I agree with most of that, but I think that binaries are a problem of language, not of the world, and not of identities, or even social organizations. The definitions are part of the problem, and I believe we must be ever vigilant in finding them and exposing their falsity. I believe that the binary structure of language needs to be addressed and readdressed always already.

And yes, in the end, art/writing/music/culture has the final power, not the gross testosterone power of the warrior/priest/king. And thankfully, for you and yours (and me and mine). But power is almost always discussed in the immediate, since power works on our bodies, as does the immediate, and art works on decades, movements, continents and on a non-human scale. That distinct is important, because we are mortal and finite, and culture and the like will last far longer than a human life. The power of art/writing/music/culture rarely kills us or directly effects our bodies, unlike the testosterone power of the warrior/priest/king (I include corporations and nations in the later, of course).

let's not forget that corporations and nations can and do generate art all day.

and on this note, let's consider the related complexities of leni riefenstahl's 'triumph of the will'?

No, they don't. Only people create art. A corporation or a nation influences and often directs people, sure, but only people create human artifacts, and art is always already a human artifact. Furthermore, art is a specific kind of human artifact, and art is partially defined in its difference from the artifacts crafted by engineers or corporations.

Although nations and corporations influence products, minds, fashion, etc., there is a large difference between "the artifacts of humans" and "art." Art, in the western world, and since the Renaissance, has been predicated on innovation, and usually is without any intrinsic use-value ("to be looked at" does not count as a use-value). Product, in terms of what corporations make, is geared to fill a need, and usually has an intrinsic use-value. For example, you can't do anything besides stare at Correggio painting (you can destroy it by burning it, but that's against the purpose of a painting), but you can eat a Lion bar, or use a box of Tide to do your laundry (and admiring those things for their beauty goes against their intended purpose, which is to be used). Corporations don't make things without any intrinsic use-value, and when they do, they tend to rely on the model of art-making (that is, hiring "talent" to create innovative product).

Nations, unlike corporations, aren't known for making anything, except for government and policy (even communist governments allow individual businesses to operate somewhat autonomously). Nations are conglomerates whose prime purpose is NOT to make art, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim otherwise. I think you'd be hard pressed to point to "art" created by a nation in general. A nation didn't make Las Meninas or Double Negative.

thank you for that.

What about: the art market/patronage, art's decorative/mood-altering/propogandistic use value, the fact that corporations/nations are never truly faceless (no less so than banksy or terrence malick)?

Its all just manifest destiny right? Seduction/feeding (both in the active and passive sense).

This is a human artifact brought to you in part by the good people at six apart, apple and at&t (formerly Cingular wireless).

"No man is an island." I'm not saying that anyone acts autonomously. But I'm saying that ascribing creative powers to corporations or nations does a disservice to the real individuals who made the real work and made the real objects. Corporations are ways for people to act in tandem, and to act efficiently and produce at scale; it has never been a way to be creative - that's why "creatives" and R&D departments are largely autonomous from the larger corporation.

Onto specifics:

The art market is a market. It changes at the whims of artists, gallerists and collectors, that is, at the whims of collections of individuals, not the other way around. The people who try to "game" the art market always lose.

Successful decoration and propaganda eludes regular corporate production or formula, and that is why both businesses and governments turn to so-called "talent" (business parlance for creative individuals) to make it.

Seduction and feeding have nothing to do with manifest destiny, which is the belief in dominating the U.S. West. And feeding and seduction pre-exists any notion of business or nation.

Lastly, don't confuse what an individual creates to what history makes possible. History doesn't create (no more than corporations or businesses), but the creations of others in history provides the bedrock for everyone that follows. It was an individual that invented the telephone. It was a small group of academics that invented the internet. It was two hobbyists that built Apple. It was one individual that invented blogging, and one individual that invented LiveJournal. Six Apart, AT&T and Apple came after the individuals, and brought economies of scale, making the production of those things efficient and economically feasible. But individuals build companies and nations, and it will always remain individuals who do the actual creating.

My point is simply that nations and corporations do NOT create art, any more than history creates art; individuals create art and compose nations, corporations, and history.

My second, and minor, point is that art is partially defined against the product that corporations sell.

Corporations hire people to make packaging, commercials, etc., and the argument can be made that it is art, but it is no more created by the corporation then the telephone, the internet, LiveJournal, or the Mona Lisa. Production is NOT the same as creation.

Think of it this way: until the last few hundred years, every artist directly or indirectly worked for the church. But we know that the church didn't paint The Death of St. Peter Martyr, Titian did. Likewise, we know that Sony didn't make the video for Daft Punk's "Around the World," Michel Gondry did.

again, thanks so much for your detailed, thoughtful responses to my cryptic bait-and-swish.

i really like what you're saying about corporations being like history--a flow of progress that, like time, is a construction, a way of containing the work of many in a series of understandable bottles--but I just get the sense that you have a visceral aversion to capitalism and its very real, very powerful ability to absorb, harness, reshape and remix aggregate tastes (DESIRE), which is, at the very least when making art in a popular sphere, the engine of creativity.

My view: Production IS the same as creation. Groups of individuals ARE corporations. Michel Gonry didn't MAKE "Around the World"--he directed it, with a bunch of money and a ton of help and enough time and loving support from his friends, the band, and his "bosses". I'm not trying to do him a disservice--I'm trying to say, in real-world terms, that a juggler might be more talented than a writer. And in the case of that beautiful, immortal piece of video art music video, what's not to be happy about?