A Commentary on the Inauguration: Art History, A Dream, and “The Politics of Aesthetics”



Honoring David Lynch, especially his FBI agent character Dale Cooper (played by Kyle Maclachlan) in Twin Peaks, who relied on a dream in his investigation—I begin with a dream I had last night. In it, I followed the comedian Dave Chappelle, a ski instructor, on a snowmobile, headed to a mountain to go skiing. Following him into the air, I took flight on my pink-handled vehicle: “This is not something that is allowed in Switzerland” I thought to myself as I tried to follow the snaking road far below us. I had a hard time navigating in the dark and got lost. When I saw the instructor approaching I quickly tried to wipe tears off my face in an attempt to hide my sadness. After all, I would try to ski again the following day. Reading Jacques Rancière’s “The Politics of Aesthetics” (2003) the day before brought me to wonder whether visual art has lost its edge. Some nights earlier I had seen Rigoletto at The Met. It is an opera staged many times across the world since 1851 when Giuseppe Verdi wrote it. I wondered if, like opera, the golden age of visual art might have passed leaving it distinct in its formats but very discrete in its innovation. Was that why I had cried in my dream?
Opera has large audiences around the world, but they are declining, and mostly want to see old works, rather than new commissions. There are many newer art forms, some taking inspiration from opera, that are transformative with impact beyond the field—what is the harm in letting opera embedded within its historical formats open audiences to new interpretations and readings rather than regenerate itself? Visual art may also be heading to a deep freeze—where there is little room for novelty and innovation. Rancière is firm in his belief that art is mimetic—art imitates nature and the real world, simulacra—in addition, art history, the study of art that incorporates contemporary art, is pre-occupied with what art has been “reproduction” or “mimesis.” Rancière eloquently explains this field-specific practice of observing the past well in the essay. He writes:
The aesthetic regime of the arts invents its revolutions on the basis of the same idea that caused it to invent the museum and art history, the notion of classicism and new forms of reproduction… And it devotes itself to the invention of new forms of life on the basis of an idea of what art was, an idea of what art would have been.
Is the art world (and opera for that matter) too encumbered by, in Rancière’s words, “what art was,” or is this a strong foundation for its continued relevance?
Art History as a discipline is marked by Giorgio Vasari’s series of artists biographies and Aby Warburg’s Bilderatlas, the German art historian who assembled disparate images from Antiquity to the Rennaissance of art and architecture but also newspaper clippings, astrological charts, coins, and advertisements to create a visual archive of civilizations. Thus, he brought art history away from biographies and aesthetics allowing art and material culture to operate through its iconography, sociology, ethnography, and psychology. Art History became a lens through which to understand the world: social relations, politics, and history. Although Warburg is criticized for cultural appropriation (for his inclusion of Hopi rituals, which its people do not allow to be shared), Euro-centrism, and incoherence his 63 panels 971 image ontological project was, at the time, aesthetically and conceptually truly avant-garde. Simulacra: mood boards, social media feeds, or image searches are common today. Artists move in and out of history in terms of the mediums, techniques, and innovation they use—a type of postmodern collaging, as it were. This interdisciplinary approach, or bringing seemingly disparate elements together, to investigate, map, or prove a point is characteristic of art history and art criticism. Art is the product of an artist’s mind their conscious decision and subconscious—in my first art history class at university the teacher warned us not to rely fully on what an artist might say about their work, interpretations can move far beyond their initial intention.
In art historical research, like skiing, one can easily and with speed swoosh and slalom through geography, time, and knowledge systems juxtaposing archival material with literature with images with popular culture. In Rancière’s thesis, the aesthetic avant-garde is essential for political revolution, it creates a “life-programme.” Integral to art is that it has been instrumentalized by institutions, religious, governmental, and business. Artists, however, have continuously been subversive, intentionally and unintentionally, with many examples throughout history. So it seems that it is not only with the avant-garde (mid-19th to mid-20th century) that the connection between art and political revolution was formed.
Consider that after reading Rancière’s text on the day of the inauguration I cried (a semi-Jungian I believe that waking life is reflected in unexpected and useful ways in REM-sleep). Art is emancipatory opening new sensitivities and to feel. Marking the beginning of a tumultuous four years that promised to oppose forces working towards dignifity for all. On the radio, various news channels reported on Trump’s planned attacks on immigrants upon returning to office: ICE raids, a state of emergency at the U.S. Mexico border, attempting to overturn the constitutional birthright to U.S. citizenship and shutting down the CBP One app used by asylum seekers to schedule appointments to remain in the U.S. lawfully. And, walking back diversity and inclusion—although I think we must move away from identity politics in social and cultural milieus, this can only be done if protections remain in institutional settings.
Rancière’s most important point is that for there to be politics there must be dissent; art (visual, literature, operatic, what have you) can catalyze these breaks. Since our lives are so tightly intertwined with culture, we must stop to observe its importance. On last week’s episode of SNL, airing two days before the inauguration of Trump, guest host Chapelle spoke directly to the incoming U.S. president: “I know that you are watching,” continuing he pleaded, “do better.”
In today’s attention-grabbing social economy, it is hard to be (like Switzerland) neutral, but one can be cordial. As I read the news and move through the (non-art)-world I see the traces of art and culture and its impact and as an art critic it is my duty to highlight them to the public. As cultural studies, design history, performance studies, and newer disciplines, adopt interdisciplinary and experimental approaches to knowledge, art history, as a result, is narrowing, as the field attracts less adventurous scholars. And, as fine art programs become more numerous more people are trained creatively who enter the workforce, not only as artists but in corporations, as business owners, and in other fields. The ‘breaks’ that Rancière refers to do not only happen through culture. We already see dissent happening in other fields; in business practices that put ideology over profit, like the fair trade movement and B-Corps, (unevenly but existing) in the start-up movement, orgs providing abortion support to those who live in states where it is banned, or in advocacy. As Trump nefariously and short-sightedly crusades to impact immigration, media, sustainability, and human rights policy and as art and culture and creative content production continue to seep into other spheres we will be seeing more creative dissent flourishing across industries.
What's Your Reaction?

Anna Mikaela Ekstrand is editor-in-chief and founder of Cultbytes. She mediates art through writing, curating, and lecturing. Her latest books are Assuming Asymmetries: Conversations on Curating Public Art Projects of the 1980s and 1990s and Curating Beyond the Mainstream. Send your inquiries, tips, and pitches to info@cultbytes.com.