Hold on, hold on… I followed it until the last panel, but how are aesthetics the enemies of ideology? Big revolutions are well-known for bringing in new and unusual artistic styles. See 1920s USSR.
To be fair, the Constructivists took the Russian Revolution as an impetus to create new schools of art. But Lenin uncomfortably coexisted with the Constructivists only because he had no choice. Once Stalin took over it was Social Realism all the way. (And in the world of today the aesthetics of Revolution are DEFINITELY nostalgic.)
Yet you might equally argue that all aethetics are both enemies and products of ideologies…I still want the first panel as a t-shirt…
Let’s be fair. EVERY ideology is the enemy of aesthetics. Be it radical (left or right) or complacent bourgeois centralism. all of them impose limits on culturally acceptable expression.
Aesthetics are also the enemies of ideology inasmuch that the notion of revolutionary behavior is something of a commodity, one that can undermine the true revolutionary sentiments. There are more Che Guevara t-shirts out there than there are Che Guevaras.
Ideologies are all about essence and ineffable. If you’re attracted to our Ideal because of æsthetics, you’re a faker and a poser. But everyone is…
There’s this google reader bug where horizontal scrolling broke the comic. At first I though it was as intentionally-coded webcomic effect, actions destroying entropy and all http://namakajiri.net/pics/nonfree/entropy.png
Everything is an enemy of Ideology. Particularly Ideology.
Action is not only a destroyer of entropy, but a creator of entropy. And aesthetics can lead to comfort, leading to the destruction of ideology. No one gets along
Grrl wears flannel now?
That’s what I got out of it.
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” – Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
“all of them impose limits on culturally acceptable expression”
And at the same time, they remove other limits that had existed before. They open one door as they close the other.
“Ideologies are all about essence and ineffable. If you’re attracted to our Ideal because of æsthetics, you’re a faker and a poser.”
Perhaps aesthetics are capable of representing the emotional essence of an ideology? Romanticism was not just an intellectual and literary movement, but was also reflected in painting and music. Name almost any artistic style, and there’s a good chance that it will be associated with an accompanying philosophy or movement.
And why not? Any visual style is about simplifying the world and removing “excess” details, exactly the same thing that ideology/philosophy does.
It would be more correct to say that aesthetics CAN be the enemy of an ideology… if they are the aesthetics that represent other ideologies.
And don’t think that you’re not guilty of this yourself, dear reader. Surely there’s some kind of aesthetics that you don’t like? Why don’t you like it? I’ll bet it’ll be something related to the way that it portrays the world. In other words, you two have incompatible ideologies.
“impose limits on culturally acceptable expression”
Thank goodness for the limits. Particularly the ones imposed by Aethetics.
Aesthetics have never been the enemy of radical ideology at least since Eros and Civilization.
Artistic freeplay that ostensibly undercuts an ideology can serve that ideology. Bonus points: determine whether this applies only for ruling ideologies.
“In a way I admire Kung Fu Panda. It appears just a stupid cartoon – no. What I admire in the movie is the following (everyone noticed it): on the one hand, the movie mobilizes, you know, all that, let’s call it “Oriental military mystique,” kung fu fate, warrior discipline, all that stuff. At the same time the movie is totally ironic, making fun of its own ideology. What is so fascinating is that, although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives. And this is how cynicism functions.”
Slavoj Zizek, “Charlie Rose,” 10/26/2011