Well If you look at art history; It is consistent that the dominant culture manufactures it's own aesthetics; I think this goes in line with what Felix Guattari Talks about in his Book "Cartographies of desire" In that a dominant system manufactures Its own "subjectivity" or "Ideology" (if you prefer your Slavoj Zizekisms) And art could be see as part of this Subjectivity or ideology itself. But it doesn't go the other way around, it is rare that art manufactures the system, it's supportive, runs in parallel just like ideology.
BUUUT There's a big but. Guattari also mentions in the same book, that an emergent revolutionary ideology can spawn emergent art. this is also consistent with the times where big political shifts or even bloody revolutions spawned new ways to understand art: Just look at how Academic "Rococo" painting Made way for very political french realism, and later expressionism as aristocrats lost power to the bourgeoisie.
But my take still stands; in these examples the shift is not spawned on the arts themselves but in the political action that organizes political systems. The art is a byproduct of the overall ideology; There are examples in art history where an artist is so far ahead ideologically speaking that they get ignored. Nobody likes them at their time and they later get rescued by history and enjoyed by later generations. It's really sad, but the thing about "being in the right place in the right time" also stands for being "on par with the dominant ideology" Even if that ideology is a coming revolution. The stories about artists from failed revolutions are very sad! And it's good to read on them, even just to become aware of our Survivorship bias.
The issue with art and media on contemporary capitalistic systems is that their control over their aesthetics is different from regimes such as the Soviet Union: There is no state sponsored aesthetics (mostly), but instead the illusion of the invisible hand of capitalism is pushed. People call this "freedom" but it's just more subtle control. Capital diverts funds to co-opt and control the creative forces of the system; aesthetics are "assimilated," "disneyfied," "neutered." Turned into consumer products and rendered as ideologically neutral as possible, with the exception of course that it should be accessory to capitalistic ideology. There are no dangerous arts in capitalism, only "niche products" I feel censorship in the arts and media under capitalism tends to follow different criteria than in past states.
But what happens when people try to find alternative ways to organize and survive? What happens when people get together and try to live under new ideology, new ways to live and this makes way for mechanisms to allow them to manufacture their own subjectivity? That's a very real threat! I think a lot of people here knows that when people search for real practical alternatives, they mysteriously get snuffed out immediately. (Are you reading this CIA?)
I am almost certain, that if one of those new systems are allowed to flourish; they would create new different art that we have never seen before. Because their creativity is nourished by entirely different values.
In this sense i don't think that art is entirely useless; To imagine new things has the potential to create new things, But it won't be the spark, it's just part of the cultural movement, My main worry would be, we have a lot of products today, but very little "movement"
I agree that art is not something that drives changes in foundational material conditions.
I do think art has a role in creating and stabilising/destabilising cultural superstructure downstream of the material conflict though, if it didn't there would be no point to "Disneyfying" it.
And of course there's a role for art as a spark for tactical praxis, the Belgian Revolution being sparked by the Night at the Opera, for example.
Well If you look at art history; It is consistent that the dominant culture manufactures it's own aesthetics; I think this goes in line with what Felix Guattari Talks about in his Book "Cartographies of desire" In that a dominant system manufactures Its own "subjectivity" or "Ideology" (if you prefer your Slavoj Zizekisms) And art could be see as part of this Subjectivity or ideology itself. But it doesn't go the other way around, it is rare that art manufactures the system, it's supportive, runs in parallel just like ideology.
BUUUT There's a big but. Guattari also mentions in the same book, that an emergent revolutionary ideology can spawn emergent art. this is also consistent with the times where big political shifts or even bloody revolutions spawned new ways to understand art: Just look at how Academic "Rococo" painting Made way for very political french realism, and later expressionism as aristocrats lost power to the bourgeoisie.
But my take still stands; in these examples the shift is not spawned on the arts themselves but in the political action that organizes political systems. The art is a byproduct of the overall ideology; There are examples in art history where an artist is so far ahead ideologically speaking that they get ignored. Nobody likes them at their time and they later get rescued by history and enjoyed by later generations. It's really sad, but the thing about "being in the right place in the right time" also stands for being "on par with the dominant ideology" Even if that ideology is a coming revolution. The stories about artists from failed revolutions are very sad! And it's good to read on them, even just to become aware of our Survivorship bias.
The issue with art and media on contemporary capitalistic systems is that their control over their aesthetics is different from regimes such as the Soviet Union: There is no state sponsored aesthetics (mostly), but instead the illusion of the invisible hand of capitalism is pushed. People call this "freedom" but it's just more subtle control. Capital diverts funds to co-opt and control the creative forces of the system; aesthetics are "assimilated," "disneyfied," "neutered." Turned into consumer products and rendered as ideologically neutral as possible, with the exception of course that it should be accessory to capitalistic ideology. There are no dangerous arts in capitalism, only "niche products" I feel censorship in the arts and media under capitalism tends to follow different criteria than in past states.
But what happens when people try to find alternative ways to organize and survive? What happens when people get together and try to live under new ideology, new ways to live and this makes way for mechanisms to allow them to manufacture their own subjectivity? That's a very real threat! I think a lot of people here knows that when people search for real practical alternatives, they mysteriously get snuffed out immediately. (Are you reading this CIA?)
I am almost certain, that if one of those new systems are allowed to flourish; they would create new different art that we have never seen before. Because their creativity is nourished by entirely different values.
In this sense i don't think that art is entirely useless; To imagine new things has the potential to create new things, But it won't be the spark, it's just part of the cultural movement, My main worry would be, we have a lot of products today, but very little "movement"
We also have very little new "philosophy"
I agree that art is not something that drives changes in foundational material conditions.
I do think art has a role in creating and stabilising/destabilising cultural superstructure downstream of the material conflict though, if it didn't there would be no point to "Disneyfying" it.
And of course there's a role for art as a spark for tactical praxis, the Belgian Revolution being sparked by the Night at the Opera, for example.