Bourgeois liberalism
has, since the Enlightenment, done hegemonically well out of the naturalisation
of assumptions about art, or rather of the concept of the aesthetic
The aesthetic, as is clear from Schiller's formulation, is primarily a social and political model, ethically grounded in an assumedly Kantian notion of freedom;.... The "state" that is here being advocated is not just a state of mind or of soul, but a principle of political value and authority that has its own claims on the shape and the limits of our freedom. It would lose all interest if this were not the case. For it is as a political force that the aesthetic still concerns us as one of the most powerful ideological drives to act upon the reality of history.
Art can only hope to be valid if it provides an implicit critique of the conditions which produce it’ – a
validation, says
Eagleton, which, in evoking art’s privileged remoteness from such conditions,
instantly invalidates itself.
So why do we have ART? To save us from asking the question, WHY?
Why are we here?
TITLE: Art doesn't Exist. Really?
The aesthetic, as is clear from Schiller's formulation, is primarily a social and political model, ethically grounded in an assumedly Kantian notion of freedom;.... The "state" that is here being advocated is not just a state of mind or of soul, but a principle of political value and authority that has its own claims on the shape and the limits of our freedom. It would lose all interest if this were not the case. For it is as a political force that the aesthetic still concerns us as one of the most powerful ideological drives to act upon the reality of history.
Art can only hope to be valid if it provides an implicit critique of the conditions which produce it’ – a
So why do we have ART? To save us from asking the question, WHY?
Why are we here?
TITLE: Art doesn't Exist. Really?
No comments:
Post a Comment