aestheticization of politics = BAD/politicization of aesthetics = GOOD
In the context of the examples given in class, I get it. It seems really clear. An obvious line can be drawn between aesthetic representations that are political and those which are dumbing down political issues. But upon considering the issue further, I don't know if it is so very clear. Any aesthetic representation will be informed by an ideological framework and will be produced by an ideological subject(s). Most aesthetic representations seem to be produced in the name of a particular purpose, often a distinctly political purpose; this seems to be the case for artistic endeavours that constitute politicizations of aesthetics and for those which represent aestheticizations of politics. The 9/11 video we watched in class was clearly produced with a political message in mind. I get how it aestheticized politics. But what if we simply changed the verbal message behind the "In Memoriam" video to something more acceptable to us left-wingers - perhaps an indictment of the use of such a horrific event to justify war? Would the movie instantly become a politicization of aesthetics or would it still be an aestheticization of politics? Does the distinction simply depend on what we feel to be the "correct" political message to send? How can we objectively judge this? Can we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your critical thinking towards a "deeper" meaning of politicization of aesthetics and aestheticization of politics is really interesting. What comes to my mind is an installation by Scott Tyler in 1989 in Chicago. "What is the Proper Way To Display the American Flag?" was the title. The work consisted of an American flag layed on the floor beneath photographs of flag-draped coffins. Underneath this photo was a ledger where viewers of the piece could record their opinions of it. The problem was, the ledger was placed in a way that made it difficult to write one's opinion without stepping on the flag. The American flag was a barrier to the freedom of expression it was meant to defend. "Viewers had to choose which they revered most - the flag itself or freedom of speech". Since Tyler used a real flag purchased at a store (and was made in Taiwan), it was an extremely controversial piece. Some viewers were arrested for walking on the flag. Due to this exhibition the US Senate passed legislation banning display of the flag on the floor, yet it was overturned to protect free speech.
The point of this exhibition I think is a blend of the two ideas we're dealing with here. As an artist Tyler clearly was aestheticizing politics by using the American flag in such a way (like you say, an aesthetic representation that is political). But also could it not be said that he too was politicizing aesthetics? Maybe I am getting the concept wrong, but in my opinion this double standard is perfectly seen in the installation I described. It is a Catch 22 - do you revere the flag and by way of doing so inhibit your freedom of expression? Or do you trample over a political, social - all encompassing, really - symbol? To me knowing this flag was from the US I know my answer - I would trample away (perhaps not even wiping my soiled footwear). But had the context changed...had it been a Canadian flag my answer would need much more thought.
I think you might be onto something when you say that the distinction may "simply depend on what we feel to be correct" at the time. Perhaps we need to support Canada and revere our nation and its symbols. Or perhaps we are in a state of protest and we feel differently about protecting our flag. I think that "context" is a pretty huge term that determines (and counteracts) some of the terms that we learn in WST. I also think it is very important to always consider context, since as we both agree it can skew what is being "seen" incredibly.
**These ideas and the descriptions of the Scott Tyler installation were taken from A World of Art by Henry M. Sayre (fourth edition).
Post a Comment