I was struck by this:
... in thinking we are able to develop new political forms, big or small. Put differently, the future used to depend on action; now it depends on thinking. In previous historical moments, avant-gardes called for action, but today’s cultural condition requires a reflection on the elasticity of our logics and on the possibility that art and culture may provide different syntheses of the sensible, opening up our interpretation of the real. In order to escape sameness, we need bold imaginations.
in Artforum's review of the the Whitney Biennial by Chus Martínez. He goes on to write: "art today—“2010” is aware of the need for critique that is not Manichaean." – critique that is nuanced, that is not black and white. Perhaps we should also welcome critique that is not Machiavellian – critique that is not self-interested or self-congratulatory brand paraphernalia as much as it is an investment in thinking itself: a consideration of the predicaments of contemporaneity.
And then too, does this setting of art to the side of action, or what seems to imply the impossibility of action (for art or more generally?) ... let the artist off the hook too easily? Is it a question of what art does or can do? Is it a question of the horizons on possibility? Is it a question of responsibility?