Ranciere

In “Aesthetics as Politics,” Ranciere, like other authors we have read before, concentrates on the distinction between “aesthetics of politcs” and “politics of aesthetics.” Ranciere’s most interesting point, to me, however, is his discussion on the nature of politics alone apart from aesthetics. Ranciere says that politics “it not the exercise of, or struggle for, power. It is the configuration of a specific space, the framing of a particular sphere of experience, of objects posited as common and as pertaining to a common decision, of subjects recognized as capable of designating these objects and putting forward arguments about them.” While this may be true for certain democratic societies where the people do have a choice about who is governing and it is not necessarily a struggle for power amongst politicians (but rather a struggle for votes and alliance among other politicians), I think that politics, in any sort of despotic or totalitarian regime is all about power. The Nazis for example, were a political society based entirely on the hierarchal organization of the power, and had to be completely subservient to a higher power. While the Nazis did partake in the other political activities (partitioning of resources, configuration of space, etc), it certainly was a political existence based on power.

            Ignoring these rare types of societies, though, Ranciere brings up interesting aspects on the aesthetics of politics vs. politics of aesthetics dynamic. For Ranciere, the question is not whether art and politics are separate entities, but rather, “to know whether or not they ought to be set in relation.” Both of “forms of distribution of the sensible, both of which are dependent on a specific regime of identification.” Ranciere further says that “art and politics are thereby linked, beneath themselves, as forms of presence of singular bodies in a specific space and time.” I do not think there is a way in which this could be more accurate. Whether it be political satire, subtle messages throughout media and campaigning, or ordinary discourse throughout life and interaction in society as a whole, it is impossible to separate art and politics into two separate entities, since in the way the modern world and society is constructed, the two are permanently and inexplicably linked. It is impossible to escape the effect of one on the other, whether it be politicizing aesthetics or aestheticizing politics. Both exist, and affect the average viewer differently, depending on the situation, and “play” is the property of art and the individual that allows this differential interaction to occur.