aesthetics and politics [rethinking the link]
TRANSCRIPT
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 1/26
Rancière Talk: Aesthetics and Politics: Rethinking the Link
There are different ways of dealing with art and politics. For a long time the issue had
been set up as a relationship between two separate terms. The question was raised as
follows: must art serve politics or not? Or: how can we assess the political import of
artworks? This led to endless controversies about art for art's sake opposed to engaged
art. Another way of setting the issue was: how do artworks represent social issues and
struggles or matters of identity and difference. This resulted in another kind of endless
job. When you started scrutinizing how 19th century French painters or novelists had
represented class-war matters, you already knew that they did it inadequately because of
their own class position. And when you begin to ferret out hidden representations of
social, sexual or racial difference, you never stop finding new biases, the more so
significant and perverse as they are the more deeply concealed and indiscernible to
everybody's eye. For a while, some concepts offered a mediation, such as culture or
modernity. The strategies of the artists, the contents of their representations or of their
dismissal of representation were referred to the modes of perception and consumption of
the new industrial world of work and leisure that you could call, according to your own
political commitment, either capitalism and commodification or modernity and modern
life. A lot of cultural and social history of art has been written to show how for instance
the impressionist technique of coloured blotches had been fostered by the perception of
the new scenery of the modern town with its shops, lights and windows or the new
pleasures of urban or suburban leisure, cafés-concerts, boating on rivers and so on. So the
issue of the autonomy of art with respect to politics turned out to be the issue of its
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 2/26
autonomy in relation to common culture: did the impressionist blotches testify to a 'truth-
to-medium" strategy of autonomy or did they chart the new conditions of sensory
experience in commodity culture?
Those discussions left the crucial point in the dark: how is it possible that the self-
containment of painting be identified with the representation of popular leisure? More
basically, how is it possible that we see - or read - on a canvas a representation of social
life? How does it make sense to relate a way of painting that makes the strokes of the
brush visible both to an idea of pure painting and to an idea of painting as an expression
of a new kind of social life? In order that we pose these questions, there must already be a
previous knot between a way of painting, a gaze cast on the canvas and a mode of
interpretation of painting as expressing a way of life. The impressionists could paint their
canvases and we can discuss whether they did pure painting, images of Parisian leisure or
both at the same time because there already existed a visibility of painting as both self-
affirmation of art and representation of common life. There must be a previous mapping
of the visible, the sayable and the thinkable allowing us to connect in this or that way
something that we call artistic form and something that we see as political content. Art
and politics are not two terms that would be linked through some form of representation.
They are constituted as such in the same knot of the visible, the sayable and the thinkable,
in the same framing of a common space where some practices appear to be named "arts"
and some matters to be viewed of as "political".
Art is not political owing to the messages and feelings that it carries on the state of social
and political issues. It is not political owing to the way it represents social structures,
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 3/26
conflicts or identities. It is political by virtue of the very distance that it takes with regard
to those functions. It is political as it frames a specific space-time sensorium, as it
redefines on this stage the power of speech or the coordinates of perception, shifts the
places of the actor and the spectator, etc.
Because politics is not the exercise of power or the struggle for power. Politics is first of
all the configuration of a space as political, the framing of a specific sphere of
experience, the setting of objects posed as "common" and subjects to whom the capacity
is recognized to designate these objects and argue about them. My book Disagreement
was an attempt to show that politics first is the conflict about the very existence of that
sphere of experience, the reality of those common objects and the capacity of those
subjects. A well known Aristotelian sentence says that human beings are political because
they own the power of speech that puts into common the issues of justice and injustice
while animals only have voice to express pleasure or pain. I tried to show that the whole
political problem dealt with distinguishing they who get the power of speech from they to
whom is only recognized the possession of voice. Artisans, Plato says, have no time to be
elsewhere outside of their work. I tried to show that that matter of lacking time was by no
means an empirical matter, that it was the mere naturalization of a symbolical separation.
Politics precisely happens when they who have "no time" to do anything else than their
work take that time that they have not in order to make themselves visible as sharing in a
common world and prove that their mouth indeed emits common speech instead of
merely voicing pleasure or pain. That distribution and re-distribution of times and spaces,
places and identities, that way of framing and re-framing the visible and the invisible, of
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 4/26
telling speech from noise and so on, is what I call the partition of the sensible. Politics
consist in reconfiguring the partition of the sensible, in bringing on the stage new objects
and subjects, in making visible that which was not visible, audible as speaking beings
they who where merely heard as noisy animals. In so far as it sets up such scenes of
dissensus, politics can be told to be an "aesthetic" activity, in a way that has noting to do
with that adornment of power which Benjamin called "aestheticization of politics".
The issue "aesthetics and politics" can thus be rephrased as follows: there is an
"aesthetics of politics" in the sense that I tried to explain. Correspondingly, there is a
"politics of aesthetics". This means that the artistic practices and their forms of visibility
and intelligibility, take part in the partition of the perceptible in so far as they suspend the
ordinary coordinates of sensory experience and reframe the overall network of
relationships between spaces and times, subjects and objects,the common and the
singular. There is not always politics, though there always are forms of power. Nor is
there always art, though there always are poetry, painting, music, theatre, dance, sculpture
and so on. Plato's Republic is a good case in point. It is sometimes misunderstood as the
"political" proscription of art. But politics itself is withdrawn by the Platonic gesture. The
same partition of the sensible withdraws a political stage by denying to the artisans any
time for doing something else than their own job and an "artistic" stage by closing the
theatre where the poet and the actors would embody another personality than their own.
The same configuration of the space-time of the community prevents for both of them the
possibility of making two things at once, putting the artisan out of politics and the
mimetician out of the city. Democracy and the theatre are two forms of the same partition
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 5/26
of the sensible, two forms of heterogeneity, that are dismissed at the same time to frame
the republic as the "organic life" of the community.
So the "aesthetical knot" is always tied before you can identify art or politics. The present
situation might be another interesting case of this articulation.As we know our present is
very often characterized as a time of desidentification of art. Many art lovers fail to
recognize the identity of art in front of the videos or installations that spawn in the place
where they used to see paintings. But as the same time, it very often happens that you
have to go to museums or art exhibitions to see forms of staging of political issues or
even hear a discussion about politics. It sometimes transpires as though we were not sure
to find art in the galleries and museums but get a better chance to see politics there than
in parliamentary debate. As though the attempts of challenging the museum as a separate
place had the opposite effect to reveal a strong linkage between the specific existence of
places devoted to the exhibition of art and the framing of the political community.
This link, I think is by no means casual. Plato dismissed at once theatre and democracy.
Strange as it may appear, there is perhaps some similar kind of linkage between modern
democracy and the existence of a place dedicated to what seemingly has little to do with
it : not the gathering of a theatrical audience around men acting on the stage, but the
blank space of the museum where the solitude and the passivity of the visitors passing-by
confronts the solitude and the passivity of artworks. To put it differently, the present
situation might show a specific form of a far more general linkage between the autonomy
of art places as such and its seemingly opposite, the political commitment of art, that is
the indetermination of the boundaries of art. To understand this apparent paradox, a little
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 6/26
journey backwards may prove useful, to look at a kind of primal scene of the museum
which is, at the same time a primal scene of revolution.
At the end of the 15th of his Letters on the aesthetic education of Man, Schiller takes us
in front of a Greek statue, known as the Juno Ludovisi. The statue is as he says "self-
contained" - an expression which would be strongly revived at the time of Clement
Greenberg. But precisely this "self-containment" soon proves to be a little more
complicated than the modernist paradigm would make it appear. It is no matter of
demonstrating the specificity of a medium or materials. The "medium" which is involved
here is not the material on which the artistic will works. It is the sensorium that links two
forms of suspension. First the self-containment of the statue expresses the main
characteristic of divinity: her "idleness and indifference", her getting free from any kind
of care and will, free from the task of achieving any aims. Second the spectator in front of
that "free-appearance" feels a state that Schiller characterizes as "free-play", meaning the
suspension of the very opposition of activity and passivity, form and matter, aims and
means. To sum it up, the "player" is "doing nothing" in front of this idle goddess and the
very work of the sculptor is taken within that circle of "inactivity".
Now, as well-known, Schiller, in the same letter, makes this strange statement that this
"free-play", this suspension of activity, is the very "humanity" of Man and that this
apparently paradoxical statement is capable of bearing "the whole edifice of the art of the
beautiful and the still more difficult art of living". I think that this statement has to be
reinvestigated, far beyond the usual interpretations that see in it an irenic dream of
humanity reconciled by the cult of Beauty and the artistic education of the lower classes.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 7/26
Such a reinvestigation has to grapple with the heart of the paradox, which, I think, is not
the paradoxical statement of a single thinker but a contradiction constitutive of a whole
regime of identification of art and of its "politics". The paradox can be summarized as
follows: there is a specific aesthetic experience that is an experience of suspension, of
withdrawal of power. And this experience of suspension is the principle of two seemingly
contradictory things: an edifice of art as such, the autonomization of a "self-contained"
sphere of art and the identification of that power of "self-containment" with the framing
of a new form of collective life". Understanding this constitutive paradox may help us to
get away from some stereotypes about modernity, its "unachievement" or collapse, or
passage to postmodernity.
The first point to understand is as follows: there is art, in general, to the extent that there
is a specific regime of identification. I call a regime of identification of art an articulation
between three things: modes of production of objects or of interrelation of actions; forms
of visibility of these manners of making and doing ; and manners of conceptualizing
these practices and these modes of visibility. These modes of conceptualization are not
simply added interpretations. They are conditions of possibility of what artistic practices
can produce and what aesthetic gazes can see. The same statue of the goddess may be art
or not be art as it falls under different regimes of identification. There is first a regime in
which it is perceived as an image of divinity. Its perception and the judgment about it are
thus subsumed under the following questions: is it allowed to make images of the
divinity? Is the divinity portrayed a true divinity? If she is, is she portrayed as she should
be? In such a regime, there is no art, as we have it, but only images that are appreciated in
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 8/26
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 9/26
representation. It gets it thanks to its belonging to a specific sensorium. The property
"being a work of art" is no more referred to a distinction among modes of doing. It is
referred to a distinction among the modes of being. The statue is a "free-appearance ",
meaning a a sensory form which is heterogeneous, with respect to other forms of
experience. It is apprehended in a specific experience, suspending the ordinary
connections between appearance and reality, form and matter, activity and passivity,
thought and sensation.
Why does this experience bear a new form of collective life? Because "free play " and
"free-appearance" frame a specific sensorium by breaking through the partition of the
sensible that shaped the traditional forms of domination. Free play is opposed to work, as
free-appearance is opposed to the appearance referred to a reality. But those categories,
work, play, appearance are categories of a partition of the sensible, I mean categories that
frame in the very fabric of sensory experience the issues of domination, hierarchy or
equality. In the platonician republic the impossibility of free-appearance for the
mimetician came along with the impossibility of play for the artisan. Appearance could
no more go without a "reality" than work could come along with the purposelessness of
play. More generally the legitimacy of domination lay on the "fact" of a sensory partition
of different humanities. Feeling and tasting, Voltaire stated, do not mean the same thing
for the cultivated people and for common people. And the power of the high classes was
the power of the educated senses over the raw senses, the power of activity over
passivity, understanding over sensation, form over matter, etc.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 10/26
Free play and free appearance thus show up as the dismissal of that partition of the
sensible. This is how Schiller interpreted Kant's "free-play" of the faculties by politicizing
it: the power of "form" over "matter" was the power of the State over the masses. It was
the power of the class of intelligence over the class of sensation, of the men of culture
over the men of nature. The aesthetic experience was the dismissal of that power. It
framed an "equality" which would be no more a reversal of domination but the
destruction of the very partition of the sensible sustaining domination in general. As we
know, he opposed that sensory "revolution" to the political revolution as it had been
implemented by French Revolution. The latter had failed precisely because the
revolutionary power had plaid the traditional part of the Understanding - meaning the
state - imposing its law to the matter of sensations - meaning the masses. By so doing it
was still in line with the old partition of the sensible where the culture of the elite had to
rule over the wilderness of the common people. The only true revolution would be a
revolution overthrowing the power of "active" understanding over "passive" sensibility,
the power of a "class" of intelligence and activity over a class of sensitivity and
wilderness. This is what was entailed in the aesthetic experience of suspension of the
opposites: a revolution of sensory existence itself instead of a revolution in the forms of
government.
Art is "political", in the aesthetic regime of art, insofar as it is identified within an
autonomous form of experience. This regime sets the relationship between the forms of
identification of art and the forms of the political community in a way that dismisses in
advance any opposition between an autonomous and a heteronomous art, art for art’s sake
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 11/26
and art committed to politics, art in the museum and art in the street. Because the
"aesthetic autonomy" is not, as the "modernist" paradigm has it, the autonomy of the
work of art as such. It is the autonomy of a form of experience. And this autonomous
form of experience appears as the principle of the self-formation of a new humanity.
There is no conflict opposing the "purity" of art and its "politicization". On the contrary,
it is thanks to its very purity that the materiality of aesthetic experience can be posed as
the material anticipation of a new form of community. If the creators of the pure forms of
so-called abstract painting could become constructors of the new Soviet life, it is not due
to their subjection to an ideology came from the outside. For the non-figurative purity of
that painting - the flatness gained over the illusion of the third dimension did not mean
the self-containment of the art of painting within the accomplishment of the potentials of
its own materials. Much more it asserted the egalitarian power of the surface, as an
interface where fine art and applied art, functional art and symbolic art would fuse, where
the geometry of the ornament became the symbol of interior life and the purity of the line
the instrument for building a new setting of life, liable to become the setting of a new life.
Abstract painting was part of a whole vision of a new man, living in new buildings
among newly designed objects. That's why the pure poets and the social engineers could
share in the same project. In 1897 Mallarmé writes his Throw of Dice and he wants the
disposition of the lines and the sizes of the characters on the printed page to match the
form of the idea. Some years after Peter Behrens designs the lamps and the kettles, the
trademark and the catalogues of the German General Company of Electricity. What have
they in common? I would answer: a certain idea of design. The poet wants to replace the
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 12/26
representational subject matter of old poetry with the design of a general form, making
the poem like a choreography or like the unfolding of a fan. He calls these general forms
types. The engineer/designer wants to create objects whose form would fit their use and
advertisements giving an exact information about those objects instead of commercial
embellishments. He also calls these forms types. He thinks of himself as an artist
inasmuch as he attempts to create a culture of everyday life, fitting the progress of
industrial production and artistic design instead of the routine of commerce and petty-
bourgeois consumption. His types are symbols of common life. So are Mallarmé's types
as well. They are part of the project of building, over the level of monetary economy, the
level of a symbolic economy, displaying a collective "justice" or "magnificence", a
celebration of the human abode, standing in for the forlorn ceremonies of religion and
monarchy. Far from each other as the symbolist poet and the functionalist engineer may
seem, they share the idea of art forms as forms of collective education. Both industrial
production and artistic creation are committed to do something else that(n) what they do,
to create not only objects but a new sensorium, a new partition of the perceptible.
There is no conflict between purity and politicization. But there is a conflict in the
"purity" of art, in the very conception of that materiality of art which foreshadows a new
configuration of the common. Mallarmé still is a good case in point: on the one hand, the
spatialization of art makes the poem a self-contained block of heterogeneous sensible, set
apart from what he calls the "space identical to itself" and the "uniform drip of ink" of the
newspaper. On the other hand it is a vanishing performance, alike the fireworks of
Bastille Day or it is a ritual of the community, similar to Greek theatre or the catholic
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 13/26
mass. On the one hand the power of a new community is enclosed in the solid volume of
the work, on the other it is ephemerally drawn in the gesture that designs a new common
space.
This means that the contradiction lies at the very heart of the aesthetic experience. The
Schillerian scenario can still help us to understand it. On the one hand the free appearance
is the power of a heterogeneous sensible. The statue, like the goddess, stands in front of
the subject, idle - which means indifferent to any will, to any combination of ends and
means. She is self-contained, which means, unavailable to our knowledge, our aims, our
desires. And it is only thanks to that strangeness, that unavailability that she bears the
promise of a future humanity. The subject of the aesthetic experience is promised the
possession of a new world by that statue that he cannot possess in any way. And the
"aesthetic education" that must replace the political revolution is the education by that
strangeness of the free appearance and by that experience of dispossession and passivity.
But, on the other hand, the autonomy of the statue means the autonomy of the way of life
that she expresses. Free-appearance is such because it is the expression of a free
community. But the very meaning of that freedom comes to be overturned. A free,
autonomous community is a community whose lived experience does not rend itself into
separate spheres of activity, of a community where art and life, art and politics, life and
politics are not severed one from another. According to that logic, the Greek statue is art
for us because it was not for the sculptor. And the free-appearance promises a community
that will be free to the extent that it will no more know those separations, it will no more
know of art as a separate sphere of activity.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 14/26
So the statue promises a new world because it is captured in a specific partition of the
sensible. But that partition itself may be interpreted in opposite ways. On the one hand
the statue promises a new community because it is art and it frames a specific sphere of
experience. On the other hand, it makes the promise because it is no art, because it
expresses a way of dwelling in a common space, a form of life that knows no separations
between different spheres of activity. The aesthetic education thus is the process which
transforms the free appearance into a lived reality and the aesthetic free play into an
agency of the living community.
The politics of art in this regime rests on this founding paradox: the autonomy of
aesthetic experience is an experience of heteronomy as well. We don't need to figure out
some pathetic end of "modernity" or cheerful outburst of postmodernity. There is no
dramatic breakthrough but an original contradiction. From the very outset of the aesthetic
regime, art is art in so far as it is no-art. The solitude of the work bears a political
promise. The accomplishment of the promise is the suppression of art and politics as
separate activities. From this point on, the aesthetic self-formation divides itself into two
"politics": a politics of accomplishment and a politics of unaccomplishment. On the one
hand, the program of the aesthetic revolution where art becomes a form of life, thereby
suppressing its difference as art, and suppressing politics as well. On the other, the
resistant figure of the artwork that holds in store the political promise, thanks to the very
separation from the outside and the inner contradiction that prevents it to be
accomplished.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 15/26
The first plot, the plot of the aesthetic revolution intends to transform the aesthetic
suspension into the principle of a free world. It opposes to the political revolution a
revolution in sensory experience itself, the framing of a community of feeling. This
scenario was first set out in the little draft associated with Hegel, Schelling and Hölderlin,
known as the "oldest system-program of German Idealism". This scenario opposes to the
"dead mechanism" of the State the living power of living thought. But this sheer
opposition of life and death makes politics vanish. It dismisses the "aesthetics of
politics", the practice of political dissensus. It replaces it with the framing of a consensual
community: not a community where anybody agrees with everybody, but a community
achieved as a community of feeling. The task of the "aesthetic education" assumed by the
"oldest program" is to make ideas sensory, to make out of them the equivalent of the
ancient mythology: a living tissue of experience and belief shared by the elite and the
common people. This is ultimately the program of a metapolitics that purports to achieve
in the realm of sensory experience what politics can only do in the realm of form and
appearance.
As we know this scenario did not stay on the mere stage of philosophy and poetry.
Though Marx could never read the draft, he exactly transposed it, forty years after, when
he framed the scenario of the no more political but "human revolution" - that revolution
aimed at achieving philosophy by suppressing it and giving men the real possession of
that which he had only known in the dream of appearance. By so doing, he shaped the
new enduring identification of the aesthetic subject; the producer, producing both the
objects and the social relations in which the former were produced. It is on the ground of
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 16/26
that identification that the Marxist avant-garde and the - suprematist, constructivist and
even symbolist - artistic avant-garde could meet in the 1920's and make agreement on a
common program: the suppression of both political dissensus and aesthetic heterogeneity
in the edification of new forms of life and the buildings of a new life.
This scenario is too easily equated with the disastrous plot of utopia and totalitarianism.
But the project of "art becoming life" cannot be reduced to the program of the
constructivist engineers or futurist artists in Soviet Revolution. It shaped a wider and
more enduring tradition, reaching back at least to the artists of Arts and Crafts, carried on
by the engineers of The Werkbund and the Bauhaus or l'Art nouveau through to the
situationists architects and even to the more modest contemporary proposals of the so-
called "relational art". But even the symbolist poets shared in this program of an art,
suppressing its singularity to frame the sensible forms of a community that would be no
more the "formal" community of democracy. This is no matter of "fascination" for the
song of totalitarian sirens. This comes as a direct consequence of the founding
contradiction of the metapolitics grounded in the very status of the aesthetic work,
stemming from the original linkage between the singularity of the idle appearance and the
activity transforming the appearance into reality. The aesthetic metapolitics can achieve
the promise of living truth that it finds in the aesthetic suspension only by invalidating
that suspension, transforming the aesthetic form into a form of life. That form of life itself
can take on different shapes. It may be the soviet edification that Malevitch in 1918
opposes to the "old Greek ladies". Or it may be the play and the urban "derive" that Guy
Debord opposes to the totality of a life alienated in the spectacle. Anyway the politics of
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 17/26
the "free form" asks it to accomplish itself, to suppress that sensory heterogeneity which
bore the aesthetic promise.
That suppression of form in act is precisely what is rejected by the alternative politics of
aesthetics, the politics of the resisting form. In this scenario, the politicity of the form is
maintained by providing it to take any part outside of its own realm, may it be as partisan
commitment or aestheticization of prosaic life. The Schillerian goddess bears the promise
because it is idle. The social function of art, Adorno will echo, is to have no social
function. The egalitarian promise is enclosed in the self-sufficiency, in the indifference of
the work towards either any program of social transformation or any participation in the
adornment of prosaic life. Perhaps the conservatives understood it before the
revolutionaries. That's why, for instance, in the 1850's, the work on nothing, the work
resting on itself of Flaubert was immediately perceived by the literary and political
conservatives a strong manifestation of democracy. The work which wants nothing, the
work deprived of any "point de vue", which gives no message and does not care neither
for democracy nor for anti-democracy, this work proves to be egalitarian out of this very
indifference, suspending any kind of preference or hierarchy. Later generations would
argue that it is subversive thanks to the way it sets the sensorium of art away from the
sensorium of everyday aestheticized life.
That idea of a politicity entailed by the "indifference" of the work would be appropriated
by the political avant-gardist tradition. That tradition would have political avant-gardism
and artistic avant-gardism fit together out of their very absence of connection. Its
program can be summed up as follows: let us save the heterogeneous sensible which is
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 18/26
the heart of the autonomy of art and consistently of its power of emancipation, save it
from a twofold threat: the transformation into a metapolitical act or the identification to
the forms of everyday aestheticized life. That twofold polemics is best summoned in the
adornian aesthetics. The political potential of the work lies in its separation from
commodity culture and the administrated world. But this potential cannot consist only in
that external separation. It also lies in the contradiction inherent in that solitude. The
autonomy of Schönberg's music, as conceptualized by Adorno, is a double heteronomy:
in order to denounce the capitalist division of labour, it has to take that division yet
further, to be more technical, more inhuman than the products of capitalist mass
production. But this inhumanity in turn makes the blotch of what has been repressed
appear and disrupt the perfect technical arrangement of the work. The promise of
emancipation can be kept only by sweeping aside any kind of reconciliation, any kind of
"agreement" inside the work and in its relation to the outside. This view of the politicity
of art has a dreadful consequence. It sets the "political-apolitical" difference of the
aesthetical promise as a difference to be experienced in the most sensory way. There is an
extraordinary pathos in the tone of the passage in the Philosophy of New Music where
Adorno states that some chords of 19th century salon music are no longer audible unless,
he says, "everything be trickery". If those chords are still available, if they can still be
heard with pleasure by our ears, the promise of art is proved a lie, which also means that
the historical path to emancipation is lost.
As we know, it appears some day that they still can be heard. As it appears some day then
you can still see figurative motifs on a canvas or make art by merely borrowing and re-
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 19/26
exhibiting items from ordinary life. This, I would assume, is no radical shift from
modernity to postmodernity. Modernity and postmodernity are only restrictive
interpretations of the more complicated logic of the aesthetic regime of art. There is no
historical shift onto a radically new regime of art. But there is a dialectic of the
"apolitically-political" work that draws it to a limit. That limit, I think, is clearly
perceptible in the lyotardian "aesthetic of the sublime" which is both the accomplishment
and the entire reversal of the adornian dialectic. In a sense, Lyotard is still in keeping with
Adorno or Greenberg when he goes to war against trans-avant-gardism. I quote from the
essay: Representation, Presentation, Unpresentable, included in The Inhuman: "Mixing
on the same surface neo- or hyperrealist motifs and abstract, lyrical or conceptual motifs
means that everything is equivalent because everything is good for consumption. This is
an attempt to establish and have approved a new taste. This taste is no taste (...) To the
extent that this postmodernism, via critics, museum and gallery directors and collectors,
puts strong pressure on the artist, it consists in aligning research in painting with a de
facto state of "culture" and in deresponsibilizing the artists with respect to the question of
the unpresentable. Now in my view this question is the only one worthy of what is at
stake in life and thought in the coming century ". This sounds entirely adornian. But the
emphasis on the heterogeneous sensible is entirely overturned in the lyotardian
interpretation. That heterogeneity turns out to be the pure inscription of the power of the
Other. The avant-garde has to draw indefinitely the border separating art from commodity
culture, to inscribe indefinitely the link of art to the "heterogeneous sensible". But it has
to do it in order to invalidate indefinitely the "trickery" of the aesthetic promise itself, to
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 20/26
denounce both the promises of revolutionary avant-gardism and the entropy of
commodity estheticization. The avant-garde is endowed with the paradoxical duty of
bearing witness to an immemorial dependence of human thought that makes any promise
of emancipation a trickery. So this scenario just alike its opposite comes to a self-
invalidation: no more in the archipolitics of the sensible community but in the
identification of the "autonomous artwork" to the ethical task of testimony. The politics
of the resistant form eventually comes down to another kind of desidentification of art, of
identification of art and life.
My purpose, in sketching out these two forms of self-contradiction, was not at all to join
the mourning or cheerful choir singing the "crisis of modernity". Rather it was an attempt
to get away from those simplistic categories. I also wanted to stress the inner tension that
dwells in the heart of the seemingly simple project of a "critical" art that would give the
"consciousness" of the forms of domination and make the spectator become an actor of a
process of social and political transformation. The hitch of the project is that "politics"
has its own aesthetics, its own way of "making people conscious" and reframe the issues
of domination and rebellion, by inventing new plots, reframing the visibility of "political"
matters, putting new objects on the stage. On the other hand, aesthetics has its own
politics, its two opposite politics, so that the project of a "critical art" is from the outset
dragged between the two opposite logics: the logic according which art has to suppress
itself in order to become life and the logic according which it does politics only at the
cost of not doing it. The tension within the critical model has been well exemplified by
the brechtian model whose legacy is still at play in so many contemporary projects. This
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 21/26
model has to come to terms with a very simple contradiction: the work that "makes
people understand" by disclosing the reality under the appearance dismisses that
"strangeness" or uncanny of the resistant appearance that bears witness to the
arbitrariness or the unbearable of a world. In so far as it invites us to decipher the signs of
capitalism and commodification behind everyday things and behaviours it locates itself
within the closure of a system where the transformation of things into signs is redoubled
by the excess of interpretation that takes yet further the becoming-sign of every thing. So
a critical art must be an art that both gives the spectator both the intelligence of what he
or she did not understand and the power of refusal, attached to the spectacle of the
unconceivable. It must be a kind of third way, a negotiation between the two politics of
aesthetics. That negotiation must keep something of the tension that withdraws the power
of aesthetic sensuousness from the other spheres of experience and something of the
tension that pushes aesthetic experience toward the reconfiguration of collective life. It
borrows from the zones of indiscernibility of art and life the connections that provoke
political intelligibility. And it borrows from the separateness of art works the sense of
sensory strangeness that enhances political energies. The main procedure of critical or
political art consists thus in setting out the encounter and possibly the clash between
heterogeneous elements. This is for instance what Brecht did when he blended the
scholastic forms of political teaching with the enjoyments of the musical and the cabaret
and staged allegories of Nazi power discussing in verse about matters of cauliflowers.
The clash of the heterogeneous elements is supposed to provoke a break in our
perception. On the one hand it is aimed at disclosing some secret of power and violence.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 22/26
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 23/26
work its ephemeral re-arrangement of the window display of his cousin’s pork butchery
( The Belly of Paris). Fifty years after Zola, Aragon in turn would see a fantasy of
German mermaids in the window of an old-fashioned umbrella-shop in the Passage de
l’Opéra ( Le Paysan de Paris). And Benjamin would identify in that phantasmagoria the
“dialectic at work in the things”. Our contemporary exhibitions of recycled commodities
or commercial videos still thrive on the same process.
This poetics of exchanges between art and non-art was the way in which the resistant
otherness of the aesthetic work and the active appropriation of the common world could
meet. Indeed that poetics went through various forms. In Zola’s novels, the permeability
between art and commodity was emplotted in an epics of modern life and modern beauty.
In the 1920’s the surrealists made him serve the attempt of recognizing in everyday life
the absolute power of dream, overcoming the prose of bourgeois rationality. In the 60’s
Marcel Broodthaers put into play in order to emphasize the commodification of art. In the
70’s Martha Rosler’s photomontages used it to demonstrate both the violence of the
Vietnamese war hidden between the idyll of American consumption and the violence of
the commodity sustaining the violence of war. That critical function is stilled posted in
the agendas of art. A significant amount of exhibitions presents us with reduplications of
commodities and commercial videos, assuming that those artefacts offer a radical critique
of commodification and force us to cast a new gaze on the world of commodities, media
and ads which surrounds us. I wonder how many people still give full credence to that
power. Though still posted on our agendas, the critical claim is increasingly shifting onto
two different attitudes.
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 24/26
The first attitude brings the critical pretension back to the undecidability of a game. It
plays on the very indiscernibility of its operation and sets forth the vanishing character of
the difference severing the subjection to commodified imagery from its ironic
denunciation. That double play was obvious in the case of the exhibition first presented in
Minneapolis under the pop title Let’s entertain, then repackaged in Paris as Beyond the
Spectacle. This last title plaid on three levels: first the pop anti-high culture provocation;
second, Guy Debord’s critique of the “spectacle”, meaning the triumph of alienated life;
third, the identification of “entertainment” with Debord’s concept of “play”, viewed as an
activity opposed to the passivity of the “spectacle”.
The second attitude tends to come back from the critical disclosure of the relations of
power hidden behind the images and the self-critique of art to a new attempt to set forth,
in a positive way, the potential of common history enclosed in the images and objects of
our world. Rather than denouncing the boundary between elite museums and popular
culture, it presents the anonymous visitor with sets of items that witness to a common
history and emphasize the kinship between the art of the collector and the art of the rag-
picker, between the gestures of artistic invention and the multiplicity of inventions at play
in the arts of living and arts of doing of anybody. The so-called “relational aesthetics” has
it that art creates no more objects but ephemeral situations and encounters, inducing new
behaviours and new forms of social relationships. It is part of a more general shift from
critical art to a new consensual idea of “art in our life”. For instance, the Guggenheim
Museum in New York recently presented an exhibition called Moving Pictures. Its
purpose was to show how the extensive use of reproducible media in contemporary art
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 25/26
was rooted in the critical art practices of the 60’s and the 70’s, questioning both social
and sexual stereotypes and artistic autonomy. Nevertheless the videos, photographs,
installations and video-installations displayed around the rotunda illustrated a significant
shift from that straight line. Instead of critique, they enhanced a half-realistic half-
symbolist sense of the strangeness of the everyday life and the common people. That shift
was over-stressed by the video installation of Bill Viola located at the top of the museum
and entitled Going forth by day. Those five video- projections, embracing the cycles of
Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection along with the cycles of Fire, Air, Earth and Water,
brought us back to the great symbolist and expressionist frescoes of Human Destiny. It
transpires as though the three politics of Aesthetics (shaping the forms of a new life,
preserving the power of the heterogeneous sensible and exchanging the signs of art and
the signs of life ) were fused into a new kind of indiscernibility.
This undecidability can be referred to a global situation in which concerns with
Humanity and attempts to “restore the social link” are increasingly prevailing over
political concerns. But it is also consistent with the whole logic of the aesthetic regime. In
this regime the identification of art forms as such involve political – I would rather say
meta-political – potentials whose full actualization cannot be achieved without
suppressing either art or politics or even both of them. Aesthetics promises a political
accomplishment that it cannot satisfy and it thrives on that ambiguity. As the awareness
of that ambiguity grows, it enhances two attitudes: one of melancholy with respect to the
failure of the promise, another of play with its very uncertainty. But, just as art becomes
aware of the limits of its power, it is pushed toward a new political commitment by the
7/31/2019 Aesthetics and Politics [Rethinking the Link]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-and-politics-rethinking-the-link 26/26
weakening of politics itself. It transpires as though the narrowing of the public space and
the lack of political invention gave to the performances and installations of the artists a
new capacity of framing scenes of dissensus. How far they can contribute to the
reconstruction of a political space instead of working as mere substitutes is still at issue
to-day.
Jacques Rancière
Berkeley, September 2002