Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

330
1974), I am simultaneously appalled that the model taken for the proposed association or
“union” is that of American trade unions, organizations which historically have allowed their
political roles to be eroded away to that of “mere” economic bargain-hunters. Trade unions
traditionally have been firstly social and political movements and secondly economic forces—
thus economic betterment was generally conceived in terms of political action and social
change. In the United States, however, unions have tended to conceive of their “force for social
change” through sharing corporate power rather than seeking change. So, ultimately, at the
point of official acceptance of collective bargaining, unions have emerged as monopolies themselves
and strong allies of corporate industry, often forcing even more monopolistic exploitation
and practices into the market.
This insidious but by no means rare separation of “socioeconomic” (or “culture”) from
“politics” is openly represented in the NAWC proposals: “The goal . . . is to improve the socioeconomic
status of visual artists through:
1 — improving the standard of living of the artist through expanding the demand for art;
2 — promoting the recognition of the artist as a working professional ...”
Isn’t this labor organizing for the same reasons that capital does and for no other? Living in a
consumer society under a state of siege, incessantly being urged to consume more . . . do we
want to persuade others into an even more conspicuous consumption of artworks? What of
the tacit equation of an “economic standard of living” with “quality of life”? At what point
might we be prepared to forego the lifestyle of the haute bourgeois artiste, or is that what we
really mean by “professionalism”? Are there no questions to be asked about a private property
system operating in the fine arts? And so on.
The second example of disavowing social-political roles was displayed in the PASTA (the
Professional and Administrative Staff Association) strike at the Museum of Modern Art here
in New York. In an interview published in Artforum (December 1973), representatives of the
strike committee revealed an inability to cope with the political reality of their context, a refusal
to entertain such radical questions as the key role played by the museum in the promotion of
a bureaucratized, alienating “high culture.” Under what conditions can we support job preservation
and betterment policies in an already over-bureaucratized and over-privileged art? In
what ways would we be better off as a result of the bureaucratic power being spread more
evenly among the upper echelon staff? To whose advantage is it finally to see the museums