No, artists already realise that they aren’t all that significant to world events. It’s not hard to figure out when one actually is an artist. That statement is evidence not that artists, but that art CRITICS are too often individuals existing in closed self-referential circles. Artists just get lumped in with art critics as one and the same, but an artist makes art and the art critic makes blather.

It is clear that we live in different worlds.

Regarding your intent to convey that art was indeed not free of underlying evil, I cannot find that in the article. In any case, the idea that this need be conveyed at all is shocking. Don’t artists recognize that all humans are capable of evil, and that some art must itself be tainted by evil, even significant art (such as that of Leni Riefenstahl).

As far as making things ridiculous… my only intent is to show the ridiculousness of those in the art community who believe that this event has any seriousness beyond their community. This is hardly a personal attack on you in particular. In that sense, my commentary is more of an attack on attitudes in the art world than at attack on the story – the story merely highlights some of my points. That I may have misinterpreted your story is indeed possible, given our vastly different experiences and perspectives.

I don’t condemn the art world. I do believe that many in the art world try to extend its import far beyond its actual effect. And highlighting that is really the main point of my article. You are merely the unfortunate who wrote the article that happened to catch my attention. I could have found thousands of others, but sheer coincidence led to yours.

The article is actually of little import to me (although I do thank you for bringing the incident to my attention, as it is indeed a rather fascinating historical oddity).

To me, this effort is an intellectual diversion, bringing an example of art world thinking into a forum that deals with political issues.

The main issues that I have strong feelings about is the general association of most in the art world with political positions which I consider harmful (of which I sense an undercurrent by your use of language), but that is a small part of my response; And, of course, I also find it shocking that the offense that inspires horror is the association of art (and the “right” side) with torture, as opposed to the torture itself. That is especially ironic because in the last 100 years, the greatest practitioners of torture have been those governments most supported by “progressives” and whose purported ideologies were most adopted by the art world.

As to my personal experience with torture, it was only in a school designed to teach soldiers how to deal with North Vietnamese torture. It was a somewhat unpleasant experience, but utterly trivial compared to the torture actually endured by millions in the world, including some of my classmates who were indeed captured and tortured in that war.

You are certainly not a Useful Fool to my agenda (whatever that may be). You may be to someone else’s, but really that term applies in this case to the anti-Fascist cause in the Spanish Civil War, and to the many other sympathizers to Russian Communism (and its various schisms) through the 20th century.

I understand the reason that one immersed in the art culture would take this issue seriously. It is when it is connected with larger issues (such as supporting the oppressed), that I start finding it overinflated.

Finally, in the blog world, the practice of inserting the comments directly into the article is a common and accepted. It is called “Fisking” in honor of the many times it has been done to the writings of the journalist Robert Fisk. While it may be in bad taste in your world, it is common and accepted practice in mine.

That this article caused you some discomfort is not surprising. The internet, and especially the blog world can be a place of violent conflict of ideas, without the mediation of normal social mechanisms. Furthermore, as demonstrated here, it can lead to interactions between people (and communities of ideas) which would be highly unlikely to interact otherwise. You are in New York City and in some undefined way tied into the art world; I am in Phoenix, AZ, not a member of any art community, and enjoying the interaction and conflict of ideas primarily through the Internet and Mensa events.

You seem to read the piece with an equating of what it says to MY moral position, while I am merely expounding a developing historical record about a disconcerting event . I am entitled to that kind of distance, and i do not have your flair for “levity”.

One side of ‘that war’ was right, or rather seen as being right by the world at large at the time. And moreover, artists are seen as ‘progressive’ whether we agree or not [which I actually don't]. Guernica? How does this story fair in that light?

You must understand however, that to artists and critics the story is disturbing. And not a ‘minor’ event at all. What is striking and what made it a major story[ reported throughout the world] was that it showed how even art wasn’t free of an underlying evil, so that perhaps our relantionship to it should in fact NOT be so serious and filled with reverance, but at least we should be a bit apprehensive and suspicious. That was a big part of what I wanted to convey [since I agree]. And of course it is ridiculous to use ‘art’ to torture people, that’s the point. I do think you’re bitterness did blind you to this, since you seem to make me ridicious for saying it, rather than Laurencic for doing it. The rest of your response was so reactionary and filled with contradiction [your constrant stress on Soviet art as an example/ your unsubstantiated remark that art is meaningless in oppression, but then also in progressive terms etc..] that I must say I do not have the energy you possess in order to reply.

I recomend you read the report if you are interested in the story [which i don't think you are, but rather in emphasizing is meaningless]. It seems hard to penetrate the assumptions you bring with you, and what seems like a certain undercurrent in your statements [which I have no desire to address]. the issue seems particularly precious to you [you allude to having been tortured, but that certainly doesn't undermine the story], so I once again thank you for your energy, but reaffirm that you entirely misread and misinterpreted the story [and my piece]. for whatever reason. and your response wavers between condemnation of the art world [for which my writing is to be an effigie?} and a bilious response to the story itself.
i am not entirely sure which you’re addressing.

Ironically, if it were a minor event, you probably should have just overlooked it. As far being too serious, well, some of us feel the need to be serious,as i am sure you understand. perhaps you took the piece too seriously, rather than the story. or vice versa. i do not have your flair for”levity” which borders on the kind of elitism you accuse “us” of having, as I do not appreciate being a “useful fool” to your agenda.

Lastly, i do say it is in rather bad taste to insert your comments directly into the piece.

Joao Ribas
New York City

Actually, I took no offence at your article. Rather, I thought it to be far too serious, and the import given to the subject to be rather silly. And yes, I have read the story, although not in Spanish.

I find few moralistic implications in the event reported. If modern art was an inspiration for torture, perhaps it was because viewing modern art was painful to Laurencic. More likely, the “artist” was a crank who engaged in designing torture, applying what he viewed as artistic techniques.

However, torture is normally inspired by a combination of interrogation needs, a practice of providing examples by regimes of terror (c.f. Stalin, Saddam), and sadism. The contribution of art to this process is trivial, and your horror seems a trivialization of the practice of torture, elevating the abuse of art (however you wish to describe it) to the same level as torture itself. How is modern art going to help prevent this? How can it even be discussed at the same level of seriousness?

I didn’t read your piece with an agenda, although I am certainly not devoid of ideology or viewpoint, as you can find from reading other articles in this blog. I stumbled across the article, and was amazed at the level of seriousness ascribed to this minor, if fascinating event (the truth of which has been debated, but that is not the issue).

I also noticed and remarked upon the implication that anarchists and artists (”progressive forces?”) were in some way heroic, and the implication that one side in that war was the “right” one. Only a hagiographic history would consider the pawns of Joseph Stalin to be a heroic force, regardless of the naive idealism of many of the members. That such forces would engage in torture is to be expected, as they were used and deeply influenced by one of the most evil regimes in history. Neither side had any claim to virtue.

I do not conflate modernism and Soviet and Nazi art. I simply pointed out that Nadine Gordimer’s comment is contradicted by history, as art is hardly “on the side of the oppressed” as a general historical principle. There is also a whiff of Marxist obsession with “the oppressed,” a rather slippery and often misused concept in today’s world.

Modern art seems only faintly related to any struggle on behalf of oppressed people. It simply lacks the significance or power of political ideologies, armies and guns! Oppression requires relief by far more powerful methods than art, and I consider it conceit to give modern art import in major social struggles. This is not to say that modern artists, as individuals, may not have influence as spokespeople, but that modern art is a process and product far removed from significant political impact.

Far more relevant is the kind of “realism” practiced by totalitarian and narcissistic regimes, because that realism, though boring and uninspired, at least contains messages that the population can understand and an impact which they feel as ever present tokens of oppression. When Saddam fell, his omnipresent Socialist Realism art was attacked by the population as proxies for the unreachable oppressor. I doubt that a Saddam-commissioned piece of modern art (had he done such a thing) would have even attracted notice.

As to your comment regarding a reactionary Leninist, I fail to understand its meaning in this context. My mention of the art critic, of course, was a bit of levity.

I feel as though I should respond to your statements in kind, since you seemingly took such offence, and much time, to direct attention youre to them. It seems to me that you both misunderstand the story and my approach to it, since thorought your address [an over-reaching condemnation] you make references to ideas which are neither explicitly or implicitly addressed in the piece [and therefore critically unfair], nor have direct relevance to the story [ i wonder if you have read the story in its spanish version, if at all]. For example, it was not that ‘art was misused’, but rather that art was used as inspiration for torture [which is new], and that a artist actively made it part of his aesthetic practice.

You also seemed to miss the sense of horror with which I address the issue, as if I somehow have missed the moralistic implications. That surely means you had more energy for acerbic commentary than close reading.

What disturbs me most is your antogonism towards an abstract and convulated ‘art-world”, which seems to permeate your responses. i think you read my piece more with your agenda in mind than with an attempt to understand what I was trying to say.

Although I can, and might, addresses several points at some later time, the one i find most disturbing is your inability to separate modernism from totalitarism, as in your conflation of Soviet and Nazi art with what i refer to as a modernist aesthetics. I fervently remind you that both Hitler and Goebels hated modern art [which undermines many of your points], and that soviet realism was a direct address against any strain of modernism in revolutionary russia. Totalitarian regimes did not use, or value modern art at all. I think that the story takes on much more weight when you realize this.

I do however, very much appreciate your attention. I also remind that there is a fine line between a usefull fool, and a victim of ideological blindness. A “reactionary Leninist” is just as bad as an “art-critic”. I can assure you that I am not the latter.

Joao Ribas
New York City