An Art for Art's Sake or a Critical Concept of Art's Autonomy? Autonomy, Arm's Length Distance, and Art's Freedom

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Josefine Wikström
{"title":"An Art for Art's Sake or a Critical Concept of Art's Autonomy? Autonomy, Arm's Length Distance, and Art's Freedom","authors":"Josefine Wikström","doi":"10.7146/nja.v32i65-66.140120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the relationship between the philosophical concept of the “autonomy of art” and the cultural policy-notion of “artistic freedom”? This article seeks to answer this question by taking the Swedish governmental report This Is How Free Art Is (Så fri är konsten 2021) and its reception in the Swedish main stream media as an emblematic example and by reading it symptomatically. Firstly, it traces the critical history of “artistic freedom” and the interrelated term “arm’s length distance”, primarily in the context of Great Britain. Secondly, it critically reconstructs the concept of the “autonomy of art” in the history of Western philosophy by making a critique of a fetishized notion of art’s autonomy in the name of l’art pour l’art. The main argument is that the idea about art’s autonomy, on which the Swedish report leans, resembles such philosophical and art historical idea of art’s autonomy. The claim is also that such an understanding of art does not tie up, either philosophically or historically, with the arm’s length principle, since they ultimately rely on different conceptions of art’s freedom.","PeriodicalId":38858,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v32i65-66.140120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is the relationship between the philosophical concept of the “autonomy of art” and the cultural policy-notion of “artistic freedom”? This article seeks to answer this question by taking the Swedish governmental report This Is How Free Art Is (Så fri är konsten 2021) and its reception in the Swedish main stream media as an emblematic example and by reading it symptomatically. Firstly, it traces the critical history of “artistic freedom” and the interrelated term “arm’s length distance”, primarily in the context of Great Britain. Secondly, it critically reconstructs the concept of the “autonomy of art” in the history of Western philosophy by making a critique of a fetishized notion of art’s autonomy in the name of l’art pour l’art. The main argument is that the idea about art’s autonomy, on which the Swedish report leans, resembles such philosophical and art historical idea of art’s autonomy. The claim is also that such an understanding of art does not tie up, either philosophically or historically, with the arm’s length principle, since they ultimately rely on different conceptions of art’s freedom.
为艺术而艺术还是艺术自主的批判概念?自主性、一臂之遥与艺术自由
“艺术自主”的哲学概念与“艺术自由”的文化政策概念之间的关系是什么?本文试图通过瑞典政府报告《This Is How Free Art Is》(s fri är konsten 2021)及其在瑞典主流媒体中的接受程度作为一个象征性的例子,并通过对症阅读来回答这个问题。首先,本文以英国为背景,追溯了“艺术自由”及其相关术语“一臂之遥”的批判历史。其次,以“为艺术而艺术”的名义,批判拜物教化的艺术自主性观念,批判性地重构了西方哲学史上的“艺术自主性”概念。主要的论点是,瑞典报告所依赖的关于艺术自主性的观点,类似于哲学和艺术史上关于艺术自主性的观点。他们还声称,这种对艺术的理解,无论在哲学上还是在历史上,都与“一臂之遥”原则无关,因为它们最终依赖于对艺术自由的不同概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信