7.5.20 Ranciere and the Politics of aesthetics
I read a review of Ranciere’s ‘Politics of Aesthetics’ by Ben Davis, associate editor of Artnet Magazine. He says that set against a ‘background of disenchantment, Rancière set out to explore the relationships between philosophy and the worker, rethink ideas of history and try to construct a progressive theory of art’, but goes on to say that he thinks it’s ‘a quick and dirty tour of a number of these themes.’ Davis also says that the book is ‘sensuously impenetrable, coming equipped with a glossary of terms for the uninitiated.’ He is rather scathing, in the end, of Ranciere;’s language, when he says that ‘The mellifluous, impenetrable language of theory is often thought of as a sign of sophistication. But it can just as well serve as a way of covering over underlying inconsistency or lack of substance.’ Davis’ final paragraph is a fabulous indictment of the rarified language of some critical thought, and it made me smile!
‘Such an inability to call obscurantism as one sees it -- the confusion of complex form with serious meaning -- is, of course, an intellectual problem, leading to the substitution of quirky diction for critical thought. It is also, in this case, a political problem, in that it draws good people’s efforts into false intellectual debates. But it is, finally, an esthetic problem as well. Failing to deal with such thought skeptically can only make the art world more insular, and more pompous.’
My sentiments precisely!
Anyway, Davis interprets Ranciere’s theories of aesthetics and politics thus:
‘politics is the struggle of an unrecognized party for equal recognition in the established order. Esthetics is bound up in this battle, Rancière argues, because the battle takes place over the image of society -- what it is permissible to say or to show…combining, in a clever way, art history with labor history…'
Ranciere describes 3 scenarios
‘First of all, there’s the "ethical regime of art," in which artistic images are evaluated in terms of their utility to society… (which) defines artwork as common craft labor… (So) artists’ work cannot be granted too much power… (as) common laborers have no voice within society.’
Secodnly, Ranciere propounds the ‘representational regime of art,’ where ‘Art is granted its own sphere with its own rules, and elevated above those of common craft. Politically, this second way of thinking about art objects corresponds to the bourgeoisification of the artist, his transformation into a figure with his own freedom and independence, elevated above the demands of common labor’.
Finally he presents ‘his very own theory of modernism. The ‘aesthetic regime of art’ proposing ‘the absolute singularity of art’, suggesting ‘contradictory roles for the artist, as autonomous creator and laborer -- art can still be free of the restrictions of common craft, but it also doesn’t have to be shackled to any particular noble content that distinguishes it from everyday life -- prefiguring a progressive equality in its attack on old esthetic hierarchies.’ Davis maintains that ‘Rancière wants to argue that such artistic egalitarianism is analogous to the breaking down of real social and political hierarchies’ but seems more cautious when pressed in an interview!
Davis argues that ‘by his own logic, all the subtle theorizing about how esthetic struggle, if not reducible to the struggle for political equality, produces a "different type of equality," is a distraction from the key question: Given that their relation is only ever analogical, what makes "esthetic politics" progressive in its relation to actual, on-the-ground agitation, as opposed to escapist or reactionary?’ He does however say that it’s a ‘valuable corrective to lazy posturing of the "my art is my activism" kind’.
‘Rancière will say that new kinds of artworks create new communities and ways for people to relate to one another. For him, this gives them a possible relation to politics.’ (Davis, 2006)
My Wishing trees are ‘new kinds of artworks’, for me anyway, and also possibly new because of the unprecedented times we’re living in. The have 2 sites: outside, in public spaces and also on social media. They have definitely ‘created new communities and ways for people to relate to one another’ as well. Ranciere suggests that this ‘gives them a possible relation to politics.’ (Davis, 2006)
Davis, B.(2006) Ranciere, for dummies Available at: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/books/davis/davis8-17-06.asp (Accessed 7 May 2020)
‘Such an inability to call obscurantism as one sees it -- the confusion of complex form with serious meaning -- is, of course, an intellectual problem, leading to the substitution of quirky diction for critical thought. It is also, in this case, a political problem, in that it draws good people’s efforts into false intellectual debates. But it is, finally, an esthetic problem as well. Failing to deal with such thought skeptically can only make the art world more insular, and more pompous.’
My sentiments precisely!
Anyway, Davis interprets Ranciere’s theories of aesthetics and politics thus:
‘politics is the struggle of an unrecognized party for equal recognition in the established order. Esthetics is bound up in this battle, Rancière argues, because the battle takes place over the image of society -- what it is permissible to say or to show…combining, in a clever way, art history with labor history…'
Ranciere describes 3 scenarios
‘First of all, there’s the "ethical regime of art," in which artistic images are evaluated in terms of their utility to society… (which) defines artwork as common craft labor… (So) artists’ work cannot be granted too much power… (as) common laborers have no voice within society.’
Secodnly, Ranciere propounds the ‘representational regime of art,’ where ‘Art is granted its own sphere with its own rules, and elevated above those of common craft. Politically, this second way of thinking about art objects corresponds to the bourgeoisification of the artist, his transformation into a figure with his own freedom and independence, elevated above the demands of common labor’.
Finally he presents ‘his very own theory of modernism. The ‘aesthetic regime of art’ proposing ‘the absolute singularity of art’, suggesting ‘contradictory roles for the artist, as autonomous creator and laborer -- art can still be free of the restrictions of common craft, but it also doesn’t have to be shackled to any particular noble content that distinguishes it from everyday life -- prefiguring a progressive equality in its attack on old esthetic hierarchies.’ Davis maintains that ‘Rancière wants to argue that such artistic egalitarianism is analogous to the breaking down of real social and political hierarchies’ but seems more cautious when pressed in an interview!
Davis argues that ‘by his own logic, all the subtle theorizing about how esthetic struggle, if not reducible to the struggle for political equality, produces a "different type of equality," is a distraction from the key question: Given that their relation is only ever analogical, what makes "esthetic politics" progressive in its relation to actual, on-the-ground agitation, as opposed to escapist or reactionary?’ He does however say that it’s a ‘valuable corrective to lazy posturing of the "my art is my activism" kind’.
‘Rancière will say that new kinds of artworks create new communities and ways for people to relate to one another. For him, this gives them a possible relation to politics.’ (Davis, 2006)
My Wishing trees are ‘new kinds of artworks’, for me anyway, and also possibly new because of the unprecedented times we’re living in. The have 2 sites: outside, in public spaces and also on social media. They have definitely ‘created new communities and ways for people to relate to one another’ as well. Ranciere suggests that this ‘gives them a possible relation to politics.’ (Davis, 2006)
Davis, B.(2006) Ranciere, for dummies Available at: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/books/davis/davis8-17-06.asp (Accessed 7 May 2020)