Ranciere

Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket, James Whistler (1874)

Just like Adorno and Benjamin, Ranciere focuses on the politic nature of art. And like the last two authors he recognizes the successful politics of art as a product of art’s autonomy.

            Art is important because it is political. It is political not because it tries to make a statement on today’s society, its structure, or its class system. Art is political in distancing itself from these societal concerns. Art, though entirely indebted to its specific moment in history, the time and space of its existence, acts as if it is completely independent. It is this apparent, but misleading autonomy that enables art to be political. In distancing itself from the societal concerns of its founding environment, art is able to make us more aware of our specific societal conditions.

            “[T]here is no contradiction between art for art’s sake and political art” (711). Though seemingly opponents, “the politicy of art is tied to its very autonomy” (707). Art that strives to be political tends to be less valuable and less politically powerful than art that exists for its own sake. Art that intends to be politically charged can only function as propaganda; it is what Adorno and Benjamin called the “aestheticizing of politics.” Art for art’s sake however, is political because by avoiding positing a political opinion, it is claiming a transcendence of the cultural context of its creation. It is this assumed transcendence that draws attention to our political reality. Art is political in that it reveals our politics and the role the play within our culture.

            Benjamin claimed that art for the masses is not possible in the modern world, and though he acknowledged film as the medium of the masses, he claims that this is a decay in art, not an advancement. Ranciere agrees to an extent, but disagrees with Benjamin that art can no longer function as universally politically relevant. “This art is not the founding of a common world through the absolute singularity of form; it is a way of redisposing the objects and images that comprise the common world as it is already given, or creating situations apt to modify our gazes and our attitudes with respect to this collective environment” (704).  Art is not creation. It is not the job of the artist to conceive of and make something entirely new from nothing. Instead, it is the role of the artist to recycle his environment, to reference common truths. So that art today is not an act of creation, but a way of making the viewer re-see our collective world. Yes, art can be political on in acting as if it is autonomous, but it must also include ‘play’.

            Ranciere’s insistence on play, which is lifted from Gadamer, is his biggest diversion from Benjamin and Adorno. He claims play is essential in art. He agrees with Schiller’s claim that play is key to our humanity. “Minimally defined, play is any activity that has no end other than itself, that does not intend to gain effective power over things or persons” (708). Play, then, is the means by which art gains its autonomy. Interestingly, it is also how art remains relevant to us. The aspect of play is necessary to each of us, and play in an artwork echoes that need within our selves. So, although play gives art autonomy it also connects it to our collective world. Play is the means by which art for art’s sake is political.

            Ranciere has brought us through the philosophy of aesthetic art. The aesthetic movement in art was not a sort of manifesto-based movement, just a gradual abandoning of the old ideas of art as a moral or political vehicle. Artists began to experiment (play) and to make art that existed only for its own sake. Much of the art of this sensibility was self-referential, the paintings were often about the act of painting itself, or the act of composition. In refraining from any framework for art and denying political art, the aesthetes were actually able to make what Adorno and Benjamin would call political art. It revealed that previous forms of art where often didactic at their base.

            An excellent example of the Aesthetic movement is James Whistler’s painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket. It is an abstract cityscape that shocked his contemporaries in his abandonment of traditional form. This painting became political in the literal sense. After a bad review, Whistler took prominent art critic John Ruskin to trial for libel. One note against the painting was its relatively slapdash production. It only took Whistler a day or two to produce this painting, but of course Whistler claimed that his entire lifetime of experience was necessary to his ability to produce this piece. This supports Ranciere’s idea of play and the artists as appropriater not a creator. Although he won the case, he was only awarded a farthing in damages and the court fees plunged him into financial ruin. The purpose of the trial was probably not for Whistler to receive substantial payment, but to bring aestheticism to public attention. Whistler succeeded in revealing painting’s limiting conventions and introducing an alternative.