Thoughts on Dream (blog)

Jesus Saves… You Money!!!

Nothing like having a debate with someone who, at least for now, is not available to defend himself.

     Stephen Duncombe, in his book, Dream Re-imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy in essence proposes that we must understand and embrace the reality of the spectacle as one of the few effective means of eliciting real change. During my reading he never seemed fully comfortable with his own proposition. Or at least it seems at times he careens back and forth between comfortable and queasy. Even in a particular part of his book he admits to wincing a bit when pondering his own prescribed course of action. This course of action seems to propose the use of spectacle to tap into human’s innate desires for altruistic ends. I have been trying to give Mr. Duncombe the benefit of the doubt and I understand his proposing the use of what he terms the “ethical spectacle” (to allow a fully conscious thinking collective drive the dynamic of the given “spectacle”). This makes sense but it seems to ride on a very fragile foundation. He proposes the overt investment in and exploitation of (his word) “illusion”. Or does he? I have been going back and forth on this as well.  I’ve recently completed a paper, which imagines a studio visit with Duncombe along with authors Nicolas Bourriaud and Suzi Gablik. During this “spectacular” studio visit I challenged Duncombe and I make a kind of peace with his proposal.  However, I leave the visit feeling I may need to shower (not really, ok, really). Dream indeed. Consequently I was able to establish a genuine contact with Mr. Duncombe. He responded to my own current “ethical spectacle”, Drawn Together in a poetically positive way. I suppose I should be placated by his endorsement. Maybe I have been placated. I believe there must be a rigorous discipline when employing the “fantasy” and tap into desires manifest in similar ways as Las Vegas. This seems by definition a very slippery slope. It is the machinations of industrial (perhaps mob) capitalism that gave us Las Vegas.

 More Thoughts

     Sure, we (Americans) are literate, as Mr. Duncombe states, but do we think? We all read bumper stickers and text, right? I have to ask though what about the quality of our thoughts. Is Stephen Duncombe ready to accept any kind of thought as long as the votes fall on his side? I guess Duncombe likes flirting with slippery slopes. Well, I knew he was uncomfortable with his proposition but I also know that Duncombe is trying to thread a very delicate needle. Much as I have been discovering repeatedly over the course of this class’ assigned readings these fragile ideas are often mined by artists. Interestingly maybe this is a point unto itself. No, we are not in the world of math where answers are hard answers. Also, artists do not refuse to face hard facts and cower in the fuzzy world of aesthetics. Artists, on the contrary are confronting highly complex aspects of the human species. This is not a lot of rah, rah here. That I may question or seek clarity in Duncombe’s thesis does not mean I question his motives. I applaud them. Only, I have all too often seen these strategies either backfire or turn into the opposite.

     Duncombe’s chapter on Vegas was probably the most problematic for me. I am interested in encounters with staying power. Las Vegas strikes me as anything but an encounter with staying power (brevity seems to be Las Vegas’ defining characteristic). I suppose I am still trying to reconcile ethical spectacles with the Vegas modes operandi. I made slot machines for Las Vegas. While it had a certain pragmatic success rate I wonder at what cost?

     p. 16 of Duncombe’s book reads:  “Between arrogant rejection and populist acceptance of commercial culture lies a third approach: appropriating, co-opting and, most important, transforming techniques of spectacular capitalism into tool for social change” (I question this, the capitalist model will subsume it into its opposite, look at all symbols of rebellion subsumed into the market, long hair, the dry look, tattoos no longer about rebellion, Harleys are toys for lawyers and accountants, desecrating the flag turned into a redneck capitalist fashion statement, rock n roll became a HUGE corporate mind fuck symbolizing nothing ). I appreciate the ethical spectacle but there also seems to be this thinly veiled Machiavellian modes operandi hiding behind the curtain. This view will probably characterize me as one of those purist liberal busy bodies.

Billionaires for Bush

     While I found the Billionaires for Bush section of Duncombe’s book funny (approx.-p.43-45) I’m not sure I can characterize it as much more than an indulgence for “our team”. This is preaching to the choir while winning no converts. I think this social space needs to be mediated with full consciousness. I propose mining for truths that cross party lines into human experience. Duncombe, I believe ultimately wants the same thing.