FA L L 2 0 1 0
A TALE OF TWO ART WORLDS ]october0and0its0others} Matthew J. Milliner n a recent conversation in Books & Culture with three Christian intellectuals involved in the arts, the art historian James Elkins discussed the blackballing of non-ironic religious perspectives in the ostensibly secular art world. This was not the first time. Elkins has repeatedly borne the brunt of Christian frustrations, for Elkins is one of the only “art world” representatives who has bothered to listen to Christian perspectives at all. Accordingly, this particular exchange read as if a noble prince of a powerful, distant kingdom had chosen to serve as an emissary to a band of exiled art world peasantry. Elkins laments that he (a mere prince) is powerless to change the art world’s hostility to religion, which is not directly, but unconsciously legislated by the powerful kings and queens of the contemporary art world. October reigns, he tells us, October being a Marxist journal of art and politics, founded in the Seventies and responsible for launching its editors into some of the most influential art historical positions in the United States. “[I]t can sound as if I am silently promoting the widening circle of theorists who are influenced by October…” explains Elkins, and yet academic art history, overshadowed by October, “is an account on which everyone else depends.” Nearly a century ago, the Dada manifesto ended “To be against this manifesto is to be a Dadaist.” Similarly, Elkins suggests that to even deny being a follower of October is to be captive to October. There may be lots of art going on outside the academic world, but should one bother to think or write about art, there’s no escaping the influence of this particular journal. “Worlds of art, yes,” said Elkins, “worlds of art writing, no.” In the intellectual climate of the art world, it’s always October. 5