Political Art, Commitment, and Autonomy II
This is a mix of art from the contemporary period, some of it is highly and expressly political. Some of it appears not to be so at all. Consider the work on its own and assess. Decide if you would like to delve deeper into any of it.
We will use some of it to discuss the matter of politicizing art, questions about whether art can pursue autonomy, and what role committed art has to play. You should feel encouraged to evaluate the work and then to try to consider the criterion you have in mind when making those aesthetic judgments. Does the contrast that Adorno makes at the end of his essay, “Commitment” help in making these evaluations? Are there others from the history of aesthetics that might be more helpful? Can you identify questions that need addressing in continued consideration of questions of politics and aesthetics?
Alfredo Jaar, We Are All Created Equal, 1984
Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind (1991), Glass, steel, silicon, formaldehyde and shark, 2170 x 5420 x 1800 mm
The fucking highway's longer (from The Currency), 2016
Jean-Michel Basquiat, Untitled (Head), 1981
Basquiat, Notary, 1983
Guerrilla Girls, 1985
Barbara Kruger, I Shop Therefore I Am, 1990
Barbara Kruger, Your Body is a Battleground, 1989
Ashley Bickerton, Self Tormented Self Portrait, 1988
Act Up poster, 1984
Keith Haring, Legacy of Pride logo, 1987
Louise Bourgeois, Maman, 1999
Louise Bourgeois, The Woven Child, 2002
Trevor Paglen, They Watch the Moon, 2010
Rei Rodriguez and Ivan Roque, When Pigs Fly, 2017
Postcommodity, Repellent Fence, 2015