Art, Politicisation and Public Action

Cultural public action has progressively embraced two very different concepts of Art and culture: one universalist and linking innovation to democratisation; the other, differentialist and relativist, advocating a non–hierarchisable plurality of artistic forms. What happens to these differences with...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pierre-Michel Menger
Format: Article
Language:Catalan
Published: Diputació de València 2017-02-01
Series:Debats. Revista de cultura, poder i societat
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.28939/iam.debats-en.2016-8
id doaj-30b0587f89154440a4fc8fc0e2464ddc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-30b0587f89154440a4fc8fc0e2464ddc2020-11-24T21:01:11ZcatDiputació de ValènciaDebats. Revista de cultura, poder i societat0212-05852530-30742017-02-011010.28939/iam.debats-en.2016-880Art, Politicisation and Public ActionPierre-Michel Menger0Collège de France / EHESS / PSLCultural public action has progressively embraced two very different concepts of Art and culture: one universalist and linking innovation to democratisation; the other, differentialist and relativist, advocating a non–hierarchisable plurality of artistic forms. What happens to these differences within cultural public action and politicisation of the artistic sphere? One of the main aporias of cultural policy is the gap between the artist as an innovator and the general public, which can be seen from both demand (a function of democratisation), and supply (a function of support for creation) sides. This gap has been defended in a pessimistic, aristocratic fashion (‘Baudelarian Modernity’), and through politicoaesthetical rationalisation (avant–garde in nature). Yet in both cases, it raises the question of the gap between the dynamics of creation and of consumption — a gap that highlights the constant paradoxes that arise from supposing a direct relationship between artistic innovation on the one hand, and socio-political emancipation and progress on the other. Ironically, it is the upper classes that lend the greatest support for artistic daring. For both ideological and political reasons, most of the avant-garde movement was ranged against the bourgeoisie. The duality of the value of originality in Art (the aristocratic heroism of the innovator versus the democratic individualism of the expressive artist) point to two differing standpoints in the politicisation of art. This duality offers two answers, which are now superimposed on this paradox.http://dx.doi.org/10.28939/iam.debats-en.2016-8arts, politics, cultural policy, cultural democratisation
collection DOAJ
language Catalan
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pierre-Michel Menger
spellingShingle Pierre-Michel Menger
Art, Politicisation and Public Action
Debats. Revista de cultura, poder i societat
arts, politics, cultural policy, cultural democratisation
author_facet Pierre-Michel Menger
author_sort Pierre-Michel Menger
title Art, Politicisation and Public Action
title_short Art, Politicisation and Public Action
title_full Art, Politicisation and Public Action
title_fullStr Art, Politicisation and Public Action
title_full_unstemmed Art, Politicisation and Public Action
title_sort art, politicisation and public action
publisher Diputació de València
series Debats. Revista de cultura, poder i societat
issn 0212-0585
2530-3074
publishDate 2017-02-01
description Cultural public action has progressively embraced two very different concepts of Art and culture: one universalist and linking innovation to democratisation; the other, differentialist and relativist, advocating a non–hierarchisable plurality of artistic forms. What happens to these differences within cultural public action and politicisation of the artistic sphere? One of the main aporias of cultural policy is the gap between the artist as an innovator and the general public, which can be seen from both demand (a function of democratisation), and supply (a function of support for creation) sides. This gap has been defended in a pessimistic, aristocratic fashion (‘Baudelarian Modernity’), and through politicoaesthetical rationalisation (avant–garde in nature). Yet in both cases, it raises the question of the gap between the dynamics of creation and of consumption — a gap that highlights the constant paradoxes that arise from supposing a direct relationship between artistic innovation on the one hand, and socio-political emancipation and progress on the other. Ironically, it is the upper classes that lend the greatest support for artistic daring. For both ideological and political reasons, most of the avant-garde movement was ranged against the bourgeoisie. The duality of the value of originality in Art (the aristocratic heroism of the innovator versus the democratic individualism of the expressive artist) point to two differing standpoints in the politicisation of art. This duality offers two answers, which are now superimposed on this paradox.
topic arts, politics, cultural policy, cultural democratisation
url http://dx.doi.org/10.28939/iam.debats-en.2016-8
work_keys_str_mv AT pierremichelmenger artpoliticisationandpublicaction
_version_ 1716778629065605120