Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope

When political change is remote the only prospect for change is in the realm of imagination. Herbert Marcuse responds to this in his last book, The Aesthetic Dimension (1978) after the failure of revolt in Paris in 1968. He argues that although art cannot change the world as such it can change how t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Miles, Malcom
Format: text
Published: Archīum Ateneo 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://archium.ateneo.edu/kk/vol1/iss30/19
https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/kk/article/1752/viewcontent/KK_2030_2C_202018_20_26_2031_2C_202018_2019_20Forum_20Kritika_20on_20Radical_20Cultural_20Responses_20to_20Crises_20in_20Urban_20Democracy_20__20Miles.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Ateneo De Manila University
id ph-ateneo-arc.kk-1752
record_format eprints
spelling ph-ateneo-arc.kk-17522024-12-19T02:30:04Z Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope Miles, Malcom When political change is remote the only prospect for change is in the realm of imagination. Herbert Marcuse responds to this in his last book, The Aesthetic Dimension (1978) after the failure of revolt in Paris in 1968. He argues that although art cannot change the world as such it can change how the world is apprehended. Thus art’s imaginative potential is part of a wider pursuit of freedom. The paper argues that the situation is bleaker today than in the 1970s. Neoliberalism enforces a regime of consumerism even more now than then, and operates globally. Still, hope reappears in direct action from the anti-roads campaigns of the 1990s to anti-capitalism in the 2000s and Occupy in 2011-12 (after a much longer history of direct action). Today’s direct action and campaigning is specific, however, in addressing the trajectory of global capital. It also accepts its own ephemerality—leading Occupy to reject the processes of representation and issue no programme, instead inviting people to be present among others of like mind in the effective creation of a new society within the old. The paper asks to what extent art remains part of this picture of radical alterity, and whether Marcuse’s critical aesthetics remain helpful. Among issues raised are Marcuse’s Enlightenment view of art as autonomous creativity (rather than contingent on production within an art-world); a blurring of the divide between art institutions and the cultures of protest, as in the exhibition Disobedient Objects in London in 2014; and that appropriation may be art’s perpetual burden. 2024-12-19T03:09:20Z text application/pdf https://archium.ateneo.edu/kk/vol1/iss30/19 info:doi/10.13185/1656-152x.1752 https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/kk/article/1752/viewcontent/KK_2030_2C_202018_20_26_2031_2C_202018_2019_20Forum_20Kritika_20on_20Radical_20Cultural_20Responses_20to_20Crises_20in_20Urban_20Democracy_20__20Miles.pdf Kritika Kultura Archīum Ateneo contemporary art critical theory cultural institutions protest radical politics
institution Ateneo De Manila University
building Ateneo De Manila University Library
continent Asia
country Philippines
Philippines
content_provider Ateneo De Manila University Library
collection archium.Ateneo Institutional Repository
topic contemporary art
critical theory
cultural institutions
protest
radical politics
spellingShingle contemporary art
critical theory
cultural institutions
protest
radical politics
Miles, Malcom
Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
description When political change is remote the only prospect for change is in the realm of imagination. Herbert Marcuse responds to this in his last book, The Aesthetic Dimension (1978) after the failure of revolt in Paris in 1968. He argues that although art cannot change the world as such it can change how the world is apprehended. Thus art’s imaginative potential is part of a wider pursuit of freedom. The paper argues that the situation is bleaker today than in the 1970s. Neoliberalism enforces a regime of consumerism even more now than then, and operates globally. Still, hope reappears in direct action from the anti-roads campaigns of the 1990s to anti-capitalism in the 2000s and Occupy in 2011-12 (after a much longer history of direct action). Today’s direct action and campaigning is specific, however, in addressing the trajectory of global capital. It also accepts its own ephemerality—leading Occupy to reject the processes of representation and issue no programme, instead inviting people to be present among others of like mind in the effective creation of a new society within the old. The paper asks to what extent art remains part of this picture of radical alterity, and whether Marcuse’s critical aesthetics remain helpful. Among issues raised are Marcuse’s Enlightenment view of art as autonomous creativity (rather than contingent on production within an art-world); a blurring of the divide between art institutions and the cultures of protest, as in the exhibition Disobedient Objects in London in 2014; and that appropriation may be art’s perpetual burden.
format text
author Miles, Malcom
author_facet Miles, Malcom
author_sort Miles, Malcom
title Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
title_short Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
title_full Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
title_fullStr Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
title_full_unstemmed Disobedient Cultures: Art, Politics, and Resurgent Hope
title_sort disobedient cultures: art, politics, and resurgent hope
publisher Archīum Ateneo
publishDate 2024
url https://archium.ateneo.edu/kk/vol1/iss30/19
https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/kk/article/1752/viewcontent/KK_2030_2C_202018_20_26_2031_2C_202018_2019_20Forum_20Kritika_20on_20Radical_20Cultural_20Responses_20to_20Crises_20in_20Urban_20Democracy_20__20Miles.pdf
_version_ 1819113749676556288