The Autonomy of Art and Its Discontent

碩士 === 國立臺北藝術大學 === 美術學系碩士班美術史組 === 102 === The idea of the autonomy of art was developed by Kant and Schiller at the end of 18th century, then it became the battlecry of “l''art pour l''art” at the beginning of 19th century in French. This famous formula “l''art pour l...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Feng-Ming Su, 蘇風銘
Other Authors: Hong-john Lin
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2013
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/34030027728952824373
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立臺北藝術大學 === 美術學系碩士班美術史組 === 102 === The idea of the autonomy of art was developed by Kant and Schiller at the end of 18th century, then it became the battlecry of “l''art pour l''art” at the beginning of 19th century in French. This famous formula “l''art pour l''art” associated itself only with the concept of “disinterestedness” and “purposiveness without a purpose”, but it never conveyed that sense of that Kant draws the connection between understanding and reason which aesthetic judgment mediates, and that Schiller conceives the social mission which art undertakes, so it finally came about the alienation between art and life. In addition, this kind of alienation has been taken as the negation to society, then as the criticism to society. However, with the model of Marx’s criticism of religion, the pseudo-critique of the negation of the autonomy of art can be revealed. In other words, the autonomy of art is a kind of religious-ideology in “disenchanted” bourgeois society. In 20th century, the autonomy of art became the concept of self-critical tendency which Greenberg pointed out, furthermore, the institutional effects concerning with the autonomy of art can be also found in the analytic aesthetics which is mainly in relation to Danto, Dickie, and Carroll. Counter to the autonomy of art, it can be analysed with regard to the idea of avant-garde which utopian socialism in 19th century claimed, the “Politicisation of Art” which Benjamin advocated, and the theory of avant-garde which Bürger addressed, they all illustrated the denial of the autonomy of art. With all of them, it can be additionally understood that avant-garde is political art as discontent with the autonomy of art. If Bourdieu’s theory and the doctrine of negative liberty in political philosophy can manifest the complicity among the autonomy of art, neoliberalism, and the production logic in bourgeois society, and so, this complicity structure even reproduces the social inequality, then it seems that the central principle of reintegrating art and life-praxis of avant-garde have to be realized as a kind of political art which pursuits the political liberty in political philosophy, and as an attempt to develop a sincere critical capacity to the bourgeois society as a whole.