Isn't the question rather one of sidestepping the subversive category as irrelevant? For me the most populist, most radical, albeit not subversive *g* aspect of the In Focus essays are its focus on individual fanworks, not as much in celebration (though that's clearly there too) as much as simply AS ART.

I mean, coming from literary studies (and the high brow aesthetics of modernism and even the various poststructural/postmodern/deconstructivist models which ultimately are pretty damn elitist all by themselves), for me the very fact that we can read Us next to Andy Warhol next to West Wing next to Citizen Kane next to James next to Chaucer...that in and of itself is a pretty huge thing.

I mean, when did aesthetics start getting measured in terms of political efficacy? And also, when did we stop working with nuances and settle for an either/or? (Both in the incorporation/resistance paradigm but also in your embracing the producers/repeating the active audiences framework.)

I mean, I think we need more rather than less differentiation, especially when it comes to the political/social values of art. Truth is beauty; beauty truth is clearly false, but the way the two interact, the way ethics and aesthetics interplay remains fascinating.

I want more and more subtle readings of these interplays, because I think, actually, we are entering an era where political and social values have become near simplistic surface qualities of texts, and while a what you see is what you get may be ultimately desirable, I look at works like Disidentification and mourn the differentiated reading of identification and engagement with sometimes not necessarily easily embraceable media texts...