No Green?

While perusing the CPGB’s website I came across a letter focused on the demands of “the green movement” (in reality a loose collection of organizations with sometimes quite differing opinions and aims) www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/798/letters.php. The writer was clearly hostile to some of the arguments put forward by greens and I was particularly interested in his take on their opposition to airport expansion. In some ways, the conclusions which this contributor put forward in his letter, crystallise for me the failure of certain sections of the radical left, to adequately respond to the threat of climate change, or to contribute to the dynamic and important campaigning movements which this threat has spawned.

He says “Nor do I think it very radical to attack airport expansions. I wish to see a world where there is far more human mobility and travel beyond national borders, and I believe that eco-attacks on air travel will help further price poorer people out of international travel.”

This argument, in my view, entirely fails to deal with the realities of the debate – it is dogmatic and idealistic in the worst senses of those words. It is the wealthiest people in our society who hugely and disproportionately generate the most carbon. The notion that cheaper air travel has significantly benefited those on low incomes is a fantasy. In fact, cheaper air travel has benefited the relatively wealthy and the very wealthy, while perversely, when it comes to short flights in particular, incentivising an inefficient mode of transport over more efficient modes (such as trains et cetera).

There are certainly problems with some sections of the environmental movement, one sometimes sees nimbyism in relation to local issues and there are certainly conflicts and contradictions within the green movement’s broad philosophy. However, the thrust of the arguments which were being put forward in Copenhagen by groups like Friends of the Earth as well as activists from around the world (particularly from equatorial nations like Uganda and Ecuador) are correct.

The high consumption of goods and inefficient management of transport infrastructure in America (with communities built around heavily car reliant models) does nothing to benefit poor Americans. However, this model of consumption does materially affect those living in the most precarious conditions, particularly in the most climatically sensitive areas of the globe. Similarly, in London, much of the most flagrant expenditure of resources, which one observes, is linked to living arrangements which benefit the most wealthy, at the expense of the least well off (large under-occupied houses, reliance on car ownership rather than investment in public transport). Which is why I find the statement “Marxism has nothing in common with the western, Malthusian, middle class movement that is modern environmentalism.” doctrinaire and irrelevant. A model of development in which everyone can consume like middle class Americans or even Europeans is impossible; there are simply too few resources in the world. The fact that environmentalists may seem cranky or pious does not negate the central truth that radically new models of community, in which the wealthiest will be required to consume far less, are urgently necessary. If Marxists have nothing to contribute to a debate about resources, inequality, power structures and politics, one which is of central importance to all our lives, then I would question their right to describe themselves thus.

(In the interest of clarity I'd like to reiterate that the CPGB itself does, in fact, take a very sound line on climate change as evidenced in the Weekly Worker article ... http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/798/thereisno.php)

JMB

Deeply Problematic

When I decided to start blogging around subjects of design, culture, and politics, I hadn’t envisaged dealing extensively with television and film. The moving image, although I find it fascinating, isn’t a medium which I’ve ever had any experience using, or about which I’m particularly expert. Nevertheless, I would argue that since television and film are some of the most widely consumed cultural products, they are highly influential; as conduits of information and ideas, television and film are powerful tools in the dissemination of narratives about our culture and society. As such, we ignore the political and social significance of these forms at our peril.

So although ostensibly outside the immediate realms of this blog’s field of interest, I felt that Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest offering Bruno, and more specifically, the discourse which it has provoked around depictions of gay men in the popular media was important. Newsnight Review’s feature on the portrayal of gay men on the small and big screens http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lmqbr/b00lmq8x/Newsnight_Review_10_07_2009/ was certainly timely and it was occasionally insightful. (At the very least, they should be applauded for recognising the existence of the issue.) I’ve certainly been shocked over the past five years, by how widespread explicitly homophobic representations of gay men have become (once more) in mainstream television, and at the same time how homophobic language has regained popularity.

In my experience otherwise right-thinking and politically astute people are often puzzled by the perceived hypersensitivity of some gay people to depictions of homosexuality on screen. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that not only positive but any “normal” representations of gay people on television and in film, in which the characters homosexuality is not their defining feature, remain lamentably rare. The phenomenon typified by television programs such as Little Britain, Horne and Corden and The Catherine Tate Show, however, is much more specific and extreme than mainstream media’s problematic, inadequate and one-dimensional depictions of gay people. In these programs, characters are presented as ridiculous, laughable, or disgusting directly as a consequence of their homosexuality; this is the character’s soul characteristic and raison d’être (by extension homosexuality itself is presented as ridiculous and disgusting). Here, Newsnight Review’s critique was sometimes unclear and underdeveloped, failing to recognise that the problem with these representations is not simply that they are stereotyped (although they certainly are), but that they reveal a profound unease with the rejection of heteronormative values that homosexuality inevitably represents; indeed they represent a profound unease and distaste for gay people themselves.

And so on to Bruno, curiously, both the most left wing Newsnight panellist Johann Hari and the most conservative/apolitical Henry Conway saw Sacha Baron Cohen’s film as unproblematic. For me, however, what makes Baron Cohen’s film especially pernicious is the thin layer “irony” which is superficially applied to a portrayal which is otherwise explicitly homophobic. The notion that Bruno, by some complex process of double-think, is somehow debunking the prejudice of others, even as it generates humour from depicting gay sexuality and identity as grotesque and parodic, doesn’t bear scrutiny. And this is a trick which comedians and “personalities” seem to be employing with increasing frequency. Jimmy Carr, Chris Moyles and Jonathon Ross, amongst others, have consistently used derogatory, homophobic language and offensive stereotypes. This prejudice is often tacitly justified in the media, and by broadcasters themselves, using oblique references to “political correctness” and to being challenging. Making explicitly, anti-Black or anti-Semitic statements would be a much more effective way of challenging “politically correct” taboos (although of course it would be equally wrong and offensive). In fact, the reason that comedians and presenters are permitted to mock and attack gay people, is because their attitudes are widely shared and because homophobia is generally seen as a more acceptable form of prejudice than racism, or indeed isn’t considered problematic at all.

For the wealthy, powerful and influential people at the top of media organisations it is possible that homophobia isn’t much of a problem. But attacks on gay people are a daily occurrence. According to a 2008 report for the British Crime Survey, one in five lesbian and gay people have been victims of homophobic hate crime in the past three years, and this is unlikely to represent the true scale of the problem.

“In a free and democratic society, my son’s murder was an outrage. It was an act of terrorism. Jody was not the first man to be killed, or terrorised, or beaten or humiliated for being homosexual –or for being perceived to be homosexual. Tragically, he will not be the last man to suffer the consequences of homophobia, which is endemic in this society. This is unacceptable. We cannot accept this. No intelligent, healthy or reasonable society could.” Sheri Dobrowski, June 2006

Equally depressingly, homophobia is so widespread in schools that secondary education could be accurately described as institutionally homophobic. To quote a report by Stonewall UK,

“Homophobic bullying is almost endemic in Britain’s schools. Almost two thirds (65 per cent) of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. Seventy five per cent of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying. Of those who have been bullied, 92 percent have experienced verbal homophobic bullying, 41 percent physical bullying and 17 percent death threats.

Less than a quarter (23 per cent) of young gay people have been told that homophobic bullying is wrong in their school. In schools that have said homophobic bullying is wrong, gay young people are 60 per cent more likely not to have been bullied.”

Given the vulnerability of gay people in a society in which homophobia is such a powerful and pervasive force, it seems incredible that hateful and prejudiced representations of homosexuality are so widely and uncritically accepted. And yet, the willingness on the part of broadcasters and others to reproduce such attitudes is a function of a homophobia so endemic that its cultural manifestations are neither censured nor even recognized. Perhaps in a world in which gay people were not routinely victims of violence and discrimination, comedy which tested the boundaries of homophobia might be relevant, but this is evidently not the world in which we live. For the young person who faces a constant barrage of negative attitudes towards their sexuality at school and home, the impact of publicly endorsed homophobia is devastating. The effect of the promotion and dissemination of caricatured, mocking representations of homosexuality is to undermine vulnerable gay people and at the same time to render homophobia including its most extreme manifestations more acceptable.

The problem with theory and practice

“Connecting theory and practice” has become a popular phrase in academic, artistic and critical circles. On the one hand, it seems obvious that designers and artists would want to make work in a way that demonstrated an awareness of a wider cultural context. And in practice, I think that creative people who produce good work are inevitably engaged in thinking about contemporary culture and how this connects to peoples lives, society and history, as well as being interested in artistic forms outside their field. So in a sense, it seems bizarre that a perceived need to “connect theory and practice” exists.

Design, the applied arts and fine art in the UK are taught in current or former Art Schools, most of which have been absorbed into polytechnics and subsequently into new universities. Non studio based studies always formed a (small) part of the syllabus in these institutions and activities based around lectures, reading and writing have often been used to lend an intellectual legitimacy to art and design courses.

 And there, already, we encounter the problem, the perception that activities based around the written and spoken word are more intellectually demanding and valid than activities based around drawing and making. This notion is still incredibly prevalent in the art school system and it was rendered more concrete with the demise of diplomas in art and design and the rise of the degree (theoretically a more valuable qualification) which demanded for the first time that fashion, textiles, illustration and sculpture students (amongst others) produced dissertations. And while personally, I thoroughly enjoyed working on my dissertation; it formed a pleasant break from the frenzied days and nights producing my graduate collection, it is notable that history students are not required to produce a collection of eight outfits, or to mount a final exhibition.

Focusing on art schools might seem somewhat parochial, but they are indicative of a wider phenomenon in which certain sorts of philosophical and literary thinking is crudely grafted on to visual culture and the arts, at its most malign manifesting itself in wordiness and self-conscious intellectualism of unsuccessful conceptual art.

In fact, I think it is vitally important that designers and artists are equipped with the necessary analytical skills to think about their work in the context of a broader culture, society and economy and within various sorts of power structures and hierarchies. However, it seems flagrantly obvious to me, that “theory” ought to be imbedded in the studio practice in which artists and designers develop technical, formal, and aesthetic ideas.

Despite some individual charismatic and exciting lecturers, the current system for teaching art history and contextual studies is appalling. Syllabuses are generic and students are expected to sit in lecture halls passively absorbing information without understanding its relevance or how it applies to their discipline or personal practice. This is sad, because it often results in graduates who are less culturally and critically aware than they would like to be, lacking a contextual framework in which to position their practice.

Perhaps what I’m trying to express more generally, is a problem in which artists/designers and theoreticians don’t engage with each other in honest terms, and as in so many problems, I think that hierarchies have their part to play. Literacy and an ability to convey complex ideas in writing, historically, and in contemporary culture have been important as markers of social status. Within cultural and connecting social hierarchies, artists have, over the past several hundred years, transformed their status from “mere” artisans primarily through engagement with, philosophical, theological and historical ideas – to which they have often paid no more than lip-service (for example in neoclassical painting). It is this intellectual insecurity amongst people who are often primarily skilled in make, design and aesthetics, as well as pressure from without, which inhibits authentic theoretical and critical models being developed by artists themselves. Equally, so much art and design criticism is weak, because it fails to adequately engage with the physical stuff of art and design, and with the make process which is so essential to the way that artists and designers think through and express their ideas. There have been numerous examples where the nexus between theory and practice have yielded exciting results, in the socially concerned design of the Bauhaus or in the posters of the 1968 Paris uprising. But the formation of such creative nexus, are in my view reliant upon genuine engagement between practitioners and theoreticians in which the distinctions between these two activities are broken down.

JMB 04/07/09

A (very slightly) idealised drawing of Jim.

Well avid readers of this blog, I can only apologise, I have failed to keep you abreast of the latest developments in McCauley-Bowsteadian thinking; this post is long overdue.

I’ve been undertaking research on portfolios in various areas of art and design and, hopefully, formulating some conclusions on what makes a successful folio. Having the chance to look through and discuss the work of some very exciting up-and-coming practitioners has been genuinely inspiring. It is difficult to communicate the tactile, textural and dynamic qualities of cloth in photographs but you should check out the website of this fantastic textile print designer. www.craftcentral.org.uk/catherine-louise-aitken I find it interesting to see the way that she deals with the tension between the hand drawn and the geometric, as well as playing with our expectations around repeats and regularity. Her drawings are beautiful too.

Another creative I have enjoyed talking to, is Ralph Dorey www.ralphdorey.co.uk

I responded, in particular, to his interest in “Modernism and heroic endeavour”. It’s so refreshing to come across an artist willing to make bold (and optimistic) statements without feeling the need to bog the work down in layer upon layer of reference and worse irony.

Having been in contact with such a rich cross-section of creative activity I’ve felt inspired to recommence some creating of my own. A friend and I are discussing some form of collaboration so I hope to keep you posted on the progress of our project.

Lack of cogency

Unfortunately I'm experiencing a temporary lack of cogency in terms of verbal communication. In the mean time here are some images I've been working with recently.

In response to Conor

So thrilled am I to have someone reading my blog I thought I would extend my response to Conor’s (I thought well observed and intelligent comment) into a post.

There is an inherent duality or complexity in fashion, one which is often perceived as a contradiction. On the one hand fashion can be used to indicate belonging to a group (adherence to specific cultural values et cetera) and on the other to express individuality. Sometimes in the case of a sub-cultural or minority group in particular, both of these phenomena are expressed simultaneously. But I would argue against the notion that fashion is inherently normative. Both high design including haute couture, and street fashion are reliant upon innovation - playing with and subverting signs and signifiers, or formal experimentation.  

In constructing masculine identities through dress, individuals and designers, like moths creating a cocoon, are reliant upon the materials around them - but this doesn't invalidate the authenticity of these identities and images.

While fashion is often understood as being about dressing like others, in fact it is just as much about defining oneself against dominant norms.

Within capitalism it is arguable that all creative fields are vulnerable to being absorbed into power structures in which the values of the establishment are reproduced in order to extend their hegemony. I would suggest, however, that this is no more true of design than of fine art or literature. I could talk more about the notion of fashion as a uniquely debased and debasing form, as relating to the traditionally feminine craft activities it involves, but that’s another story ...