How free is art?
How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism is a book by the German art critic and journalist Hanno Rauterberg . The essay examines current struggles over the “enclosure of works of art”, which through title, content or forms used cause concern , especially among social minorities . Rauterberg develops argumentative strategies to counter this curtailment of artistic freedom.
Target group and goal setting
Rauterberg addresses a liberal and mostly left-wing milieu of curators and artists, gallery owners and journalists, artistic directors and actors who, according to his portrayal, are victims of petitions and shitstorms under increasing pressure from social networks . He would like to support the institutional representatives in the defense of the openness of artistic production and distribution, as they sometimes fell into "paralysis" and too often wanted to prevent ambivalences and misunderstandings.
content
Occasions
Rauterberg develops his theses on the basis of discussions about recent art, especially on
- the dispute about the painting Open Casket by Dana Schutz and, in connection with it, the relocation of the poor poet to the apartment of a Turkish migrant in Berlin
- the criticism of the catwalk appearance of white models with dreadlocks and the destruction of the sculpture Scaffold (gallows) by Sam Durant by members of the Dakota
- the sexism debates about Balthus's pictures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art , about Chuck Close , when the National Gallery of Art postponed its long-planned retrospective of the artist because of his alleged sexism , and about the removal of a poem by Eugen Gomringer from public space
- the discussion of Mohammed cartoons and the limits of religious tolerance that followed the Charlie Hebdo attack .
He diagnoses “net pressure” on artists and institutions, under which pictures are renamed or removed, exhibitions are restructured or canceled, theater performances and films are interfered with, and the freedom of art is repeatedly curtailed by those who are actually well armed to counter the “mob mentality”.
method
Rautenberg demonstrates how the freedom of art can be defended with a sober reframing : In many examples, Rauterberg analyzes the accusations of cultural influencers down to the premises and authorizations on which their criticism is based; he shows the art-political consequences of the arguments and reflects on the change in art and the role of the artist in a historical context. Through an analysis inherent in the work beyond potential and potentiated affects, through the distinction between representation and what is represented, between artists and their works, and through the classification of the works of art in the context of their creation, the necessary openness of art can be defended against the feelings of being hurt.
subjects
For example, he fends off the attempt to transfer certain topics (criticism of racism) and forms of expression (dreadlocks) to affected groups as a mere reproduction of the social and aesthetic limits of capitalism. The demand for a restriction of "white" artists as symbolic reparation for centuries of racism and discrimination is only a helpless revenge on the wrong. If the public is prejudiced by allegations against an artist, it is counterproductive to withdraw the works of art and thus restrict the freedom of viewing art itself. And where works would be taken hostage for dubious conditions of origin or the wrongdoing or the attitudes of their creators, he refers to the revival of the romantic cult of genius , which derives ingenious works causally from deviant behavior, and the belief in the magical powers of artifacts that assumes that the viewer is infected by a work of art. He examines the boom in the new prudery , the aesthetic "feel-good pedagogy" and the popularity of potential affects .
Dialectics of modern liberalism
The liberalism had with its subordination of art under investment strategies developed with his high rank of the individual and thus his emotions as well as the differentiation of lifestyles to a conflicting culture. The society of digital modernity has created a cult of affected people, a hysterical public that gives little attention to the experiences of exclusion and suffering of artists, but gives the often precarious and discriminated position of minorities a lot of attention. Suddenly protests against hurt feelings in the name of progressive anti-discrimination would develop in global social networks. These affect communities would often demand exclusive consideration only for their particular interests, which ultimately tried to limit the effectiveness of art.
Rauterberg hopes for a more courageous adherence to the condition of inspiring and provocative art: that everything may continue to be said, tested and shown by everyone within its framework. Art lives from polyvalence, its unpredictability, from the absurd, from the power of imagination, from the possibility of hybridization and recombination of all forms and ideas of society as a natural mode of creative work.
criticism
In her review, Gabriele Detterer from the NZZ praises Rauterberg's “pleasantly rational, extremely knowledgeable and very stimulating essay” and agrees with his conclusion that the developments described can only result in a new form of iconoclasm and, in the end, liberal exhibition venues.
Sieglinde Geisel from Deutschlandfunk Kultur thinks that Rauterberg's essay could have been a bit more spicy. In his essay, Rautenberg provided all the important arguments for the defense of artistic freedom, but wrote his criticism with “kid gloves”, so to speak. "It is as if Rauterberg also wanted to be careful not to get too close to anyone, and so he ultimately wrote along with those sensitivities that rob art of its autonomy and thus its freedom."
Sebastian Frenzel fundamentally criticizes Rauterberg's essay in Monopol Magazin for having written a lot about the recent "exciters" in the cultural-political debates, but having missed previously marginalized voices and new works. In contrast to Rauterberg, "questions of representation and identity" have been one of the most fruitful sources of contemporary art for many years. Frenzel recalls the opinion of activists that the freedom of art defended by Rauterberg is only the masked privilege of predominantly white men that conceals the exclusion of others.
Text output
- Hanno Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2018. ISBN 978-3-518-12725-4
Web links
- Hanno Rauterberg: Should art be politically correct? Yves Bossart speaks to Hanno Rauterberg, Sternstunde Philosophie, SRF, on youtube
- Hanno Rauterberg: In a world of prohibitions , Die Zeit, August 8, 2018
- Fear makes artistic freedom “appear suspect” , SWR, August 14, 2018
Individual evidence
- ↑ Hanno Rautenberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . 3. Edition. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2018, ISBN 978-3-518-12725-4 .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 82, 107 .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 62, 102 f .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 23 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 34 f., 39 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 52 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 69 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 87 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 117 ff .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 52 .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 25th ff., 37 .
- ↑ See Stuart Hall , Das fatalish Dreieck . Race, ethnicity, nation, Suhrkamp 2018: The race discourse has sunk so much into the souls of the anti-racists that z. B. Protagonists of the resistance would have made the truth or the value of a work of art dependent on the correct skin color of the artist and thus would only have turned racism on its head: but "the paradigm paradoxically remains the same." (95) See also the discussion on cultural issues Appropriation or cultural appropriation .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 32 .
- ^ A b Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 72 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 75, 77, 84 .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 50 ff .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 100, 110 ff., 114 f .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 98 ff .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 85 .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 98 f., 103 f .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 26th f., 89, 97 f., 108, 120 ff., 136 f .
- ↑ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 15 .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 25, 30 .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 141 f .
- ^ Rauterberg: How free is art? The new culture war and the crisis of liberalism . S. 34 .
- ↑ Review note on Neue Zürcher Zeitung, December 6, 2018 Perlentaucher.de, February 13, 2019, accessed on February 13, 2019
- ^ Sieglinde Geisel: How the consensus society destroys art Deutschlandradio Kultur. August 13, 2018, accessed February 13, 2019
- ↑ Sebastian Frenzel: Is art limited by morals and political convictions? Monopol Magazin, August 17, 2018. Accessed February 17, 2019 .