Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design

INTRODUCTION TO
CRITICAL AESTHETICS
© Tony Ward
2006
No part of this document may be published or reproduced without the written permission of the author

The word Aesthetic comes from the Greek Aesthetikos, meaning “to
perceive”, and is usually associated with a perception and appreciation of
beauty. When most people think of Aesthetics or beauty, they think about
Art - such as this Degas artwork of a naked woman bathing (right). If
pressed, most people would find it difficult to say what they find about the
image that is “beautiful”. But they would be equally certain that it is,
indeed, beautiful. That it is artistic.
Although human beings have been representing their world visually for
possibly 25,000 years as at Lascaux (below) the notion of Art in its
presently accepted sense produced by special, talented and creative
people called “artists” appears to be relatively recent.
Paleolithic cave paintings, Lascaux, France.

In traditional terms, perhaps three of the most revered artworks in the Western world are those shown
above. Michelangelo’s David (left) and Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa (centre). Millions of people crowd the
Medici Museum in Florence and the Louvre in Paris to catch a glimpse of these two works. Of more recent
works, Rodin’s The Thinker (right) is undoubtedly associated with great art. When we look at these iconic
works it seems that the skill and perception of the artist is indeed special. In the general publicʻsmind, Rodin,
Da Vinci and Michelangelo represent all that is unique and mysterious about art and beauty.

In a more contemporary vein, The Scream by Edward Munch (left) and Starrynight by Van Gogh are also
popularly recognised as having great artistic significance.
So what is it about all of these works that deserves the name Art? Why is it that they are considered to be
“beautiful”?
What qualities do they all embody that leads them to be chosen above other works and housed in museums
and art galleries or to change hands for unimaginably large sums of money?
Some would say that it is the expression of a “feeling” or the communication of an intense personal
experience that transmits itself to the observer in ways that are universal. Others might point to the
craftsmanship and skill of the artist or single out Avant Garde nature of these works in their time - how they
broke the conventions or representation in their respective eras.

Sometimes, we acknowledge the special role that art has to play in revealing to us the nature of our
world. Artists seem sometimes able to comment on the major social and political developments thay are
so perplexing. They help us to understand the complexities of the events that shock and appall us.
Picasso, in his painting of Guernica (below) rages against the bombing of defenseless Basque people
by the Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War. His rage anticipated the approaching holocaust and the
inhumanity of War. War is seen here not as a glorious adventure but as , brutality, pain and (most of all)
horror. Picasso broke with the convention of depicting war as romantic heroism. Instead he shows the
reality. It has also been suggested that in his cubism, he anticipated the theories of the relativity of . time and space that science was later
to develop. It is said that one of the characteristics of artists is that they move our perceptions to see reality more clearly.

Look, for instance at this painting by Rembrandt van Rijn, The Night Watch. Here, Rembrandt broke with the
tradition of painting portraits of the noblemen of Holland in all of their finery, sitting comfortably surrounded
by their families and their wealth. Instead, he paints a gloomy scene of the Burghers touring the city. The
workmanship is superb, his ability to use highlight to depict atmosphere, the apparent chaos of the scene all
conspire to create a sense of awe, of mastery and of an eye to detail. Ho would ever dream of poking fun of
such a profoundly important work?

Well, it turns out that quite a few people would! To
begin with, there is the humorous suggestion (left)
that Rembrandt was not the artist at all. This
sacrilegious gnome (bottom) seems to be claiming
the credit!
This is akin, perhaps to the 1917 exhibition by the
French Dada artist Marcel Duchamp of his famous
readymade sculpture Fountain (below right) - in
reality a porcelain urinal.
Duchamp, of course, was poking fun at Art. But
there is a serious side to his irony which we need
to explore further. Let’s begin with the real painter
of the Night Watch. Let’s look at Gnomes.

It goes without saying that in the realm of the Aesthetic, gnomes have a very bad press. The garden
gnome has become an object of almost universal ridicule. Here (above) we see a typical forest gnome
and his wife. But the universal mockery of gnomes only serves to underwrite their very universality. They
are everywhere and can be discovered in the most unlikely of places. Let’s take them seriously for a
moment.

Their domain extends from the commercial outlets in the South
Canterbury ski fields in New Zealand. They transcend local,
regional and national boundaries and borders. They are a truly
international phenomenon.

To the sun-drenched suburbs of the Eastern
Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, where this one
(right) is taking a siesta on the window sill.

In the 1980s, the old TVNZ Studios in
Auckland’s Shortland Street, Auckland, New
Zealand, seemed like a very unlikely place to
find an outstanding example of gnome art.
One had to be particularly observant to
notice, down the side of the building….

In the bleak, crowded concrete jungle of downtown Auckland
that someone, some free spirit, railing against the inhumanity
of man, the alienation of modern life, the bureaucratic maze
we call civilisation… that someone had the wit and gumption
to cry freedom - to stand out from the crowd and make a
personal statement about how they felt
Way up high, well out of reach, not a window in sight, clearly
not intended for the pleasure or visual relief of the occupants,
sitting contentedly upon an imitation cill of an ached
decorative motif….

A gnome! Now clearly this is no ordinary aesthetic
gesture. This insignificant little creature, sitting up
there almost unnoticed above the chaos of urban
life challenges us to ask the inevitable and
ultimate question..Why?
His existence, ludicrousness of his, the lack of any
other referents demands that we engage with him,
try to understand his perspective on our mean,
competitive and greedy social and cultural world.
Or perhaps he isn’t judging us at all, merely sitting
in quiet witness of the mess that we have made of
the world in our pursuit of the aesthetic.
He and his friends (and yes, they are numberless
and everywhere) speak to us of a human spirit
that knows delight, wonder and mystery,
reminding us, perhaps, of a gentler, kinder
existence that now seems so distant.
Here are come of his peers from the animal
kingdom (I have never been able to understand
why we don’t call it the Animal Democracy instead
of “Kingdom”. Of course, we do tend to see
everything through the filter of our own experience
of hierarchy. We are so used to seeing our world
this way that we automatically presume that it and
all other worlds are really this way.
a gnome!!!!

There are love-seat Halloween frogs in Oxford, Ohio, USA.
And their cousins in California.

Guarding the entrance to the house, making sure that
nobody brings any serious bad-vibes into the home.
Or just checking out the passing parade. Numerous wikka geese (also in Oxford)

Tropical creatures too, like these two flamingo
drinking from a bird bath which just happens to
be the right height.…
Speaking of flamingo…..

Representation of humans, too, have their place in
this drama. In Sussex, England, there are these cute
little Dutch figures, sitting under the eaves of the
garden shed, sheltering on the corbelled support
wall. The elderly Dutch couple (below) are their
creators.

And once again, in an American Halloween garden, we can see the droll humour of the waving
cadaver half=out of the ground in which she has supposedly been buried. It seems that we have
come far from the Mona Lisa and David a this point. But have we? Are we not still involved in a
reflective process interrogation of the human experience, of life, death, humour and the absurdity of it
all. What I like about this kind of thing is that it doesn’t take itself so seriously as great art. It is closer,
perhaps, to the common, rather than the elite heart. Nor does it avoid being spiritual…..

Here, in a suburban garden of Sonoma, California, we find a tribute to existence that St, Francis
himself would have applauded. Ceramic donkeys share the space with the Virgin Mary, St.
Francis himself, doves, and myriad other creatures of the animal world - our brothers and sisters.

Couched still in humor. This black panthe, guarding the entrance to a house in Auckland’s suburb of
Mt. Roskill in New Zealand. His (or her) eyes glow at night, lit by two small electric bulbs behind the
eyes, powered through a cable inserted through the backside

And in the same street, this Garden of Eden with Adam filling the fountain from a tray of drinks
which mercifully hides his private parts.

Then quintessentially, in Bluff the house of the late Fred and Myrtle Flutey - the so called Paua House
(“paua” being the name and variety of the local abalone.) Their house was a symphony of collected bric-a-
brac, South sea shells, gnomes, fauns, plastic ducks, concrete seals balancing balls etc. It was also lived
in, and open to the public until they died. It is justly famous as an iconic example of Kiwiana of irrepressible
common culture - a testament to the high regard in which the Fluteys held other human beings. A brief
tour….

The front entrance is taken up almost entirely with a pond, complete with ball-balancing seals, ducks
and, of course, paua shells. In addition, the garden walls are adorned with wrought iron and pressed
metal floral creations made by Fred.

Here’s Fred, showing me the pond….
With its ball-balancing seals, its decoy ducks,
and its bas relief multi-coloured flower
arrangements cut out of pressed metal. And, of
course, the inevitable paua shells.

On the front porch, is a welcoming gnome,
with a lion, a dog, and myriad flowers, both
real and plastic. The sign says it all.
Admission was free and unrestricted
between the times indicated.
Once inside, there is the living room,
complete with decorated fire surround and a
breathtaking, unique and priceless collection
of sea and turtle shells from the Pacific
region.

The corner is occupied by a pond, guarded by several gnomes, a furry monkey and exotic tropical plants,
here in the (cold) bottom of the South Island.

Bambi and her mother lounge amidst the foliage…. And a Maori carving of Rongo, the God of peace
adorns the wall.

Here’s Myrtle in her living room in November 1987 She died in 2000. Fred passed away in 2002. Their
daughter Marie Bowen continues to show the house to the public. But Fred and Myrtle were not
unique, simply visible. Thousands like them shape and transform their personal worlds into something
greater than Art, something that is clearly embedded deep in the human spirit, into an expression of a
self that transcends the personal, that touches all of us, that reminds us what it is to be truly human.

Here’s Romano Gabriel in front of the visual extravaganza of the wooden garden at his home in
Eureka, Northern California, hated by the local Council who wanted to have it removed as an
eyesore.

Then there’s Fred Burns house in Belfast, Maine built from
driftwood and left-over paint. Born in 1890, he had been a trapper,
a hunter, a guide, a soldier, and lived for many years below the
chicken factory on the beach at Belfast with his 10 dogs.
“When I was a boy. My mother died, my father died.You
remember those days when it was so hard you couldn’t get no
work or nothing….An’ I said, “By Golly, I’m going to do
something…” I only had $12.50 when I come here, and I said, “By
golly I’m going to try and live….”

And Barry Smithʻs house in Canyon, California, just over the hill from Berkeley. Barryʻs house has no walls,
and heat is provided by open log fires in a huge cut-off drum filled with sand. In Winter, he says, he simply
“puts on an extra sweater.
Barryʻs house lay in the midst of an area of rapidly increasing property values as the Bay Area expanded to
swallow the surrounding coastal ranges. It had been issued with demolition orders by the Building Inspectors
of Orinda County several times. Each time, he has taken them to Court and won a stay.
The kitchen house is conceived as a hilarious Rube Goldberg construction with dials, valves and taps all
dedicated to the apparent complication to the simple task of delivering hot or cold water.
The last time I visited Barry as he was loading up his goats and dogs
as well as his own massive frame into his VW bus en route to Russia
“via the Baring Straight”.
I asked him
“What about your
house, and the
struggle you
appear to have
won with the
authorities?” His
reply, “No matter
how much they
want me to leave,
this time Iʻm
really going to do
it.” I waved him
off in a cloud of
dust.

Not all of these creative adventures are in timber. Boyce Luther
Gulley’s house in Phoenix, Arizona built for his daughter and not
seen by her until after his death is carved out of the living rock or
shaped with “desert concrete”. As Gulley is reported to have said,
“… not only do houses look alike, but people are beginning to look
alike.”

Similarly, Charles Caskin, of Yuma, Arizona,
who lives in a motorhome in the middle of his 1
acre sculpture garden, carved his creation out
of the soft rock of the desert.

Willie Owsley in Kentucky uses a similar technique with his
remarkably organic mosaics, cementing into place the stuff of
his life and history
“In them walls there’s bottles,
sometimes marbles, one fool thing and
another. I don’t know what all. All
things from rocks, horse shoes and
oxen shoes. Anything from a set of
dice and up. I’ve got rock in the house
from all fifty states. That big round rock
in there is a mill stone from my
grandmother. Good lord that thing’s
over a hundred years old. I ate mill
from corn bread when I was a kid.”
The lives and works of people like
Willie Owsley, Charlie Caskin, Barry
Smith, Luther Gulley and Fred Burns
represent something special. They
stand in a tradition of great
antecedents, including some of the
worlds most renowned creators.

CRITICAL AESTHETICS ART
AND IDENTITY
© Tony Ward
2006

Unknown they may be, but use of bric-a-brac, broken pottery and personal mementoes and found materials
in their creations embodies a philosophy shared by the famous..
One of the world’s most famous and celebrated
architects, Antonio Gaudi spent his life working in
Barcelona creating buildings and landscapes that today
draw tourists from all over the world. Gaudi was a man of
the people, and worked with the citizens of Barcelona in
creating his very special works. People would bring him
their broken pots and tiles, and together they built a
whole world which is the center-point of the Barcelona
tourist industry. This ceramic wall (below) is part of a
balcony in the Guell Park.

Gaudi’s buildings, too, were developed using the same techniques evoking the fantasy life of the times and
people. The gingerbread gatehouses at the Park Guell, for instance would not be out of place in a
children’s fairytale book.

Similarly, his dragon fountain at the Park’s entrance
and the stone palm trees interspersed with their
living relatives are at the same time playful and
serious - pointing to the importance and primacy of
the world of the imagination, of the world of the
psyche in human affairs. Gaudi was extremely
inclusive in his work. He built no artificial class or
cultural barriers between himself and the ordinary
people of Barcelona. Instead, he invited them to
participate in the creative act, to bring their ideas to
the process. And he integrated these ideas into an
imaginative whole that gave the community a sense
of pride and identity. For this he is still loved.

The arcade at the Park Guell is like none other in the world, with its raking, twisting, spiraling columns
and its rough stonework (bottom right). The whole thing is an integrated statement of drama and
perspective. But his desire for inclusion is evident here also. One of the columns includes a caryatid,
carrying a basket on her head - conceived and executed by one of his workmen.

And the inclusions embrace the natural world also. Below we witness the acceptance of trees and vines
already growing during the building process. Neither need nor desire here for so-called :”green field”
construction where everything is leveled to make the building process more efficient and cost-effective.

This correspondence between the forces of the natural world and the creative
process is nowhere more evident than in the crypt of Gaudi’s amazing Guell
Chapel. Built for the Guell family, it is a remarkable feat of engineering.
Made entirely of unreinforced brick, the crypt roof is held up by a succession
of twisting columns and flying buttresses. Each column and buttress is
designed to be in only compression. Any tension would lead to collapse.

This remarkable feat was accomplished by suspending
fabric from his studio ceiling and pinning small weights
to it that corresponded to the actual loads that the roof
and columns would be carrying. The fabric then
adopted the precise form necessary to resolve the
forces acting upon it - all in complete tension. (bottom
left). Gaudi then sprayed the whole ensemble with
plaster and inverted it, giving him the shape of the
chapel and its structural supports, all in compression.
(bottom centre). This analogue of his design
conception bypasses all of the (impossible) structural
calculations that would otherwise have been
necessary.

Gaudi’s most famous work, of course, is the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona - a remarkable symphony of
what appears at first glance to be molten rock, but which reveals itself to be a creation of unparalleled
organic playfulness, albeit celebrating deep spiritual issues. Clearly, for Gaudi, playfulness was indeed the
essence of spirituality.

This playfulness extended to every aspect of his work. Here is the gate to the Guell Mansion. The Guell
family were the major iron-founders of Barcelona at the turn of the 19th Century and Gaudi brought them
into the creative process of their home.

Here’s Gaudi’s Casa Battlo apartment building in Barcelona with the
same playfulness and plasticity as the Guell Chapel, the Sagrada
Familia and the Guell Park gatehouses.
But as we have seen, Gaudi was and is not alone in his celebration of
the ordinary as the exceptional, of the essential creativity that invests
itself in the human spirituality of everyday life. Art, for him, was not
something special - outside of life, but the expression of the life force
itself as exhibited in the acts and creations of ordinary people like the
Fluteys. Many others express this same philosophy in their work. What
seems to be at stake, is the expression of Identity - in the case of
Gaudi, the expression of the cultural identity of the unique Catalan

Throughout the world, creative people have and still do
create the most extraordinary environments in which to
live. Indeed, the creation of one’s own environment is
one of the fundamental avenues to spiritual growth, in
the expression and development of an identity.

It was Winston Churchill who said, “First we shape our
environment and thereafter our environment shapes us”.
But he saw only part of the truth. The fact is that when we
make our environment we are making ourselves in the
process. The act of creating our world is at one and the
same time the act of creating ourselves.
The process of creation is not just an outward-looking
event, but also involves an ongoing act of refection through
which we come to recognise ourselves, our potential and
our limitations. The act of creating our world is an act of
meditation. As Marx once said, “In making the world we
make ourselves”
The psychologist Carl Jung knew this well, and made it the
basis of his Jungian Analysis. He built his own house
himself at Bollingen on the shores of Lake Zurich (right
bottom). The grounds are filled with stone carvings that
Jung carved to represent the different Archetypes involved
in the process of spiritual growth, such as the Joker (below
left) and the genius locii of Bollingen itself (below right).
The house (above) and carvings (left) at
Bollingen built and carved by Jung

Jung later wrote,”At Bollingen I
am in the midst of my true life,
I am most deeply myself…At
times I feel as if I am spread
out over the landscape and
inside things, and am myself
living in every tree, in the
splashing of the waves, in the
clouds and animals that come
and go, in the procession of
the seasons.”
The development of the house at
Bollingen followed and guided at the
same time, the trajectory of Jungʻs
personal growth and intellectual
development.
The original tower (above)
Phase 1 Phase 2
Phase 3 Phase 4
Phase 5

Even so, it would be wrong to suggest that Jung’s
vision of his future home came out of a cultural
and visual vacuum. The modern notion of the
creative artist or genius, working and living in
social and cultural isolation is a myth created to
increase the apparent status, mystery, rarity (and
therefore value) of the artist and the artistic work.
We are led to the belief that artists are those who
create the new out of nothing but their internal
vision.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Jung’s
house at Bollingen on Lake Zurich, for instance,
is clearly in the mode of and very probably
inspired by the Castle of Chillon in Veytaux-
Montreux on nearby Lake Geneva (right).
The Western myth of individual creativity grows
out of the need to commodify the art experience
and the art work for the marketplace, and it has
been thus since the very beginning of our
modern conception of art in the 14th Century,
when the likes of Michelangelo and Leonardo
were at the peak of their productivity.
In contrast to this mythologised status of art, we will see if we look closely, that the creative process is
always a social process. It is never an individual act, but always relies on the imitation of others, on
precedent and prior example. This fact has always been recognised in indigenous cultures and peoples
outside of the orbit of capitalism.

Before the advent of cash
economies it used to be the case,
that the process of creating oneʻs
world was built into the rituals and
behaviours of every culture.
Children learned from an early age
the shape of their cultural life and
the environment that housed it
(right) and this process of making
was woven into the fabric of the
culture itself. In this context, the
distinctions that existed between
function and decoration were non-
existent, since every decorative
element had deep cultural meaning
and significance. It was in this
context that the most elaborate,
complex and deeply significant
creations emerged.

Batak House, Sumatra Cult House Papua
N.G.
Nigerian Village HousingEntrance, Mali
Nubian Courtyard House Oasis House, Mauritania
Carved pillar, PNGOceania House

With Colonisation, the advance of capitalism and the introduction of a cash economy into indigenous
cultures such acts of creation are no longer easy to sustain. As consumption has proliferated, cultures
have become fragmented and alienated from their traditions, origins and rituals. But the cultural imperative
is hard to eradicate entirely. Integrated as it is with issues of identity, cultural expression continues to resist
its erasure. Even in todayʻs modern urban environment expressions of cultural identity, tied back into the
stories and historical realities of a people persist as they resist the erasure of their identities. What follows
is a brief example of such a resistance - a brief photo essay of one familyʻs attempt to give voice to their
culture in Kingsland, Auckland, New Zealand. The family are Māori, and their images hark back to an are
seen against the backdrop of iconic historical Māori works from the internationally acclaimed Te Māori
Exhibition.
House front and Entrance Porch

Gatepost Te Māori
Mural
Te MāoriCarved Wall Hanging
Although the expressions of cultural identity on the
Kingsland house may lack the finesse and
craftsmanship of their ancient predecessors, there is
no mistaking the passion, vigor and sheer doggedness
of the representations. Nor is it difficult to make the
connection between the old and the new. The creator
of the later works is clear in his or her intention, and is
deeply connected to the works, identities, beliefs and
spiritual world of his or her ancestors.
Te Māori

Fence Mailbox Carved Guardians Te Māori
Carved figure Te MāoriTe Māori
GuardianʻsHead

Look now, at what passes instead, for the expression of cultural identity in the world of the individualis
designer -genius, in modern architecture and design, from the early images of Corbusierʻs Radiant City (top
left) through to Niemeyerʻs Brasilia (right, top and bottom) which required the displacement of thousands of
indigenous Brasilian Indians for its realisation - the erasure of an indigenous identity and its replacement
with…. What????.
Ville Radieuse, Le Corbusier
Brasilia, Oscar NiemeyerSeagram Building, New YorkApartments, Germany
Public Housing, Roehampton

This new Postmodern identity, grows not out of the everyday life of
a community bound together by struggle and hope, and a desire to
express a unique personal and cultural perception of the world, but
out of the twin moments of greed and profit. The shaping of the
world is no longer in the hands of its citizens, but of the market, the
developers and the multinationals (left). What emerges from this
new world is a new cultural identity based upon consumption and
exploitation.
This was Modernism - the philosophy of design based upon
the idea of social, cultural and economic efficiency, the
creation of a utopian world based upon Universal Man - that
is, upon the erasure of cultural difference. Throughout the
modern world, old neighbour-hoods steeped in cultural identity
(usually categorised as “slums” to facilitate their removal),
shaped by innumerable hands and minds over generations -
Italian, German, Chinese, French etc have been torn apart to
make way for new uniformalising and homogenising
apartments as here, in Federal Street, Chicago. (right). Any
sense of identity or belonging has been erased along with the
bricks and mortar, All decoration became anathema and
stripped from all design productions. In the process, we have
become strangers in our own world, rootless, position-less.
Hence it is, that the reaction to Modernism (which brought
about this catastrophic loss) - Postmodernism - attempts to
reinstate a sense of imposed identity.

Several serious consequences ensue from this new cultural environment. The first is that the new urban
fabric becomes quickly unlivable since its residents have no incentive to care for it and the Authorities who
financed it cannot afford to maintain it. Like the infamous Pruitt Igoe development in St, Louis (below left)
they are demolished. A further consequence is that the community itself begins to feel disempowered -
unable to prevent its own destruction and transformation. Residents literally lose their voice (right),
They are forced out of (now
valuable) inner city “slums” to
the distant suburbs which
lack the basic amenities for
building an invigorated
cultural identity - good
schools, dignified work,
affordable public transport,
access to libraries, hospitals,
community facilities, and so
on. Communities that have
grown over generations
disappear within one or two
years and are replaced by a
new culture that has been
socially constructed by and
with the intention of serving
the market through a system
of manufactured scarcity and
consumption..
Pruitt Igoe, St. Louis Freemans Bay community poster, NZ

Aesthetic critiques of Modernism that took place in the latter part of the 20th Century missed the point,
presuming that Modernism was simply a style of design. This critique, (which became known as
Postmodernism) masked the fact that the works that came out of modernism were not simply stylistic, but
were deeply linked to the processes and constraints of capitalist art and building production. Some bizarre
works resulted from this understanding, each seeking to stand over against Modernism - to make a clearly
distinct visual identity that was anti-modernistic. These four examples by SITE Architects, of department
stores for the BEST Company make the point clearly. But being commercial rather than civic buildings, they
nevertheless stand within the confines of a grand American tradition, as the Tower of Pizza restaurant,
Pennsylvania (top left) or the United Equipment company offices in Turlock (top centre). The only
difference, of course is that the latter two have no pretentions to be art or architecture.

The contradiction of the Postmodernism theory and practice (at least in Architecture) was that it presumed
to replace Modernism, but like it, was a cultural imposition. Designers failed to recognise that culture
grows out of the myriad social customs and interactions of real communities presumed to and instead,
presumed and sought instead to create cultural meaning and identity on behalf of the communities in
which they worked. Hence the cultural identities that they sought to establish lacked any real resonance
with community life, and ended up as alienating as the Modernism they sought to replace. This is most
graphically demonstrated in Charles Moore’s Piazza d’Italia in New Orleans, and the Wexner Museum of
Visual Arts in Columbus, Ohio by Peter Eisenman. In the Piazza d’Italia, Moore tried to recreate a cultural
focus for the old Italian residents of New Orleans, built upon a piece of derelict land. A fountain in the
shape of the Italian peninsular flows down into a space surrounded by imitation Roman columns and
arches. The space was never used, save by sleeping vagrants, and became a civic eyesore and nuisance.
What the design was really about, of course was establishing an identity for Charles Moore himself. Here
(below left) fountainheads of his own face spit water onto the water feature below.

Similarly at the Wexner Galllery, Eisenman tries to develop a complex geometry from two intersecting axes
- one the old grid iron street layout, the other the Cardinal compass points. In the process, the old National
Guard Armory building is fragmented and traced in paving patterns. There is no cultural correspondence
here with the lives of the Columbus residents or their history. Least of all is there any reference in the
Armory inclusion, to that building’s infamous history as the repository for the arms used in the Kent State
University shootings in 1971 by the Ohio National Guard. All actual cultural and historical record is erased
and replaced by an alien and alienating spatial matrix with no meaning save that of meaninglessness. This,
of course, is Eisenman’s point, that all attempts to respond to cultural constraints and meanings are
meaningless. This is a cynical and bleak view of his fellow humans if ever there was one, but it is also the
view of an elitist architect, separated from his own cultural roots and despairing of finding meaning in
everyday life. Neither he nor Moore consulted their respective communities about how the vast amounts of
money in these constructions might more usefully have been spent. All that is at stake is the equivalent of
building a professional identity for the designer - the equivalent of a designer label.

The designer label is the quintessential mark of the
new cultural identity, supposedly transcending and
erasing ethnicity. Reebok and Nike have become the
new markers of cultural status. Identity is no longer
grounded in being, so much as having, and the
identity of having is located not internally, within the
self, but externally, grounded in a perception of what
others have that we do not. It is an identity based
upon not a presence, but an absence, a lack - a lack
which can never be satisfied or filled, simply because
there is always someone else who has yet more of
what we do not. It is therefore an identity of perpetual
failure to realise oneself and ones potential.
This lack, this condition of scarcity does not happen
“naturally”. It is conceived and manufactured in the
marketplace by international capitalism in order to
maximise consumption and therefore profits. Targeted
advertising is its mainstay, and the advertising
invariably operates through a process of subtle
disempowerment. The experience of having to have a
commodity is founded upon the a priori implication of
need, and to need something is to accept that the
absence of it renders us somehow less than whole. In
this world of absence, the present is forever
secondary to the possible future. It lacks a presence.
One is in a state of perpetual inadequacy, searching
for the key that will unlock the door to ontological and
cultural security to wholeness.
Soccer player Ronaldo in a Nike Website Ad
The Boycott Nike website logo

In this culture of cultural insecurity, image is everything. Functional content takes a very secondary place.
Indeed, the image has become the function - its purpose - to establish an identity of insider - of someone
who belongs to an elite, an exclusivity, for the structure of this cultural matrix is built around experiences
of exclusivity and hierarchy. The manufactured desire to be an insider requires the prior internalisation (but
never voiced) experience of oneself as an outsider. Hence what is being created is a culture of envy.
Paradoxically, only the very wealthy can ever attain the status position of true insiders - of iconic status
trendsetters. The rest of us are doomed to surrogate life, lived vicariously through the identities and
experiences of others - the Brad Pitts, Angelina Jolies, Princess Dianas, Oprah Winfries, Paris Hiltons the
the Charlize Therons, the Nicole Kidmans and the Zeta Jonses. This is why the images of these celebrities
is so crucial to the creation of the culture of consumption. They offer the illusion of instant entry to the
exclusive club of movers and shakers. Sometimes, the most successful advertisements do not even
identify the celebrity in question, because to do so would be to admit that they have not yet reached true
(that is to say unspoken) celebrity status.
Charlize Theron (left), Nicole Kidman (centre, unamed) and Catherine Zeta Jones (right) advertising cosmetics

With the increased exposure that advertising now offers to
celebrities, they are lining up in droves to be the recognisable
face of cosmetic and perfume brands (right). And what if your
face isn’t quite as blemish-free as Zeta Jones? The fact that
she is instantly and intimately recognisable as “someone we
know” makes the leap of imagination that much shorter and
safer, and facilitates the buying process. Is it worth it to the
companies? Apparently so. Zeta Jones is reputed to earn $20
million a year from advertising alone.
Apart from the ontological insecurity that is attendant on
advertising and consumption there is a further moral issue that
is at stake and which is becoming increasingly critical. The
culture of conspicuous consumption is also a culture of
exploitation and. waste. We know that the workers who
produce the commodities we so desire live, for the most part in
conditions of economic slavery. In the Filipines, in China, in
Korea and elsewhere in the so-called “developing world”,
workers suffer unimaginable exploitation so that we can have
our Nike (left) and Adidas (right) footwear and other sought
after items.
(Above) Some of the celebrities in recent
make-up advertisements

Likewise. The production of highly valued commodities also requires an
unprecedented exploitation of non renewable natural resources - hardwoods,
fossil fuels. etc. But in the ever increasing desire to consume, we ignore these
vital connections to the social, cultural and environmental worlds that we
plunder. Monocultural farming to produce wheat or beef have produced
enormous problems from topsoil loss, through to Mad Cow disease, while
mining and deforestation continue to ravage Third World countries like Bourneo
and Southern Mexico
The culture of consumption in which
we live is a culture that is
constructed to be blind to its own
consequences. It is a culture that
stands in stark contrast to the world
inhabited by the Willie Owsleys,
Charlie Caskin,s Barry Smiths,
Luther Gulleys and Fred Burns.
Theirs was and is a world primarily
concerned about the consequences
of their actions unlike the driver of
climate controlled car in this
advertisement (centre).
Right, from the top:
• Midwest wheat farming
• California feed Lot
• Southern Mexico deforestation
• Bourneo copper mine:

In his ground-breaking book The Sane Society, psychologist Erich Fromm points out that whole societies
can be not-sane in the sense that the individuals who live in them have values and behaviours that are
unhealthy, alienating and destructive. This notion has significance when we compare the character traits
engendered by our own consumer culture with the culture of those individuals whom we have been
documenting with what we might call call for the sake of brevity, the “Gnome”Culture.
Consumer Culture Gnome Culture
Exclusion-focused Inclusion-focused
Communications code-based Communications open
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Envious Self sufficient
Uncaring Compassionate
Ambitious – focused on becoming Stable – focused on being
Status conscious Status-impervious
Psychologically insecure Happy with themselves
Social climbers Socially content
Aggressively competitive Co-operative
Addicted to consuming Trying to minimise consumption
Environmental degrading Recycle and live sustainability
Environmentally exploitive Environmentally caring
It may be that these “alternative” designers, these “bric-a-brac architects” and gnome-lover who have
created a life out of resistance to consumption may be more representative of what is “sane” than the
majority in our society, and moreover that their creations may point to a healthier more caring world.

It is appropriate to ask, at this point, whether the argument we have been developing about the
correspondence between Art and consumerism is appropriate. After all, Art is about something special,
while consumerism is (usually) about mass-produced and usually cheap and shoddy goods. Have we been
setting up a red-herring, a false dichotomy? I don’t believe so. Whether it be Architecture, Landscape
Design, Painting, Sculpture or Music, the system of creation and production is driven by the same forces of
international capitalism. The world of the 1960s and 1970s where individuals and groups controlled the
creation and production of their own art forms is long passed. To a large extent, the market now determines
the forms that are and can be produced. The commercial/industrial process now permeates the art world,
and fashion is the predominant criterion in the identification of what is considered to be real art. But was it
ever otherwise? I believe not.
The criteria of what stands for
art - its legitimation - have
always been set by the ruling
elite, and art has always been
designed to function as an
instrument of their continued
power and authority. It is one
of the main ways by which they
maintain their status. They do
this by creating a mystique
around art which operates
through a system of
codification to which few have
access. The value of art is
maintained by restricting
access to the code, and an
understanding of the
(restricted) code thus becomes
a mark of high-status power
and influence.

Furthermore, Art, as we now know it has always existed on the basis of exploitation and (often) brutal
terrorism. The Art of Michelangelo and Da Vinci was financed by the genocide of countless millions of
indigenous South Americans in the mines of Potosi and the cities of the Aztecs and the Incas, the
Mayans and others. The very origins of the thing we call art are steeped in blood and oppression.

Thus, Art as we now conceive cannot be separated from issues of Class, Gender, Race and power.
Instead, it is one of the many weapons in the struggle between competing cultural groups for the power to
determine the meaning of everyday life. The distinctions that are drawn between Art and Craft, for instance,
are distinctions that are class and power related. This is why the Gnome Culture is seen as a tawdry
anachronism, as a mark of less intelligence or comprehension - not because it is so, but because it is in the
interests of the ruling or dominant culture to have it accepted as such. The conceptual lines that are drawn
between Art and Craft, or between Architecture and Vernacular Buildings are drawn by individuals and
groups who stand to benefit most from the drawing. And it is those who draw these lines who are most
responsible for the havoc in which we have come to live. It is they who draw the distinctions, make the
exclusions, deny the experiences and value of others. It is they who support the elitism of a system that
supports them. It is they who have the most to gain from the continuation of the status quo and the most to
lose from social and cultural change.
Sometimes artists use their positions of cultural privilege to reflect upon all of this. Here are two such works,
Jenny Holtzer: "Protect", July- October 1994 (left) and Talk Show Addicts by Roger Brown (1993) each, in its
way confirming what has been discussed earlier.

But works like those of Jenny Holtzer and Roger Brown are still trapped within the system that constitutes
the art world. They are speaking to others, like themselves, rather than to the broad mass of the population.
They are still dependant upon the system of finance, of the Art Market, for their economic well being, and
this situated identity of the artist limits what he or she is able to express without risking exclusion from the
elite world of Art. To put not too fine a point on it, even critical artists continue to produce coded works
because they are all afraid of being completely understood.
Compared to these artists,the numerous unknown and unrecognised popular art practitioners with their
gnomes, frogs, flamingo and Adams are making a very simple and very clear statement. Theirs is a world
of being, of the present, of the joys of everyday life in which, as my father used to say “Every day is a
bonus!” These simple artisans are not a breed apart from their more illustrious and recognised
colleagues. They are part of the same great creative impulse. Their only difference is that they have
largely been alienated from the means to make their own worlds with anything other than the most
rudimentary readymade plaster, plastic and cement objects. But the impulse - what Dylan Thomas called
“The fuse that through the green fuse drives the flower” remains constant.

We are talking empathy, about sensitivity to context,
both local and global. We are talking about a
sensitivity to all other living creatures who share this
biosphere with us. What is at stake is no less than
the future of the planet for forthcoming generations.
In the predicted Global crisis that is reputedly
approaching, there may be scant room for further
exploitation or exclusion. The only salvation the
world may have will be found in acceptance of
difference, in the abandonment of false class
distinctions and in a recognition that unless the
entire human species comes together in this
acceptance, life as we know it will likely cease to
exist.
And perhaps that is not such a bad thing.

CRITICAL AESTHETICS
PART 2
©
2006
Tony Ward

CRITICAL
THEORYContemporary Cultural Studies is a field of enquiry
that grew out of the much broader Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is socio-political theory developed in
Germany in the 1930s in response to the rise of
Fascism. It sought to explain the failure of Marxism to
bring about a social revolution, It challenges received
notions of reality, seeking to demonstrate the ways in
which our conceptions are socially constructed.
Critical Theory is reflexive that is, it is aware that the
“reality” that we experience “out there” does not exist
independently of ideology, but that it is shaped (along
with our perceptions of it) by forces of power and
hegemony that have a human agency. These forces
continually try to control all the means of shaping
society and its belief system - Education, the Media,
Religion, the Law, The Church, Planning Regulations,
the Economy etc. They do so to reproduce their own
version of reality, their own economic, social and
cultural supremacy - their hegemony. Critical Theory
views all beliefs, realities, values etc. in their social
and economic context and asks, “who stands to gain
from society seeing things this way? It then looks to
discover how the beneficiaries of the system have
created the system to benefit themselves at the
expense of others

GENEALOGY
Critical Theory evolves from the wider
discipline of Social Theory, and looks at the
ways in which political ideology shapes
experienced reality as a way of maintaining
existing regimes of privilege and social
control. It casts a critical eye upon History,
Philosophy, Education, the Media, the Law,
the Church and Politics and all of the
instruments and vehicles which shape the way
we see things. It holds that these instruments
of social control are themselves shaped by the
ideologies and power structures of
Capitalism, and that their purpose is to
reproduce these conditions in ways which
benefit the already-powerful. Instead, Critical
Theory promotes a counter-ideology which
sees these agencies as potential vehicles for
social liberation and transformation and as a
means of attaining social, cultural, and
economic equity. Initially, it did this from an
orthodox (economic) Marxist point of view,
but increasingly has adopted many of the
tenets and theories of Cultural Studies to
demonstrate how control over culture has
come to play a fundamental part in sustaining
the power status quo.

CULTURAL STUDIES
Marx had based all of his theorising on issues of Class difference, which tended to overlook or negate important class
differences that occurred on the basis of or alongside of issues of Race or Gender, with all of the multiple layerings of
meaning and experience with which these are associated. At the University of Birmingham in the 1960s, West Indian
Professor Stuart Hall and a group of Critical Theorists established the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. The
mission of the Centre was to analyse all of the instruments or agencies of cultural production - the Media, the Schools,
The Legal System, the Churches, the Parliamentary system etc., operate to reproduce the power relations in society
through the reproduction of dominant cultural views and values. Their work took place in the context of a Cultural
revolution that was emerging in Britain, where the irreverent pronouncements and music of the working class Beatles
and images of Coronation Street were beginning to challenge middle class norms, images and values. With the advent of
the Beatles, it became recognised that it was no longer appropriate to think of culture as only high culture - opera, ballet,
fine art etc. It was now clear that there were cultures, each competing for hegemonic control over the meanings of
everyday life. Cultural Studies therefore focused on all of those institutions that shape culture and power relations,
Media, Politics etc. (see below). The Arts now became a battlefield for cultural hegemony in Music, Theatre, Film etc.
Critical Aesthetics has emerged as a very important area of study, within the overall field of Cultural Studies. It involves
all of the agencies who are responsible for shaping how we see and experience the world. If you can shape peoplesʻ
conception of beauty then you can shape their conception of reality.

CRITICAL AESTHETICS
Critical Aesthetics involves a critical scrutiny
of that branch of experience we call
Aesthetic. The word Aesthetic comes from
the Greek Aesthetikos, meaning “to perceive”,
and is usually associated with a perception
and appreciation of beauty. When most
people think of Aesthetics or beauty, they
think about Art - such as this Degas artwork
of a naked woman bathing (right). If pressed,
most people would find it difficult to say what
they find about the image that is “beautiful”.
But they would be equally certain that it is,
indeed, beautiful. That it is artistic. Critical
Aesthetics, interrogates the history and
development of the field of Aesthetics, and
because of its close relationship with the field
of Art, this inevitably also involves a further
interrogation of the concept of Art itself.
What is it? How long has the concept as we
know it existed? How did it develop? What
are the social and economic relations that
support it? Etc. etc. etc.

Art, as we now know it has always existed
on the basis of exploitation and (often)
brutal terrorism. The Art of Michelangelo
and Da Vinci was financed by the genocide
of countless millions of indigenous Aztecs,
Incas, Mayans and others in the mines of
Potosi and the communities of what we
now call Latin America. The very origins of
the thing we call art are steeped in blood
and oppression.
Karl Marx noted, long after the event, that
the rise of Capitalism was to a large extent
fuelled by the discovery of America and by
the expropriation and theft of its natural
resources:
THE ORIGINS OF ART
“The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising
bourgeoisie. The East India and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies,
the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation,
to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby to the revolutionary element in the tottering
feudal society, a rapid development.”

COLUMBUS AND SPAIN
The “discovery” of America, while profitable to the European
colonisers (primarily the Spanish) carried a terrible price for
the indigenous peoples. In the Potosí mines of Bolivia alone,
the Spanish brought in six thousand African slaves to work
the silver, but they all died of altitude sickness. Local Indians
forced into slave labour for the Spanish did not fare much
better. Four out of five died in their first year in the mines
over the first few decades of mining. Nor was the genocide
confined to Bolivia. Reports from Haiti indicate that in the
decade following the arrival of Columbus, more than half of
the half-million Haitians had been murdered by the Spanish.
A young Jesuit priest, Bartolomé de las Casas who
participated in the conquest of Cuba wrote in his journals that
he estimates that in the fourteen years following the arrival of
Columbus, over three million native people were murdered or
died from the results of their enslavement in South America.
All of this was carried out to accomplish the acquisition of
new space for the Spanish Crown, supported by a system of
colonial/geographical franchises legitimated by the Pope. The
“New World” was divided up for colonisation among the
European countries and legitimated by the papal bull Inter
Cetera Divini which established a right to colonise and
appropriate resources based upon the legitimating argument
of “saving souls. Thus the Church played a key role in the
legitimation of genocide. Note the cleric with crucifix leading
the advance up the shore of Haiti in front of Columbus (right).

“...(the) discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the
aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a
warren for the commercial hunting of black skins, signalled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production”.
The influx of so much wealth immediately
transformed the kinds of artwork being
commissioned and completed, as labour
became more affordable, decorative effects
(which require much greater time to
complete) became commonplace. The
palaces and churches of the 15th Century
became the focus of intense artistic
activity and it was upon these changed
economic circumstances that Art emerged
as the phenomenon we recognise today.
The process of colonisation, enslavement
and theft was sanctioned and encouraged
by the Church which benefitted directly.
There was so much gold available that
palaces and churched used it for
decoration as gold leaf, to cover wall and
ceiling surfaces - giving rise to the
Baroque and Rococo movements with
golden decoration everywhere. The
mystical quality of hidden lighting
bounced from golden surfaces was to
become a significant weapon in the battle
for souls during the Counter-Reformation.
The sanctuary at Oviedo (left) tells it all. Built between 1328 and
1528, we can readily see which parts were completed after the
Columbusʻ voyage to America in 1492. The sanctuary of the Coronaro
by Bernini in 1646 (right) indicates the ultimate development of this
process.
COLONISATION AND ART

THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH
The cathedral of Toledo boasts a
five-hundred pound monstrance
(right) made from the Indian
booty brought back by Columbus
himself. Córdoba, Avila and
every other city in the south boast
similar artifacts, even though
they do not always brag about the
source of the precious metals.
Gold became so common in
European palaces and churches
that architects developed a novel
style of decoration emphasising
entering light that could
illuminate the gold and make it
dazzle the observer.” The Church
cannot absolve itself from the
crimes which were committed in
its name!
While the late Pope John Paul may seek to defend the activities of the
Church in the process of colonisation on spiritual grounds (right), there is
no denying that greed for gold was also one of its motivations. As Jack
Weatherford has noted: “The churches of Europe still groan under the
weight of American silver and gold jealously guarded but ostentatiously
displayed. Once simple churches such as those in Toledo suddenly soared
to new heights, expanded, and had new windows installed to let the sun
pour down on the vast collection of gold and jewels from the New World.

CHURCH, CAPITALISM AND ARTThe gold and silver stolen from the Americas by Columbus and the Conquistadors brought so much surplus wealth to
Europe that it made investment a necessity, fuelling the surge in capitalist development. But the Church was deeply
implicated in the crimes of genocide. As Jack Weatherford has also noted: “I first saw this wealth of silver and gold in a
Holy Week procession in Cōrdoba…Out marched the Pious Brotherhood of penitents (below right) and the Union of
Nazarites of the Holiest Christ and Our lady of Tears in Sorrow. Dressed in their long robes of purple and white topped
by tall conical hats from which hung veils covering their faces they looked like marchers in a Ku Klux Klan rally. The
first one carried a six foot high cross of silver. Twelve young boys, without masks but wearing twisted lace collars
several inches thick followed him, each of them carried a gold trumpet four feet long and a foot wide at the mouth. From
each trumpet hung a banner of the Hapsburg eagle… Following the trumpet
players marched more boys with tall
silver crosses and more men with
covered faces. Slowly and clumsily…
forty young men followed in tight
formation carrying On their shoulders
a float of Christ on the cross…Every
night during Holy Week three such
processions wended their way through
the narrow streets of Cōrdoba…
(which) alone had twenty nine such
processions, each with two floats, and
in the region of Andalusia over three
hundred such processions marched
during Holy Week…. The processions
and the churches of Europe offer the
most visible reminders of the deluge
of American gold that showered
Europe in the Sixteenth Century.”

THE CHURCH AS ART PATRONAll of this wealth which flowed into the coffers
of the Church and the European nobility formed
the economic base for the development and
growth of a culture of artisans which numbered
amongst its ranks Michelangelo and Leonardo
da Vinci as well as many other notable
architects and designers. Influential families
like the Medici of Florence acted as art patrons
to this emerging culture, and alliances between
the Medici Pope, Leo X and Charles V, the
Spanish monarch and Holy Roman Emperor
added fuel to this process. Florence and Rome
became the centres of artistic cultural activity in
Europe. This changed in 1527 with the sack of
Rome, when a succeeding Medici Pope,
Clement VII turned against Charles and Spain
and formed an alliance instead with Venice,
Milan and France. In retaliation, Charlesʻ
Burgundian troops attacked and sacked Rome.
The Sack marked the end of Rome’s reputation
as the centre of cultural activity, even though
the palaces and churches were eventually
rebuilt. A great many of those artists and
intellectuals who survived the Sack left, never
to return. But Rome’s loss was Europe's gain.
The effect was to disperse a whole generation of
artists and scholars, throughout Europe.
The Basilica of St. Peters in Rome (1506-1626) (above) spans
spans this period of change and is largely iconic for that fact
and as an emblem of Church patronage. Until this time, the
artists had still been largely dependent upon the Church in
Rome for their commissions. With the influx of all of the new
capital that took place at the beginning of the 16th Century, the
power of the Guilds had been broken (much to the joy of the
Church) and the new freedom and independence of the artisans
allowed them to now sell their skills and talents to a much wider
market. The seed of Art that had been nurtured in Rome and
Florence now bore fruit that was carried throughout the
continent.

Here is an image of the Mona Lisa (left) - Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco Gioconda as painted by Leonardo da
Vinci in Florence between 1505- 1506. It is the most celebrated and best known painting in the world, and seems
to define (we are to believe!) the significance of art and the benchmark of beauty. But is it beautiful? And if so,
how do we know, who says so, and what criteria do they use to decide? Marcel Duchamp raises these questions
with his LHOOQ reproduction with moustache and goatee, while Hommingberger (right) pokes fun at the
pretensions of art history, theory and criticism. So is the Mona Lisa so special?
WHAT CONSTITUTES ART?

ART AS DECOR
One common way of perceiving art is as
decoration. Most people seem to have at least some
king of art on their walls. Mostly, we will find
photographs of family members, but often, it is a
reproduction of some well-known painting as the
cartoon (right) indicates. What is interesting about
this cartoon is that the woman seems to be in the
horns of a dilemma. Presumably she has a copy of
the Mona Lisa on her wall because it is supposed to
represent the height of artistic achievement and
good taste. On the other hand it obviously isn’t that
remarkable that the colours can’t be changed to fit
her décor. Her dilemma highlights precisely the
social construction of Art as an instrument of social
(class/cultural) distinction.

The first thing to realise is that all of our modern conceptions of beauty
are determined by theories of the aesthetic developed by the 18th
Century German philosopher Emanuel Kant (right). Kant succeeded in
legitimating the depoliticisation of the aesthetic in ways which
resonate throughout art theorising down to the present, and in a
manner which continues to legitimate the cultural invasion of
marginalised groups. While the involvement of the aristocracy in
general, and the King and the Church in particular, provided a
significant social and political support for the emergent hegemony of
Art prior to the 19th century, this alone was not enough to ensure the
survival of its superior status. In a world dominated by Enlightenment
rationality, Art, could only exist as an extra-rational, category, beyond
rationality, but legitimated ultimately by rationality itself. It had to be
immeasurable.
ART AND RATIONALITY
(right) WATTEAU: PILGRIMAGE TO CYTHERA

Kant wanted to know how we could tell for certain when something was beautiful, so he developed a number of criteria
for judging an object aesthetically. Writing in Koenigsberg in the late 18th Century, he developed an epistemology of art
which continues to exert its influence even today. He premised his analysis of aesthetics around a concept of the
beautiful, which he analysed in four Moments:
1. Taste is the ability to judge an object or a way of presenting it, by means of a liking or disliking devoid
of all interest. The object of such liking is called beautiful.
2. Beautiful is what, without a concept, is liked universally
3. Beauty is an object’s form of purposiveness (form of finality) insofar as it is perceived in the object
without the presentation of a purpose (end)
4. Beautiful is what, without a concept is cognized as the object of a necessary liking.
Put in more simple terms, Kant is suggesting that:
• There is a thing called beauty
• That it is defined as the experience of pleasure
• That this pleasure must be disinterested (ie. not connected to material gain etc.)
• That the experience of beauty is a universal phenomenon - that which is beautiful is pleasurable to all.
• That beauty is not associated with an object’s utility or purpose
Beauty, for Kant, resided within the object itself as an inherent attribute, rather than, as we are wont to say, being, “in the
eye of the beholder”. Rather, it exists as a kind of universal. As he says, “The beautiful is that which, apart from a
concept, pleases universally”. Or put another way by Eagleton: "Aesthetic judgments are thus... a kind of subjectivity
without a subject, or.... a 'universal subjectivity'. To judge aesthetically is implicitly to declare that a wholly subjective
response is of a kind that every individual must necessarily experience, one that must elicit spontaneous agreement from
them all... “ Kant’s argument in the end comes down to two paradoxical premises: The experience of beauty is subjective
but it is also universal.
ART AND BEAUTY

MANIFEST IN
OBJECTSFirst of all, we must confront Kant’s proposition that
there actually is a quality called beauty that really exists
and that isn’t merely a social construction in itself. Kant
neatly sidesteps this question by suggesting that the
quality of beauty is immeasurable, cannot be objectively
determined but is nevertheless universal in its appeal.
What this means is that people the world over, whatever
their personal histories or cultural background will be
able to recognise beauty when they see it, which is
patently absurd. Beauty is not, culturally determined
according to Kant. Such generalisations speak to the
colonising impulse that was so much a part of Kant’s
own world in the late 18th Century and which saw the
cultural values of the indigenous other as essentially
inferior. What he ought to have said had he been more
honest was that “my (Eurocentgric) philosophy will
convince the whole world that our (civilised) European
aesthetic is superior to any other,”
Following on from this, we can see that if, as Kant says,
the quality of beauty is within the object, as for instance,
in Michaelangelo’s David (right), then its recognition
becomes an instrument of social distinction. Those who
can see it obviously must have superior tastes and
perceptions than those who cannot. The self-fulfilling
and self-legitimating nature of the definition begins to
become apparent.

POSESSES SPECIAL QUALITY
Kant further suggests that a thing of beauty possesses a special
quality that exists independent of the culture or personal
experience of the witness. This is equally problematic. In his
analytic of beauty, Kant seeks to establish it as a quality or
condition not only determined by individual subjectivity, but as a
matter of fact - something that all people with taste - that is to say
without personal interest can witness and experience in the same
object.
This special quality can only be experienced, though, by those with
a special taste. Clearly not everyone can approach an art object in a
disinterested fashion, yet the suggested universality of the
experience of beauty suggests that they can. Michaelangelo’s Pieta
(right) might seem initially to be a prime example of the kind of
beautiful object that Kant is writing about. Given the paradox of
taking pleasure in an object depicting suffering, it is superbly
crafted, it speaks to a deep human sentiment of suffering and
compassion. It’s postures and gestures evoke sensations of sadness
and pity. And it is more or less universally acclaimed as an
outstanding piece of artistic genius. It takes us beyond the material
world, to a world of apparent universal experience.
But a moment’s though will indicate the partiality of this
experience. It takes us to this world, but what about others? What
about non-Christians, mothers of condemned men, etc? This is not
to deny a personal pleasure in the work, merely to challenge
statements of the supposed universality of this experience.

PERCEPTUAL
DISINTERESTEDNESS
Art appreciation, was therefore set aside as a special and
unique form of experience, unrelated to the process of
cognition, and therefore beyond logic, and accessible only to
the privileged few.
It was defined as a special sphere of experience not accessible
to everyone, but only to those with an ability to acquire the
prerequisite detachment from material needs - surely not the
poor and the hungry. Under such circumstances, art and
morality were split, and art became concerned with beauty
alone. John Morley, a utilitarian positivist, summarised the
position well:
"Morality is not the aim and goal of fine art... Art has
for its end the Beautiful only. Morality, so far from
being the essence of it, has nothing to do with it at all.”
or, as Marie Antoinette said
“Let them eat cake!”
Kant saw beauty as the embodiment of a special quality which can only be apprehended through a state of perceptual
disinterestedness. In this he, followed on from the concept of disinterestedness formulated by the British aristocrat, Lord
Shaftesbury in the early 18th century, along with the Cambridge Platonists. It is important to establish at this point, the
relationship between this newly-formulated “disinterestedness” - and the emergence of a new propertied and leisured
class, able to extensively devote their time to pursuits other than bread-winning or wage-earning. For Kant,
disinterestedness was not to be taken as meaning the same as unawareness. On the contrary, to be disinterested was to
be exceptionally, objectively aware of the object in all of its metaphysical, aesthetic quality, because one's judgment
remained unimpaired by "worldly" considerations such as politics, morals or commerce.
DE TROY: LA LECTURE DE MOLIERE

DISUTILITY AND ART
“Therefore, the liking that, apart from concepts, we judge to be
universally communicable and hence to be the basis that determines a
judgement of taste, can be nothing but the subjective (finality) in the
presentation of an object, without any purpose (whether objective or
subjective, and hence the mere form of (finality) … in the presentation
by which an object is given (to) us.“ From this he concludes, “beauty
is an object’s (form of finality) insofar as it is perceived in the object
without any presentation of an (end). In other words, the beauty of an
object - that is its universal appreciation of pleasure cannot be related
to the use to which the object is intended to be put neither material nor
emotional. Eagleton notes what an important step this is: “In the
past... works of art had been made for a purpose; and like all other
artifacts they were valued for their workmanship and for their
efficiency in serving the purpose for which they were intended - as
vehicles or promoters of social values, for their moral influence, for
their didactic uses, and so on. The concept of “fine arts” was based on
the idea of a class of artifacts constructed solely or primarily for the
purpose of being contemplated aesthetically.” Questions of privilege
and elitism appear immediately: Who but the culturally and
economically powerful could afford to pay for or buy objects without
any material purpose or utility, and who but they had the time to
appreciate these objects disinterestedly? Who else, then, but those
(like Kant himself) who are already part of the cultural elite and
possessed of superior (and self-referential) taste. And the Artist? What
of his or her status?
In his Third Moment, Kant makes the case for beauty as eschewing any reference to use or utility of form:

THE MYTH OF GENIUS
The development of the concept of genius is implicit in the
notion of intellectual property which was one of the
earliest developments of competitive capitalism.
Furthermore, the conception of the artist as an isolated
individual which emerged at this time is really a fiction - a
social construction designed to imbue particular works
with an additional cultural and symbolic capital within the
framework of the culture of collectorship which developed
alongside it and with which it was reciprocally influential.
Historian William E. Wallace has noted for
instance, that Michelangelo was not the solitary
architect-creator that he has traditionally been
made out to be:
"The romantic myth that Michelangelo worked
by himself fits our notion of the lonely self-
sacrificing genius - conditions that presumably
are necessary for creating art. Actually he was
never alone. He lived with two male assistants
and always had a housekeeper. Thirteen people
helped him paint the Sistine ceiling; about 20
helped carve the marble tombs in the Medici
Chapel in Florence... and to build the Laurentian
Library in Florence, he supervised a crew of at
least 200.... The workshop's organisation was
more horizontal than pyramidical”
Creator as Magician (Jones)

For the artist, it is crucial to establish a
separate, commodifiable identity that
can be marketed. This is more than just
a style of work. It becomes also a brand
of personal characteristics. This is one
reason why artists are readily accepted
as eccentrics - because they have an
economic need to incorporate their
eccentricities into their branding and
marketing. Turner (left) and Degas
(right) are just typical examples, albeit
that their product itself also exhibits a
singular uniqueness as well as
remarkable skill.
As Hauser observed: “The development of the concept of genius begins with the idea of intellectual property. In the
Middle Ages both this conception and the desire for originality were absent; both are directly interrelated... in the 14th
Century individualistic efforts begin to make their mark in all directions. Originality becomes a weapon in the
competitive struggle.” Individual artists produce work which is unique, and this uniqueness also becomes an integral
component of the value of the reified art object. This is why, today, art assumes the role of the ultimate consumable,
without intrinsic purpose, other than to operate as a badge of taste and cultural distinction. This notion of art, as the
product of an individual genius, embodying transcendent aesthetic qualities which exist beyond cognition and only
amenable to apprehension in a state of perceptual disinterestedness is, without modification, the notion that we are most
familiar with today. For those who possess a work of genius, the reflected status is significant. Not only are they to be
congratulated upon recognising genius when they see it, they are also to be appreciated for their understanding of the
characteristics that manifest the genius they have obtained. In other words, they have the most refined taste. In
possessing works by Degas (right) or Turner (left) they demonstrate both their supposed superior taste as well as their
apparent identitification with the genius they patronise.
THE ECONOMICS OF GENIUS

CLASS BASIS FOR AESTHETICSThis, then, is the context and the basis for Kant’s aesthetic
theories as set out in the second part of his Critique of
Judgement. They have, over the last two hundred years,
come to form the basis of all of our thoughts and
conceptions about Art. In everyday life, it is taken for
granted that:
That beauty is real
That it is possessed by objects
That it cannot be defined or measured
That it can be universally apprehended
That beauty is not connected to utility
That it is mysterious, indefinable
It is useful to ask who benefits from this ensemble of
characteristics. Not the poor, who cannot afford to
commission or buy a work or who is too hard trying to pay
the bills to have the luxury of perceptual disinterest. Not the
worker who has no leisure time to appreciate it, nor the
surplus capital to possess objects that have no actual use
other than that of aesthetic appreciation. Works of art have
always been the province of a rich and powerful elite who
used art as both an instrument and an emblem of their
power and symbolising their ability to possess the subject
content of the work.
With the advent of photography, the Work of Art has lost
this ability. Now, the content has lost its power, and only
the possession of the original still remains as an emblem of
status.
Berger notes that, “In the end, the art of the past is
being mystified because a privileged minority is
striving to invent a history which can retrospectively
justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a
justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.
And so, inevitably, it mystifies.” All art theory and
criticism which evades the actual social, cultural and
political history of art and its use as an instrument and
emblem of privilege is essentially about mystification.
He goes on, “The uniqueness of every painting was
once part of the uniqueness of the place where it
resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But
it could never be seen in two places at the same time.
When the camera reproduces a painting it destroys the
uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning
changes. Or, more exactly its meaning multiplies and
fragments into many meanings.

MANY (MONEY)MEANINGS
Meaning?
Art?

ART AS MYSTIFICATION
The fact that it no longer denotes high status to possess an
image of the Mona Lisa in its original form (since it simply
refers back to the original as the real work of art has led to the
production of a great deal of satyrical work on the content as
the previous slide illustrates. All of these works point to the
essential contradiction and mystification of art which is still
used to legitimate the status of the elite while at the same time
maintaining a wide appeal. The myth suggests that by owning a
reproduction of the original work, we are somehow on a par
with those who possess the original. In our minds we
participate in their special knowledge and understanding of the
quality of the image itself. But this presumes that the image has
a quality which stands outside of the social circumstances of its
origin - which it does not. It’s quality was and still is intended
as an instrument of social distinction intended to build a
cultural wall between the powerful and all others. The wall is
maintained by the illusion of participation in a special kind of
knowledge and awareness that the work of art is supposed to
signify. That Dot should be said to be making a fool of herself
(right) presumes that the reader identifies with the couple
laughing at her, but also with the elite with whom they identify.
Indeed, the amazing technology of the fire alarm could be an
occasion for e admiration in a world that did not revolve
around regimes of exclusion.

Pierre Bourdieu makes the point that:
"The definition of cultural nobility is the stake in a struggle
which has gone on unceasingly, from the seventeenth century to
the present day, between groups differing in their ideas of
culture and of the legitimate relation to culture and to works of
art, and therefore differing in the conditions of acquisitions of
which these dispositions are the product... The logic of what is
sometimes called... the "reading" of a work of art, offers basis
for this opposition. Consumption is, in this case, a stage in the
process of communication, that is, an act of deciphering,
decoding, which presupposes practical or explicit mastery of a
cipher or code. In a sense one can say that the capacity to see
(voir) is a function of the knowledge (savoir), or concepts, that
is, the words, that are available to name visible things, and
which are, as it were, programmes for perception. A work of art
has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the
cultural competence, that is, the code into which it is encoded.
The conscious or unconscious of explicit or implicit schemes of
perception and appreciation which constitutes pictorial or
musical culture is the hidden condition for recognizing the
styles characteristic of a period, a school or an author, and, more
generally for the familiarity with the internal logic of works that
aesthetic enjoyment presupposes... Thus the encounter with a
work of art is not "love at first sight" as is generally supposed,
and the act of empathy, Einfühlung which is the art-lover's
pleasure, presupposes an act of cognition, a decoding operation,
which implies the implementation of a cognitive acquirement, a
cultural code."
CULTURAL CODES

CULTURAL CAPITAL
The possession of cultural codes is largely a matter of upbringing and education. They are learned as part of the
habitus or life-world of the individual. They embody beliefs, perceptions and understandings of the world in all of
its manifestations - material, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social, cultural, political etc. According to the French
philosopher and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, Culture has an uneven exchange value. Some (dominant) cultural values
are valued "higher" than other (subordinate) cultural values in society. ie. In the world at large, ballet has a higher
cultural value than kapa haka, opera has a higher cultural value than Rap. Although Rap may have a much higher
value than opera within certain segments of society, its proponents have much less influence than the lovers of opera.
Cultural capital operates like economic capital such that those with the
most capital have the greater power to increase their capital
accumulation, while those with the least capital have a diminishing
opportunity to do so. Those who know the powerful codes can increase
their power while those who do not cannot. This leads inevitably to a
situation where the power to define meaning is increasingly lodged in
the hands of fewer and fewer increasingly powerful individuals of the
dominant culture. Furthermore, it is important to maintain the cultural
value of the elite codes, and this is done by restricting access to them
and to the private languages that support them. Such restriction
maintains a state of scarcity which along with a social and cultural state
of desire (according to the laws of supply and demand and the self-
legitimating high-value status of the codes). Few have access to them,
making them more valuable because they are scarce. Schools and
Universities support these exclusions by restricting the circulation and
dissemination of the knowledge base concerned. While children who
come from elite homes already have inculcated the codes from their
home environment which will ensure their success within the school
environment.

GENDERED ART
The claims of Art to Truth, Beauty, Spirituality, Alongside and Transcendence sound hollow when measured against
the exclusions and oppressions which have marked its historical development. The elitist nature of the enterprise and
its function as an instrument of class distinction give the lie to its claims. Alongside class, gender represents another
major exclusion in the world of Art. This has operated at two levels:
1. The exclusion of women from the coterie of elite artists
2. The objectification of women as sex-objects in the subject matter of art
In the first instance, the exclusion of women from the art elite is a matter of record. Men dominate the field almost
exclusively from the appearance of the earliest individual artists in the 14th Century down to the present. Notable
modern exceptions like Georgia O’Keefe and Freda Kalo, but they rather prove the rule. It is not that women did not
paint or sculpt, they did. But their work remained largely ignored and invisible. As Germain Greer has aptly noted in
her book on women artists - The Obstacle Race:
“The unreliability of the classic references when it comes to women’s work is the
consequence of the commentators condescending attitude. Any work by a woman,
however trifling,is as astonishing as the pearl in the head of the toad. It is not part
of the natural order, and need not be related to the natural order. Their work was
admired in the old sense, which carries an undertone of amazement, as if they had
pained with the brush held between their toes. In a special corner reserved for
freaks they were collected and disposed of, topped and tailed with compliment. By
the time the next commentators came around no one could remember why they had
ever been included.”
She also notes that the major reason for this exclusion was not that they did not paint or
sculpt, or appreciate the works of those that did. It was because they did not buy works of
art. The economy of the art world was peopled, managed and controlled by men. And men
considered that the proper place for the woman in the arts was as a subject - preferably
naked. No less so for homosexual artists like Michelangelo (right)

SEXIST ARTJohn Berger, the British critical art theorist has noted that the nude
has been the sine qua non of Fine Art since the 15th Century. He
also notes that the subject of the nude has, almost invariably been a
woman.
“To be a woman is to have been born, within an allotted and
confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of
women has developed as a result of their ingenuity at living under
such tutelage within such a limited space.But this has been at the
cost of a woman’s self being split into two. A woman must
continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied
by her own image of herself…From her earliest childhood she has
been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. And so she
comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the
two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a
woman. She has to survey everything she is and everything she
does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she
appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally
thought of as the success of her life.”
CHOOSING A MODEL: FORAIN.
Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another. …To acquire
some control over this process women must contain it and interiorise it. That part of a woman’s self which is the
surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treated.
And this exemplary treatment of herself by herself constitutes her presence…. One might simplify this by saying: men
act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at…. The surveyor of woman in
herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a
sight.” Above we see this graphically demonstrated in Forain’s painting Choosing a Model in which the sculptor Rodin
and a male colleague stand, hands on hips, mutually regarding a kneeling naked woman who looks towards the viewer
(Forain himself) - all three gazing, judging, deciding. One wonders if they spoke aloud about the woman in the third
person and in her presence. We might suspect that she was not included in whatever dialogue might have been taking
place.

THE INVISIBLE SPECTATOR
HELMUT NEWTON: SELF PORTRAIT WITH WIFE AND MODEL
In the vast majority of nude art works there exists
an invisible component of the composition, never
seen but always implied: the spectator-viewer.
Helmut Newtonʻs self portrait (right) makes clear
what, in Richard Thomasʻ Cupid (below)is only
implied.
RICHARD THOMAS: NELL GWYN
AS CUPID

VOYEURISTIC ART
Berger points out that with the secularisation of painting the nude begins to
emerge as a major component of picture content, but almost always portrayed in a
situation where she is aware of being seen nude by a spectator, she looks back at
the spectator looking at her, as in Lely’s Nell Gwyn (top right) Manet’s Olympia
(below centre top), Titian’s Venus of Urbino (below centre bottom) and Trutatʻs
Nude Girl on a Panther Skin (bottom right). In almost all cases, the supine
arrangement of her body indicates submission, and perhaps expectation. Often, as
in Tintoretto’s Susannah (below left) the woman is looking into a mirror,
contrived to make the woman cooperate in treating herself as a sight. In all
instances, there is a distinction to be made between being naked and being nude.
To be naked is to be oneself. To be
nude is to be seen naked by others.
Nudity is about display. As Berger
notes, “Nudity is a form of dress”.

THE GAZEThe one person absent from all of these images, and the most important person,
is the spectator - the artist, and later the viewer, who clearly is intended to be a
man. The entire composition, the subject, the pose, the nudity are all designed
for him who is always a stranger and is always dressed. Bronzino’s Venus
(below right) expresses this well. Although she is being kissed by Cupid, her
body is arranged as a provocative display for the spectator - you and I.
Similarly, in Tintoretto’s Woman Bearing Her Breasts (below left) and Titian’s
Mary Magdalen (centre left),we are being allowed to witness nudity for
another - as she looks away towards her other spectator. In some instances, her
companion and our co-voyeur is included in the composition, and we are
allowed to witness their intimacy, as in Rembrandt’s Bathsheba (right). But
examples where she looks towards the other other - her hidden male
companion in the painting are relatively rare.
Most often, she looks toward the outside spectator, no matter what is happening between herself and her hidden
companion-viewer.In Lely’s Margaret Hughes (centre right) the provocation is more direct, as she bares her breast to both
the painter (on request) and the later spectator.

Throughout post-Renaissance Western art, The Nude predominates and the
unspoken spectator-voyeur-owner rules supreme. There are few exceptions,
notably Rembrandtʻs Dānae (top right) where the woman is, according to
Berger, no longer a nude, but rather a loved woman whose intimacy we are
allowed to witness, but only at the cost of self-recognition as an outsider -
a true voyeur. The Nude has been presented as the essence of beauty in
Western Painting with no reference to the underlying gendered and sexist
social construction which has fuelled its appeal. Kantʻs presumption of
Perceptual Disinterestedness begins now to sound and look like the
ideological mystification that it is. We (picture-buying-owning) men could
not be less disinterested in possessing such frank and clear admissions of
our sexual and economic power.
Von Aachen, Bacchus,
Ceres and Cupid
Rubens, Woman
in Fur Cloak
Manet, Déjeunet sur l’Herbe,
Rembrandt, Danāe
MYTHIC NUDE
Hustler

ART vs CRAFT
The mutilation and destruction of indigenous forms of artistic expression was accompanied by its theft and
appropriation by the colonisers. The museums of the Western colonial countries are filled with stolen artifacts of
inestimable significance to their previous owners. The controversy over the demanded return of the so-called Elgin
Marbles stolen by Lord Elgin from the Athens Parthenon (below) and now housed in the British Museum represents
but one example. In fact, the museum as an social and cultural institution is founded upon the need to house the
spoils of concerted and relentless campaigns of genocide. The massive influx of these “acquired” and stolen items in
the 18th and 19th Centuries not only changed the colonised cultures, but also had an impact upon the colonial
cultures too. The museum became the centre of for establishing a global cultural taxonomy - designed to reinforce
and legitimate the apparently “more advanced” status of western culture (of which the Parthenon was paradoxically
seen to symbolise the beginning). And just as these objects were inserted into a theoretical matrix of cultural
development which served to legitimate superiority of western culture (and by extension its thefts and genocides),
this overwhelming exposure to new, unique and visually dramatic art objects could not be allowed to disturb the
mythology of the supposed superiority of western art which was seen as one of culturesʻ highest expressions.
To maintain the political, social and cultural
integrity of western art it became necessary to
create a whole new category of visual culture. The
result was the creation of Craft. Craft was
everything that was not Art. Craft was that which
did not conform to the Kantian precepts of art. But
in order to fully distinguish the difference between
the two categories, it was necessary to do two
things:
•To define a series of rules or criteria for Art
•To institutionalise and academise these
rules
This required the development in the 18th and 19th
Centuries of Art Academies where artists might be
trained.

LEGITIMATING ARTThe formalisation and institutionalisation of aesthetic codes happened first in France in the mid 1600s, through the
Academies of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. This systematisation and control determined to a very large extent
what could be conceived as art. Whereas the ecclesiastical formalism still allowed for a degree of freedom of artistic
expression and experimentation, the secular French baroque was characterised by a strict adherence to aesthetic canons
which flowed down from the peak of the social hierarchy but which, to exert and maintain their authority were
represented as universalities. It was a strategy which eventually became an integral component of aesthetic theories
which today still define dominant cultural taste. Those charged with determining this controlled conception of
formalised universal taste as Hauser notes:
“...have not the slightest awareness of how restricted their idea of
“universality” is and of how few they are thinking when they talk
about “everybody” and “anybody”. Their universalism is a fellowship
of the élite - of the élite as formed by absolutism. There is hardly a
rule or a requirement of classicist aesthetics which is not based on the
ideas of this absolutism.”
The task of this elite was to establish and police a system of rules which
would ensure the ongoing exclusivity of their own conceptions of taste and
through this to consolidate their own elitism. To do this, they turned to
academic theorising. They established Academies for the instruction and
education of all artists, seeking to develop an accreditation system that
would exclude any but their own kind. Eventually, membership of these
academies became the only means by which it was possible to gain
commissions, and their members assumed airs of extreme social superiority,
often expressed in dress and eccentric behaviour, as indicated in this
photograph of Architect R. M. Hunt, in 1883.

The system of aesthetic canons which were presented as universalities, were actually determined by committee. In
1664, conférences were introduced to the Academy and would entail discussion of an important work of art. Rules of
aesthetic order were thus formulated which were elevated to the status of a universal canon by a vote (which is strange,
considering the importance which the mythology of the genius individual artist upon which the canons were based). By
this means, individual preference, taste and style were subsumed under a normative value system the sole purpose of
which was the maintenance of national order under an absolute monarchy.
THE LIE OF THE AESTHETIC
Hauser suggests that this moment marks a major turning point in
the history of aesthetics, where academic canons of beauty are
first formulated. Artistic freedom and subjectivism were, under
these circumstances forbidden. The academies were formed to
police this repressive system.
“All the laws and regulations of classicist aesthetics are
reminiscent of the paragraphs of the penal code; the whole
constabulary of the academies is needed to secure their
universal observance. The compulsion to which artistic life
in France is subject is expressed most directly in the
academies. The concentration of all utilisable forces, the
suppression of all individual effort, the supreme
glorification of the state as personified in the king - these
are the tasks which the academies are called upon to deal
with. The government wishes to dissolve the personal
relationship between the artist and the public and to make
them directly dependent on the state. It wants to bring to an
end both private patronage and the promotion of private
interests and aspirations by artists and writers. From now on
they are to serve only the state, and the academies are to
educate them for and hold them to this subservient
position.”
LOUIS XIV OF FRANCE. CREATED ACADEMIES

THE ACADEMIESIn the 1790s, the Academies received Royal patronage - especially in France with the establishment of the Royal
Academy. After this time the the elitism of the field accelerated, as Art became the province in which to demonstrate
and express cultural refinement.This refinement was most clearly expressed in the persons of aristocratic and high-
status women, who had the both the leisure and the cultural codes to exploit the opportunities presented by Fine Art.
They became in large numbers the founders of and participated fully in the emergence of the Private Academies
(below). Their status was an important ingredient in the legitimation of Art, particularly because their exclusion from
the world of Commerce lent to them an aura of spiritual and cultural superiority. It was through this process that the
eventual correspondence between dominant, theories of the aesthetic, and ideologies of cultural superiority were
conflated.
LOUISE ROSE JULIE DUVIDAL DE MONTFERRIER: COUNTESS HUGO:
THE DRAWING CLASS
From this moment on Art will be the
exclusive province of the upper class, and
will become one of the principal weapons in
the class war of position in European society.
From this moment on, anything produced for
utility, anything produced without the
canonical blessing of the emerging culture of
the Academies, anything produced outside
the narrow criteria of legitimised “beauty”
will be relegated to the status of “Craft” -
whether produced domestically or abroad.
Once established as a legitimated and
legitimating system, Art was ready to be put
to the service of the dominant culture in more
direct ways - as propaganda for their values,
and as a means of demonising their cultural
opposition.

ART AS CULTURAL WEAPON
Art has always existed and operated to further the needs
and aspirations of the dominant culture, whether it be the
Settler culture of the colonies as here (right) in New
Zealand or at home, where the landed gentry had their
portraits painted against the setting of their estates by
notable artists. In each case, an important function of the
work was to mask the social reality of the oppressed,
dispossessed and colonised, on the backs of whom the
emerging culture of affluence existed. The numerous
English landscape painters of this era almost exclusively
produce works to mask rather than reveal the social reality
of the times.
The philosophy of the Aesthetic in Western
culture presents it as a transcendent realm of
experience beyond crass issues of politics, power
and money. On the contrary, we can now see that
these two conceptual categories of Art and
Aesthetics are instead powerful weapons in a
class, gender and culture war wielded by those
who have the most to lose from social and
cultural change.

Thus, Art as we now conceive cannot be separated from issues of Class, Gender, Race and power.
Instead, it is one of the many weapons in the struggle between competing cultural groups for the power to
determine the meaning of everyday life. The distinctions that are drawn between Art and Craft, for instance,
are distinctions that are class and power related. The conceptual lines that are drawn between Art and
Craft, or between Architecture and Vernacular Buildings are drawn by individuals and groups who stand to
benefit most from the drawing. And it is those who draw these lines who are most responsible for the havoc
in which we have come to live. It is they who draw the distinctions, make the exclusions, deny the
experiences and value of others. It is they who support the elitism of a system that supports them. It is they
who have the most to gain from the continuation of the status quo and the most to lose from social and
cultural change.Sometimes artists use their positions of cultural privilege to reflect upon all of this. Here are two such works,
Jenny Holtzer: "Protect", July- October 1994 (left) and Talk Show Addicts by Roger Brown (1993) each, in its
way confirming what has been discussed earlier.
AESTHETICS AND RESISTANCE

Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design

Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design

Similar to Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design (7)

More from Tony Ward

More from Tony Ward (20)

Critical Aesthetics: Race, Class, Gender and Cultural Capital in Art and Design