2022/11/10 by Noël Carroll · 1 voice
Social Sciences · #Law in Society and Culture
paper · doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayac070
openalex publication_date 2022/11/10 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
For roughly two centuries, there has been an ongoing rivalry between two views of art. On the one hand, there is the claim—sometimes heralded by the slogan ‘art for art’s sake’—that art is a realm unto itself. Call this autonomism. Art is autonomous or separate in virtue of its singular essence from the rest of society, its concerns, and its practices. On the other hand, there is the older view—found in Plato and continuing into our own times, often broadcasting its own slogan—namely, ‘relevance’, or some recent candidate for relevance, such as ‘inclusion’. From this perspective, art is not separate from society; art is deeply integrated with the broader culture, with its aspirations and its debates. Call this integrationism. In living memory, this competition re-emerged dramatically when politicized postmodernists criticized their modernist forebears for their lack of commitment. The battle royal exploded with particular vehemence around the 1993 Whitney Biennial, in which George Halliday presented a videotape of the police battering of Rodney King, as well as a button proclaiming ‘I can’t ever imagine wanting to be white’, which was designed by Daniel J. Martinez to be worn in order to be admitted to the show. Much of the critical response was outraged over the perception of the forceful intrusion of politics into the domain of art.