SI

Gus Halper

Debord’s theory that art is in constant danger of being “co-opted” is unfortunately very easily supportable. Forget for a minute about the assimilation of last year’s “avant-garde” art movement into this year’s popular culture. Forget for a minute that heavy, filthy dubstep has somehow snuck itself onto Applebees’ daily play list, and that “random humor” is now being choked to death by corporations like Geico who use it unashamedly to promote their products. While annoying, these things hardly seem dangerous or life changing. However, when it comes to confirmed suspicions that the CIA helped fund America’s Modern Art movement in the 1950’s, things get a little more confusing and the

“danger” of cooption becomes increasingly more clear. The CIA supported Abstract Expressionism through the works of Pollock, Kooning, Rothko, and Motherwell, in order to foster feelings of freedom and artistic liberation amongst Americans during the Cold War in the face of our communist enemies.

            While in this particular case the result of such art in people’s lives seems generally beneficial, it cannot help but speak volumes about the power of art in our society and the risk we take of being manipulated by it. Art has the enormous potential to change the way we think and function the way that Modern Art so clearly did. One of Debord’s main concerns was the ease with which art can be turned into propaganda, even for the most trivial causes (such as Geico commercials). And while the commercial aspects of co-option are less a worry of mine than the more harrowing political aspects of co-option, they both pose the same concern. Art is very powerful because it affects people very strongly, and as long as one puts it out into the world, people will always want to take advantage of that fact.

Having said all of that, I must now admit that I completely disagree with Debord’s theories on art. I understand on an intellectual level the argument he is trying to make, however, I think that his ideas about what art is capable of are narrow at best. He is idealizing art as something stagnant, something which serves the same purpose at the end of its life as it did at the beginning. This is a wild misconception. In my opinion, art and life are very much and should remain one intertwined, interfused mass, inseparable from one another, and both subject to the inevitable changes that time brings.

On top of my somewhat over blown philosophical argument, I think that even if art is co-opted and its original essence is lost, the simple creation of it is worth all the effort. The argument is made all too often, just because something bad will inevitably happen doesn’t mean we shouldn’t venture out and try things. If it did, what would be the point of living? We will all die in the end. What would be the point of getting a dog? It’s just going to leave you grieving in ten years. What would be the point of starting any sort of romantic relationship? Chances are it won’t work out and you’ll wind up depressed, or best case scenario you meet the love of your life, and then eventually they die and leave you alone on this earth for the remainder of your short miserable life before you too croak. I think the point that I am too brashly trying to make is just because art may spend the majority of its life in the grips of cooption doesn’t mean that the first few moments of its innovation can’t change the world completely.