from an HC, May 2005

RąYB member and leader "Joey Steele" reflects the 
rąp=u$a's crypto-Liberal "art in its own right" line 
on literature and art. MIM realizes that 
revolutionaries may subjectively like art that 
they know is deeply reactionary, but MIM does not 
slide into saying that politically bad art of high 
artistic quality should still be praised. MIM is 
just making the observation that some 
revolutionaries subjectively enjoy art that is 
nonetheless reactionary. It's an undesirable state 
of affairs.

There must be clear recognition of the fact that 
art is thoroughly political in both the 
"political" and artistic criteria. Not only should 
the focus be kept on the political 
criterion, especially before the seizure of power 
and development of socialist art on a large scale, 
it is also the case that there is no such thing as 
pure art that stands above class, gender and 
nation struggles. There is no universal artistic 
criterion, and art that is reactionary also cannot 
be taken out of context of its concrete artistic 
form. Every class has its own artistic criterion, 
not just political criterion. It is dangerous to
praise the artistic quality of reactionary art as 
if there were a universal artistic criterion.
[Interjection by mim3@mim.org: Even when we recognize
that an artist had some training or skill
in the performance of reactionary art, that skill serves
a class.]

In the below April 22nd post on 
cleveland.indymedia.org, Joey Steele says: "Art is 
not seperate from politics, but we are not commy 
zombies either only chosing names that fully 
comply with our politics, we care about art and 
other things as well." Steele mixes up several 
different questions here. Whether to support art 
that does not fully conform to the most advanced 
politics is a question relating to dogmatism, yes. 
On the other hand, opposing dogmatism does not 
mean accepting non-proletarian art with some 
progressive elements, or just some angry feelings 
(at what?), as being "good enough." Nor does the 
struggle between revolutionary and reactionary 
art, and the lack of revolutionary art, mean that 
people should take up Liberalism, much less a 
Liberalism that upholds reactionary art for the 
sake of "art in its own right." [mim3@mim.org
adds: MIM currently upholds progressive art on the
basis of its contribution to struggle around
class, nation and gender, not because all 
supposedly well-done art is
progressive or worthy of appreciation.]

The first issue of the rąp=u$a's new Revolution paper 
contains articles praising The Gates in Central 
Park to the skies. They praise the The Gates for 
not lending itself to any particular 
interpretation. It is pure art on an admittedly 
millionaire-financed enormous scale and "a work of 
awesome beauty." The idea is that there is art for 
its own sake and for everyone's enjoyment. The 
question of the social function of abstract art 
that is enjoyable in oppressive society is 
completely ignored.  Dread Scott's article 
"Remembering The Gates" even panders to defeatism 
by glorifying "the temporary nature of the work. . 
. .  The fleeting duration encouraged people to 
rush to it and to really look at and appreciate 
the art itself, but also the importance and beauty 
of other temporary things." [mim3@mim.org
adds: Godard rightly slammed this line
as preaching contentment.]

Alice Woodward, continuing the theme that art 
exists for humynity's sake, remarked in the rąp=u$a's 
paper: "the gates were a significant contribution 
to art and culture. In a society narrowly focused 
on profit and competition, there is scarcely room 
for the masses of people to explore art and get 
into ideas." So, The Gates was provocative (so 
what? even reactionary art can be provocative), 
but Woodward goes beyond that to say that that The 
Gates was art not only in its own right, but for 
its own sake.

In the context of the struggle to defend 
proletariat art, the rąp=u$a's move toward open 
Liberalism on literature and art represents a 
denigation of revolutionary art and especially 
proletarian art. The rąp=u$a says nothing new about 
art except to fuse Liberalism with dogmatism in 
practice. To the rąp=u$a, overtly political art is the 
only art worth writing on at length with a focus 
on the political criterion. All other art gets a 
Liberal treatment with a focus on the artistic 
criterion (typical of Liberalism). The whole 
confused dual Liberal-dogmatic orientation toward 
literature and art is a reaction to bourgeois 
aesthetic criticism of socialist realism and other 
revolutionary art and satisfies the rąp=u$a's 
opportunist petty-bourgeois recruiting needs in 
the untied $tates.

[mim3@mim.org adds: It would appear that the
rąp=u$a is now lurching from its traditional
dogmatic silence on art to a Liberal line as some
kind of answer to MIM's effective intervention in
culture. This is to be 
expected from a party representing the labor aristocracy
and the rest of the petty-bourgeoisie.
In this, rąp=u$a maintains its loyalty
to the Trotskyist line on art. ]

*************************************************
Comment from RąYB comes next*********************

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/15487_ 
comment.php

steele and CF by joey Friday, Apr. 22, 2005 at 
1:28 PM


hey, I am not named after Bobby Steele, yes bobby 
is conservative, but artisitically I love the 
misfits, and what he helped start, fuck bobby The 
Misfits as a whole have some pretty shitty 
politics, but that does not mean I don't love 
them. 

I think its funny because people are always 
getting upset at the YB saying we are rigid and 
only follow the line and never disagree, and that 
we are just commyy zombies and bullshit. Well we 
are not, that is not what bob avakian represents, 
I am not saying that I am taking up the stand of 
Bobby, or Jerry Only (jerry is a hard core f-ing 
republican) but I still artisitcall love what they 
have done, and I even like some of the politics 
they have in teh misfits, about rebelling and some 
of their stuff that spoke to the desire of youth 
especially to challenge shit, they also had some 
realy sweet songs against christianity. 

Art is not seperate from politics, but we are not 
commy zombies either only chosing names that fully 
comply with our politics, we care about art and 
other things as well. 

from the Chairman, Bob Avakian on CFs, when asked 
why do we call Bush a Christian Fascist? Its 
Simple- he is a christian and a fascist! 

I would love to talk more about Bobby, my name, 
and art! That was a good question, but I think 
people should like people for other reasons than 
just politics. I love roy lichtenstien's works and 
there are some patriarchial shit in their, so 
what, we can take the good from the bad. 

Anyway my name comes from a lot of stuff, 
including stalin and joey johnson as well,