Letter from the Editor*
As the publishers of this magazine, it has been deeply disturbing to see how quickly and certainly dissent in the mainstream American media has been equated with disinformation or, even more slanderously, with Putin apologism. Leftist critics of NATO expansion and US provocation — Abby Martin, Lee Camp, Chris Hedges, and more — have had their archives removed from streaming media or have been permanently banned from Twitter, and anti-imperialist press outlets like Consortium News and MintPress News have had their PayPal accounts frozen, their meager financial assets raided, and their Wikipedia pages defamed.
All this simply for laying out the story of NATO expansion and for exploring the idea that the long term goals of a US led proxy war in Ukraine are regime change in Russia and to force the EU away from one risky, monopolized energy supply (the Nordstream 2 pipeline from Russia) and onto another (liquid natural gas exports from the US). This story, which in the mainstream media was called Russian disinformation and a conspiracy theory, was confirmed in March by Biden’s senile slip of the tongue, and last month by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s (whose previous gig was on the board of the arms manufacturer Raytheon) statements about “weakening” Russia and by actions taken by the German energy sector.
I am not sure what dissent means after the last few years in America. But I think that, in part, it means looking more deeply at the economic distress coming out of this war not as “Putin’s price hike,” but as an effect of Western economic sanctions causing stress in access to real resources like wheat, oil, and fertilizer, sanctions which do little to harm Russian oligarchs but which do land directly on the Russian people, on the poor of the global south, and on the Western working class. It means recognizing that our leaders may be made so stupid by their own arrogance and racism that they would hasten the coming into being of their worst nightmare: pushing Russia and China (and now India, Argentina, Venezuela, etc.) together and away from US dollar dependency. It means recognizing that in war, all sides can be devils. And, to me, it means using whatever small platform you have available to you to attempt to keep the discussion open on issues which, by the left’s self-imposed silence, has allowed the right to monopolize the conversation about them.
Art and criticism should not be safe spaces for America’s oligarchic party line. When we look at the rise of American hegemony in the cultural sphere, it is inseparable from its rise in the political and economic spheres. From the fact that the old avant-garde capital of Paris was in ruins after World War II, to the fact that Marshall Plan money was desperately needed to prop up everything from development projects to literary magazines in the new Europe, political might, US dollars, and cultural legitimacy were deeply intertwined.
America’s economic fall must too be so situated. As I look around me at an art world with its head in the sand, it’s hard not to see so much of its production as mere symptoms of a flagging empire, caught in Thucydides’ trap, blindly and desperately flailing to hold on to its old significance. If we want the future of art history to be about anything other than the inevitable rise of China and how the American oligarchy gilded their cages with overvalued tchotchkes while everyone else got sick, sweaty, and starved, it’s up to us to start the discussion about what that can be. With that said, I invite your feedback — to this laying out of my own opinion on neoliberal censorship, to the contents of Issue 9, to Cornelia in general. We’re welcoming your letters to the editor, your email feedback, your in-person challenges (or agreement). Maybe right here in our community we can build space for dissent and difference.
*Note: This letter is different from the one that appears in the print version of the magazine. At the time of printing, these thoughts were just forming in my mind. The printed Letter from the Editor follows:
This issue of Cornelia illustrates some of the strengths and weaknesses of a tight knit art community — rife with friendships bordering on potential conflicts of interest — it is as much about the connections we make moving through an art world as it is about the art and artists themselves.
This issue contains one essay by me about Kyla Kegler’s work, an essay about my work at Kyla Kegler’s project space, and three essays by members of a Marx reading group (Evan Moritz, Julia Dzwonkoski, and myself). Is this how movements start? Or how to alienate anyone who doesn’t feel like they are part of the “in” group? I’m hoping for the former, so it seems like a good time to remind our readers about a few key points about Cornelia:
Cornelia magazine is entirely submission based, which means we only publish articles based on pitches we receive from writers. Whether it’s your hundredth piece or your first, we help writers of all experience levels get their thoughts onto the page in a clear, approachable way. The best issues are culled from the most pitches!
Cornelia is not pay to play. It is regrettable when some of our most supportive advertisers do not receive coverage in the magazine for several issues in a row, but we’re limited to the pitches we receive. Our decisions for the five features we run per issue are based on making the magazine as diverse and expansive as possible — geographically, artistically, stylistically in writing, etc. When you want to see an exhibition covered at a project space, gallery, or museum, grandma’s basement, forest, etc., think just as expansively about who might have an interest in writing about it, and then ask them! Don’t forget to mention we pay writers $375USD/piece!
We do our best to spread the word about exhibitions we’re excited about in the hopes of seeing a submission for them, and we ask you to do the same! Sometimes just saying, out loud, that “someone should really cover this for Cornelia,” is just the spark someone else needs to head over to our submission form!
So, with those reminders out of the way, we can get back to kindling conversations and digesting the cultural output of the region through arts writing. First up, Emile Mausner interviews their friend, colleague, and collaborator, Jacob Broussard about his hermetic painting practice and his upcoming exhibition at Rivalry Projects in Buffalo. In the second piece, I address Kyla Kegler’s recent performance at Torn Space Theater on Buffalo’s east side and consider how it points the way toward a more caring and capacious idea of political economy. Then Caroline Webb interviews Buffalo’s Bonnie Gordon about her process, her work's connection to the history of cybernetic art, and her life in Western New York’s art community. Evan Moritz tackles the only exhibition in Toronto covered in this issue by addressing the network of relations that made up a recent group show at the plumb. Finally, Julia Dzwonkoski covers a recent exhibition of my work at Agatha’s, a project space inside two old confession booths at Kyla Kegler’s studio in South Buffalo.
A special thank you to Emily Mangione for her additional editing work on two articles in this issue and to BICA’s intern, Lydia Kegler, for keeping all our assets (and much else) in good order.
Nando Alvarez-Perez
by Nando Alvarez-Perez
