ARTS
Art
The enemy within
Meddlesome forces abhor a vacuum. Long before the communist regimes of the East began their final break-up, eroded by economic inefficiency and corruption and hated by such free spirits as managed to survive their rule, other viral strains of thought were abroad already in the West. Like modernism and Marxism before them, their claims to an exclusive tenure of the moral high ground were seldom less than strident. Instead of identifying the enemy by class — proletarian versus bourgeois an even more inexact identification of the sources of social evil took place. This time, in place of the capitalist oppressor, we were asked to look at the iniquities of roughly half the human race: those unfor- tunates called men.
While the creeds of both Marxists and feminists contain truths, along with anoma- lies and absurdities, the business of spot- ting which are which requires the services of an alert and active brain. Traditionally, the purpose of the best kind of Western liberal education was to train that vital part of our anatomy: to prepare it to think clearly and logically as well as to respond intuitively. The future of agreeable civilisa- tion depends heavily on such human abili- ty, but those who would create more rigid regimes are right in seeking to destroy this facility altogether. The process whereby this is done is known generally as brainwashing and is one which it is still possible to resist in Western democracies. Of course, in coun- tries somewhat further to the East under such amiable followers of Marx as Stalin and Pol Pot, any resistance shown by the brain to invasive thought was followed as often as not by an invasive bullet. I do not believe a single member of government or opposition parties could be found here who is in favour of effective brainwashing as an educational technique. Why, then, has it been permitted to take place for years without hindrance or comment in fine art and art history courses up and down our country? Is it because such courses are considered so peripheral to the concerns of the nation? Or is it because those in gov- ernment with a responsibility for further education are too lazy and complacent to bother to find out what is going on?
Modish extremists thrive under condi- tions of moral cowardice and intellectual inertia, whether in politics or education. Thus within the next five years I fully expect to see the full horrors of political correctness imported lock, stock and barrel from American academic institutions to our own. Anyone who has not yet read Cul- ture of Complaint: the Fraying of America by my esteemed fellow art critic Robert Janice embarks on a three-pronged endeavour. Hughes is urged to do so forthwith. It is as well to see what is already in the pipeline for all of us. Only some overdue waking up by those in British academic life can pre- vent this catastrophe.
Those in authority in doubt about what is happening could not do better than to arrange for the monitoring of courses in fine art at Goldsmiths' College or those in modern art history` at the Courtauld Insti- tute or the University of Leeds. Although those who enrol on graduate and postgrad- uate courses at these institutions are osten- sibly adult, they are still vulnerable, as are all students, to excessive pressures from members of teaching staff and to covert coercion exercised through the giving or withholding of good degrees. I am told that female students who are resistant to femi- nist ideology at Leeds may expect short shrift there under the aegis of Griselda Pol- lock, Professor of Social and Critical Histo- ries of Art. One of Ms Pollock's more remarkable achievements is the creation of clones who, on graduation in the 'new' art history, rush hither and thither in the land, proclaiming the new gospel.
All such, including one with whom I came into contact recently at an art forum — Lynda Nead — believe that the 'new' art history of which they are part has buried earlier forms of art history completely. But those who have grown out of short trousers will know that this is the belief of radicals everywhere, from Chairman Mao's jolly Red Guards to those agreeable souls who tried to destroy Christianity in Eastern Europe.
That they have buried the 'old' — in the case of art history meaning a system based on traditional aesthetics rather than on a mix of post-Sixties sociology and decon- struction — by recourse to political intrigue rather than logic or open debate does not worry such folk in the slightest. After all, pragmatism and Realpolitik are absolutely central to Marxist working methods. That the young radicals may dis- cover one day that they have been seriously misled will not deter them from their mys- tical mission today. Having been brought up on a diet of dogma rather than reason- ing it does not occur to the new brain- washed breed of young artists and historians that they could be misguided in the least particular — any more than this Occurred to the child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge.
As Solzhenitsyn remarked of an earlier breed of radicals: 'Destruction thus became the apotheosis of this belligerent avant- gardism. It aimed to tear down the entire centuries-long cultural tradition.' Those concerned for the continuation of civilised values we cherish here need no longer post a look-out for barbarians at our gates, for they are ensconced in our citadels already. The apathy and inertia of those who think the whole business of art does not matter could not have been more effective in handing them the keys.
Previous page
