In his most recent book Boris Groys brings up the current discussion on Art Activism, that is “the ability of art to function as arena and medium of political protest and social activism”.He considers the critique towards it on the notion of aethetization should be readressed by rethinking its definition. For this purpose he suggests to trace back and to reformulate Walter Benjamin’s concepts of aestheticization of politics - instrumentalization of art at the service of totalitarian powers enhancing the values of ritual, genious, eternity associated to the artwork’s aura- and politization of art -deployment of art in its political dimension, to the service of social transformation through the employment of new reproduction’s techniques that erase the aura-; as well as to take into consideration contemporary technological advances that are transforming works of art’s and image’s reproduction, distribution and reception. It is under the contemporary historical context that I inquire about the possibility and necessity of Political Art, departing from Walter Benjamin’s essay “ The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” and research the problems, risks and critiques it currently faces. First, a clarification of what he meant by aestheticization of politics and politization of art is needed in order to consider those features which could be of help today and to be compared to Groys’ approach and conceptualization of artistic aesthetization. This clarification would lead to the question of whether a new definition of Political Art is needed and what its functions might be, regarding our present time and whether historical circumstances make it necessary or not. At the time of asking which might be Political Art’s functions, I would like to develop this question in relation to my own artwork on the Spanish Civil War - which I consider Political Art- and how this notion could play a role in the remembering of the past, how could it assist us to look the hopes of the past in the present, and thus awakening a political consciousness on the individual. However, I am well aware that if a new definition of Political Art is needed, so too is to draw its boundaries and limitations. It is precisely on this point that Benjamin’s theory, as Adorno criticized him, resulted ambiguous as to the boundary line between aesthetization of politics and politization of art. Consequently and finally, it is of great importance to try to find as unequivocal separation as possible between a political art waking up consciousness and political art as propaganda, if we are going to stand for the claim of the possibility and necessity of Political Art.

Routledge, 2020

The conception of political aesthetics outlined in this chapter is based on three interconnected beliefs. First, I claim that the aesthetic plays a more fundamental role in politics than is usually recognized; second, the connection between them may be found in the concept of order which I consider constitutive both for aesthetics and politics; third, the aesthetic is central for politics due to the vital importance of the desire for recognition which necessarily involves the idea of visibility. In the presently emergent culture of visibility, with its ongoing spectacularisation of the social life, the struggle for recognition becomes the struggle for the greatest possible visibility and is responsible for the spectacularisation of the political itself. For this reason, political theory cannot disregard the aesthetic properties of human relationships in each sphere of the social life. Therefore, the spaces of human relationships should be understood as loci of exposition and rivalry for visibility which is the primary mode of the satisfaction of the human desire for recognition. The stress laid on the aesthetic attributes of the spaces of human life thus enables one to understand various forms of the struggle for recognition, particularly in the area of politics, in a novel way. The argument is supported by a series of claims concerning the role of the concept of order in aesthetics, formulated by many authors, starting from Antiphon, the neglected ancient Greek precursor of political aesthetics. In conclusion, an account of the dynamics responsible for the dislocation of the individual’s gaze serves as a critique of the atomist view of the individual.

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research, 2019

Art is occupied through aesthetics. Most important philosophical understandingaesthetics derived through human evolution and the scale of apprehension of surroundings by humans itself. In political science, aesthetical sense is very important in designing democratic culture in the thoroughly changing world order. Aesthetics can be addressed as a political conditioning, the conditioning of recognition, acceptance, behavioral etc. Political aesthetics, called into being by Crispin Sartwell, attends to the aesthetic features of political science, that is, such things as political systems, and constitutions. Understanding politics, which is the place of power, of contestation between interests and interest groups, is incomplete without political aesthetics. In his 1897-published book, ‘What is Art?’ Leo Tolstoy described art as “one of the means of intercourse between man and man”. We know this to be true when we’re standing beside strangers in an art gallery or museum, gazing at an art...

Political Theory of Art. Foundations, Perspectives, Figures, 2024

The book enters the debate on the relationship between aesthetics and politics with an original and comprehensive theory. As Fransoni makes clear, a political theory is not a theory of politics, but a theory that deals with things, in this case art, in order to read them in the light of the political, i.e. in relation to human plurality. In the light of the political, the work of art and other common notions of art criticism find new and surprising definitions. At the same time, it is revealed how the work of art manifests some of the crucial relationships of politics, such as that between freedom and world. A political theory ultimately looks at art from the same perspective of plurality that art, together with other concepts of the political, helps to define.

2015

It was observed as early as the mid-twentieth century that aesthetics as a philosophical theory of art differs from its objects. The products of contemporary artistic practice go beyond the horizon of traditional aesthetics. Artists are involved increasingly often and on a wide scale in the actions aimed at transforming and constructing the common space. In the face of such activities as took place, for example, as part of the 7th Berlin Biennale for Contemporary Art in 2012, traditional aesthetics seems to be helpless. That is why, if art is to continue to be the focus of aesthetic investigations, it must, as it were, redefine itself. Jacques Rancière is one of the authors who have outlined the new horizon of aesthetics. In my paper I will briefly present his conception. It provides some theoretical tools which I will use for the description and interpretation of some selected examples of contemporary socially engaged artistic practices. I will show that his distinction of the „aes...

Oxford Art Journal, 2016

Sensibility and Sense, 2010

It is one of the wonders of philosophy that an idea should persist despite all possible evidence for abandoning it. Of the many ideas to which this comment can apply, the one that is most pertinent here is the belief in the autonomy of art. One can understand why such a belief should take hold. Many factors connected with art suggest that much of its force and value lies in the relative independence of making and appreciating art. The creative impulse is always unbridled and unpredictable, and often it is coupled with the healthy influence of deliberate iconoclasm. Less obvious is the directness of aesthetic engagement in appreciation and its opportunity for original experience. But independence is a different matter from autonomy, and claims for absolute self-sufficiency in art, as in social life, are wishful but ungrounded.

PROCEEDINGS OF ICFSS

In this article, the relationship between politics and art is discussed, through a pertinent literature review. Functions of art are described and ways of promoting political ideas are delineated. Art has served regimes from the beginning of the existence of human societies and still does. It facilitates political discourse, but, it also provides us with new interpretations of reality, poses questions, judges and controverts governing ideas. Besides, art suggests solutions for present social troubles like environmental issues or refugee crisis. Art can serve propaganda or even bring communities together. Capitalistic oppression, colonization, human exploitation and expansive policy have been fought through art. Art inspires, leads, guides and supports every novel and radical movement worldwide. In this piece of writing, the contribution of art in political movements and revolutions of 20th and 21st centuries is analytically described. Options that refer to the frame of artistic creations and to the epoch they belong to are considered. Opinions of intellectuals are discussed and contradictions are depicted in order to shape an integrated view about the association among politics and art. Readers will gain knowledge of how to form a critical opinion and to avoid being only customers or consumers of art. But, we should also be co-formulators of social conditions, politics and our life in general, through the art, with the assistant of artists, and with the support of Official State.

This article focuses on one issue in the wide-ranging, contemporary debates on the relation between art and politics, namely, philosophy's role in these debates and the contribution it makes. In the background, this survey acknowledges that philosophy may provide useful conceptual clarification regarding the many ways the arts engage in and with the political sphere, for example in the production of propaganda art and the uses of images in mass media; the use of the arts in identity politics and political demonstration; institutional histories and in the marketing and consuming of art products; issues of censorship and international law pertaining to the return of stolen art. However, in the foreground this survey treats the question more abstractly. It focuses on three relations: disenfranchisement, distantiationy, and indirectness.

The question of whether such a notion as 'political art' exists or if it is merely a result of interpretation of its ideology became especially relevant nowadays with the rapid development of such trends as global capitalism, political performance, and contemporary art in particular. One of the unifying aspects in researching these phenomena concerns not only nature of art and ideology as such but straightforwardly linked to their cross-functionality in contemporary society. With this paper I want to focus on the dialectic of art and ideology. More specifically, I want to go deeper into the ideological role of political art and to explore what stakes are raised by such speculative function. To do so, I will employ Eco's theory of cultural codes and Barthes mythology, on the one hand, and will examine the processes of art reading and mythologization in art. On the other hand, I will turn to the theoretical findings of Althusser, Zizek and Lacan and will look deeper into the interplay of art and ideology.