Trying to get through the readings this week, and was struck by this paragraph in the Ranciere reading:
The aesthetic regime of art institutes the relation between the forms of identification of art and the forms of political ckommunity in such a way as to challenge and advance every opposition between autonomous art and heteronomous art, art for art's sake and art in the service of politics, museum art and street art. For aesthetic autonomy is not that autonomy of artistic 'making' celebrated by modernism. It is the autonomy of a form of sensory experience.
Which is all well and good, but then I think of this:
And wonder where this fits in.
The aesthetic regime of art institutes the relation between the forms of identification of art and the forms of political ckommunity in such a way as to challenge and advance every opposition between autonomous art and heteronomous art, art for art's sake and art in the service of politics, museum art and street art. For aesthetic autonomy is not that autonomy of artistic 'making' celebrated by modernism. It is the autonomy of a form of sensory experience.
Which is all well and good, but then I think of this:
And wonder where this fits in.
No comments:
Post a Comment