new contestatory forms of engaged culture to what Peter Bürger refers to as the unrealised extravagance of the avant garde.³ The work of Žižek and Badiou in particular is singular in its rethinking of the main categories of the political left, especially as work that has been produced after post-structuralism became the dominant trend in progressive academia. This work allows contemporary theory and practice to remain connected with the radical past while at the same time challenging the more deterministic aspects of today’s new materialisms and theoretical immanentism. My political outlook is nevertheless committed to a left ecumenism. It is clear that in terms of most major struggles we are comrades, despite our myriad differences and social contexts. While the goal for us must be to increase our ranks, rather than fight one another, we must do so as leftists. The stakes of this book are therefore defined by the potential for a renewed vanguard militancy in both art and politics.

The ideology of the avant garde

The countercultural spleen of the nineteenth-century bohemian avant garde has now become an integral aspect of today’s administration of cultural markets and creative industries. In my essay titled ‘Welcome to the Cultural Goodwill Revolution,’ published in Brave New Avant Garde, I argued that what Pierre Bourdieu had defined as the dispositions, or class habitus, of the French petty bourgeoisie in the 1970s has today become the dominant class habitus.⁴ The function of autonomous art and aesthetic disinterestedness, as defined by bourgeois ideology, shifts with the petty-bourgeois disposition to that of allodoxia, which is based on the anxious consumption of culture as a mark of distinction, which is then transposed to worry about class mobility and the obsession with lifestyling. For Bourdieu, the petty-bourgeois habitus emphasises the anti-hierarchical, anti-authority and anti-bourgeois motifs of the counterculture, with an emphasis on the euphemisation of avant-garde seriousness, psychological therapy, an imperative of sexual relation, the taste for the new, new media, the fun ethic and distance from market forces.⁵ I combined Bourdieu’s Marxist sociology of class dispositions with Bürger’s historicised model of the development of the bourgeois ideology of aesthetic autonomy and added to it a new phase that might help us think about the class function of contemporary culture.⁶ In the shift from the international bourgeois phase, or modernism, to today’s global petty-bourgeois era, the function of art changes from the portrayal of individual self-understanding to that of social integration, much like the kind of subjectivity that is produced for a Reality TV show or an Instagram page. The mode of art production shifts from individual studio work to networked participation in projects, or from culture industry to creative industry; the mode of consumption changes from an individual and alienated critical reception to that of post-enlightenment enjoyment; and the status of the work shifts from autonomous avant-garde work to a vacillation between art as market value and biopolitical activism.

The hegemonic status of the petty-bourgeois habitus among university-trained cadres underscores the ‘allodoxic’ evasion of class identifications and emphasises instead a ‘middle’ and ‘non-ideological’ position vis-à-vis the means and forces of production. Today’s global petty-bourgeois class compositions are not only comprised of redundant, proto-proletarian ‘dark matter,’ as Gregory Sholette argues, but also include the rank and file of those individuals who have gallery, museum and university jobs, not to mention all of those people in fields like advertising and software development, which Richard Florida refers to as the creative class.⁷ From a cultural point of view, class struggle is difficult to fathom when unemployed graduates with low-wage jobs share more or less the same culture as middle and upper-class professionals.⁸

Adam Turl, Ares Coffee Riot (Red Mars), 2016. Acrylic, coffee, sharpie meteorite dust, glitter stickers, photocopies and wheatpaste on canvas, 121.92 x 91.44 cm. Red Mars is part of the 13 Baristas project, a series of works about a group of fictional coffee shop workers and artists living in a socially precarious not-too-distant future. Courtesy of Adam Turl.

A simple schematic model can help to elucidate some of the standard political orientations of progressive art practice. My goal with this chart is to make some use of class analysis that would allow contemporary art theory to interact with class analysis and radical politics. The left section of the chart represents the category of anti-art, which is concerned primarily with the heteronomy of social content and seeks to dissolve art into life, escaping the protocols of aesthetic discourse through various kinds of immanentism and also through an ‘exodus’ from the cultural authority and conservatism of art institutions. On the right is anti-art art, which describes the various efforts to defend aesthetic theory as a critical discourse and as a means to secure the historically defined and hard-won field of autonomy. Whereas academic cultural production is for the most part no longer concerned with modernist aesthetic reduction and partakes of contemporary art’s condition as art in the expanded field, it is also concerned to philosophically salvage and reproduce the separation of art from other categories of experience. We could consider tactical media interventions and transversal aesthetics as examples of the former and participatory relational aesthetics as well as various forms of the politics of representation, new institutionalism and neo-conceptualism as examples of the latter. As John Roberts puts it in Revolutionary Time and the Avant-Garde, one seeks to escape aesthetics into politics and the other to escape politics into aesthetics.⁹ A dialectical anti-anti-art would be avant-garde in the sense of maintaining a relation to both art and politics, effecting less a distribution of the sensible, as Jacques Rancière has it, than a communism of the senses in which living labour frees itself materially and ideologically from the forms of exploitation that structure today’s biocapitalist creative industries.¹⁰ Only the avant-garde model radicalises the theory of autonomy as part of revolutionary class struggle.

In the introduction to my 2015 book on film, Drive in Cinema, I remarked that this schema corresponds neatly enough to Gene Ray’s distinction between critically affirmative art, avant-garde practices and nomadic practices.¹¹ While all three models respond to the capitalist art system and its tendency to treat art as an ahistorical category, only the latter two, Ray argues, are committed to anti-capitalism. The makers of critically affirmative art are invested in the reproduction of the art system. While such artists may break certain cultural conventions, they are indulged by the status quo as symbols of its relative freedom. The art departments of the neoliberal university now advertise artistic rebellion as a conventional attitude. The avant gardes, in contrast, seek to radicalise culture so as to bring about political change. The avant gardes, according to Ray, seek to overcome aesthetic autonomy insofar as it proscribes giving equal importance to politics. The avant-garde model is a renewable vector, he argues, and necessary to anti-capitalist practices. Lastly, the model of nomadic practices is wary of both of these strategies and so more consciously refuses to invest in autonomy and the institutions of art. The purpose of this third model is to operate in undefined border zones and trigger catalytic processes within social as well as state formations. Such anti-systemic struggles cut transversally across sites, situations and events, taking advantage of the art system and looking for openings and connections on the terrain of struggle. For Ray, only nomadic practices, along with avant-garde breakouts, have the potential to function as anti-capitalist forces.

In today’s post-Fordist societies, artists are increasingly blackmailed into forms of self-exploitation. There is no solution to the contradictions of progressive art in its affective, networked and activist forms insofar as these are part of neoliberal biocapitalism. The ethical turn, as Rancière calls it, with its post-traumatic witnessing of twentieth-century fiascos becomes insidious insofar as revolutionary politics disappears into consensus politics, with its cautious, self-censoring pragmatism. Embodiment, empowerment, sexual politics, victim politics, multiculturalism – all of these are today part of the ambient milieu of the neoliberal creative city and the hegemony of a global petty bourgeoisie for which the revolutionary left is either a matter of nostalgia or nightmare. In this context, socially engaged art tends towards a culturalisation of politics rather than a politicisation of culture. Žižek argues that when we are blackmailed by neoliberal capitalism we should resist acting out in anger and should instead ask what kind of society makes this kind of blackmail possible.¹² In other words, what possibilities have not been recognised by socially engaged artists in a situation that calls for more democratic participation, social networking and free labour, along with more socially responsible capitalism? Why has the working class not constituted itself into a revolutionary subject? Some answers, Žižek proposes, can be found in unconscious libidinal mechanisms. In terms of ideological fantasy, reality cannot be seen in the same way by both the ruling capitalist class and the working masses, whether we define the latter as a blue-collar proletariat or a no-collar precariat. Class struggle is therefore concerned with the form and not only the content of reality. The form of thought, in terms of Hegelian absolute knowing, relates to a class consciousness that is historically contingent and that allows the class subject to understand his or her place in society from the perspective of imaginary capture and fantasy. For real change to occur, a change must take place in the objective conditions of one’s existence. However, the predominant perspectives on power fail to divest themselves from their fantasmatic attachment to subjection and therefore their own ontological form of thought. While revolutionary theory ‘lays bare’ the ‘contents’ of domination, the ‘form’ of the existing relations of production and social relations within everyday life obscures the basis of exploitation. Psychoanalysis, however, does not consider the function of ideology at the level of objective conditions, but at the level of subjectivity. Even Karl Marx addressed the ‘metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties’ of the commodity.

In Brave New Avant Garde I made a case for what I refer to as sinthomeopathic practices – projects that rely on contradictory forms of identification with the symptoms and institutions of art under contemporary capitalism. The works by Andrea Fraser, Komar & Melamid, Janez Janša, Janez Janša, Janez Janša, Jakob Boeskov, Neue Slowenische Kunst and the Yes Men that I described sometimes seem to lack a progressive stance but not a progressive aim. As a way to develop this theory I referred to the work of the Dutch collective BAVO, whose texts Cultural Activism Today: The Art of Over-Identification and ‘The Spectre of the Avant-Garde,’ criticise today’s NGO-style practices as a new form of official art.¹³ The avant-garde tactics of some artists differ from the more pedagogical and collaborative methods of ‘NGO artists,’ even if the two can potentially overlap, as I argued was the case with Komar & Melamid’s Asian Elephant Project. In order to develop the notion of an art sinthome, I drew on Žižek’s hypothesis that the deepest identifications that hold a community together are not the official written laws, but the identification with the transgression or suspension of the law itself as an obscene secret code. I argued in this sense that part of what structures the logic of the field of community, relational and dialogical art, the official (progressive) art of our time, is an identification with the prohibition of avant-garde radicality.¹⁴

What I emphasised in my comparison of collaborative community art and avant-garde strategies of subversive affirmation is the importance of the notion of the Lacanian split law in contrast to the Foucauldian view that law produces its self-sustaining forms of transgression. I made use of Jacques Lacan’s Discourse of the Analyst as a way to model avant-garde fantasy away from questions of knowledge, and closer to the problems of belief and ideological enjoyment, which provide new methods and concepts with which to understand cultural production in the context of biopolitical creative industries and networked activism. As it happens, Ray’s distinction between critically affirmative, nomadic and avant-garde practices corresponds not only to Bourdieu’s breakdown of bourgeois disinterestedness, petty-bourgeois allodoxia and working-class necessity, but also to Lacan’s schema of the ‘four discourses,’ which Lacan developed during his seminars XVI–XVIII from 1968 to 1972. Nomadic practices correspond to Lacan’s Discourse of the Hysteric (anti-art), the avant garde brings into effect a Discourse of the Analyst (anti-anti-art), and critical art reflects the milieu of the Discourse of the University (anti-art art). What was left out of Ray’s schema as well as my own in earlier texts is the category of art as such, which Lacan’s four discourses provides a solution to as an ‘extra-class’ enigma. An unreconstructed approach to art qua art runs the risks associated with naive forms of romantic and neo-aristocratic pretentiousness. Such a Discourse of the Master, however, subtends the ‘titles of nobility’ and ‘marks of infamy’ that Bourdieu associated with the aesthetic disposition. Perhaps more than ever before, the category of art now has the superannuated characteristics of exemplariness, sovereign will, absolutism, aristocracy and heredity.

To better appreciate how Lacan’s theory can inform the theory of the avant garde, it is necessary to outline the basic structure of the four discourses. Lacan’s ‘discourse theory’ is his means to account for the ways in which language makes the social link operative. Because we are dealing with structures of the unconscious, it is necessary to understand that the subject is typically and in some ways necessarily unaware of the structures of discourse. Lacan’s four different mathemes offer variable placements for four elements that refer to subjectivity in terms of the unconscious structured like a language. The symbol $ refers to the split subject or subject of the unconscious. The symbol ‘a’ refers to Lacan’s concept of the objet petit a, otherwise referred to as the object-cause of desire. The objet a also stands for the unconscious or the bar of difference that makes all social meaning unstable. S1 stands for the master signifier, the pure or phallic signifier that is a signifier without a signified. S2 refers to the chain of signifiers or knowledge. In each case the top left quadrant refers to the space of the agent of a communication or a command. The top right refers to the Other or addressee. What concerns Lacan is that the structure of communication always in some way fails or is incomplete. This impossibility is explained through recourse to the bottom level of these formulas. The bottom left quadrant refers to the hidden symptom of the agent. It is the function of truth that the agent is unaware of. The bottom right refers to the product of the communication, its surplus jouissance and the function of loss.

In the Discourse of the Master, the master signifier addresses knowledge – the know-how of the slave – and produces desire as a function of loss. While the Master appears absolute in his or her authority, he is unaware of what conditions his existence as the castrated father. In the Discourse of the Analyst, desire occupies the place of the analyst who compels transference from the analysand. This discourse results in the symptom as the master signifier and is underwritten by psychoanalysis as the system of knowledge. The Discourse of the Hysteric finds the split subject in the position of an agent who addresses the master signifier and seeks knowledge of his or her condition as a function of loss. Lastly, the Discourse of the University finds that the system of knowledge is in the role of agent and that this knowledge is addressed to a desire that produces the subject. The Discourse of the University is underwritten by the master signifier, which makes the Discourse of the University one of the most vehement of discourses since it is unaware of the question of power. In a lecture delivered in 1972 Lacan added to his schema a matheme for the Discourse of the Capitalist, whose structure explains the conundrum of anti-capitalist movements today. In this discourse, the split subject is the agent who addresses knowledge and produces his or her own desire as loss. Like the University, the Capitalist is underwritten by the master signifier and so is equally unaware of relations of domination.¹⁵

In today’s world of social networks, cybernetic surveillance and security regimes, as well as in the context of the rise to hegemonic status of the petty-bourgeois habitus, it appears that what is most readily available and encouraged are practices that correspond to the discourses of the activist Hysteric and the academic University. In comparison, the art Master seems to belong to an earlier, bourgeois epoch, with its corresponding utopian and scientific socialist party Analysts. The correspondence of art qua art with the status of the Master finds its most uncanny appearance in a shrewd text by Dave Beech, whose purpose it is to identify art’s exceptionalism in classical, neoclassical as well as Marxist economic theory.¹⁶ From the perspective of radical art theory, Beech’s work seems somewhat apropos since Marx not only defined art as unproductive labour, he also considered art to be superstructural, and so the traditions of Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School that address culture from the perspective of political struggle against capitalism cannot be opposed to the study of capital or of economics as a specialised field. In some ways, Beech could have saved himself a great deal of trouble by starting with Bourdieu’s field theory of art, which explains the class determinations of the art world’s ideological self-conception as the ‘economic world turned upside down,’ even if today, and for various reasons, it seems increasingly less the case that artists can be defined as ‘the dominated sector’ of the ‘dominant class.’ Beech’s point, nevertheless, is that this self-perception is not only falsely ideological but also material, since the value of artworks does not conform to the labour theory of value, as argued in classical, neoclassical and Marxist traditions. For example, the journalist who argued that the sale in 2017 of a rare copy of Marx’s Das Kapital for $40,000 US undermines Marx’s theory of capital simply does not understand the economic relevance of the price of rare objects – or for that matter of any object or commodity – to the corresponding concept of value, measured in socially necessary labour time. What becomes interesting for us, then – if we agree to ignore for the time being all of the questions having to do with reification, commodification, culture industry, spectacle, the subsumption of labour and post-Fordist immaterial labour – is the way in which art’s ostensible separation from economic determination corresponds to the Discourse of the Master, in which the art Master addresses the know-how of the economist while at the same time being unaware of his hidden symptom: the artist-theorist finds himself at a loss insofar as