Conclusion
This is a survey of the intersecting problems of politics, aesthetics, and criticism. The identification of poetic personae, artistic play, and ironic reserve cannot be the ultimate target of criticism. An analysis of art executed in purely aesthetic terms elides the political dimension more generally. And this move specifically fails to grapple with the self-serving politics of “art for art’s sake.” The glorious plenitude of art needs to be considered next to its partner, the glorious plenitude of imperial power. These two ineffable marvels are in communication with one another. And the artist is the one who has crafted the dialog. When we move past the terms of the debate set by the artist we can find a psychic life of power that is complicated and disturbing. Talk of the mastery of the master-craftsman hides this from us. It hides both the political complicity and the painful paradoxes that must be lived in order to embrace the glory and shame of complicity. Such talk hides the way in which artistry captures, reflects, reproduces, intervenes in, and celebrates the socio-political milieu more generally. Or, to the extent one does discuss the above, an overly sentimental discourse of “resistance” is allowed to guide the discussion. We finish with an appraisal of the problematic politics of intertextuality and allusivity as critical obsessions. The narrowness of such a research agenda can itself become politically complicit by offering a bibliophilic hiding place for people who have something to hide.