Conclusion

A small selection of works was presented in Part III as examples to show how artists are operating in the contested spaces of the political aesthetic today. Consistent with the historical materialist intentions of the book, there was no presumption that this small group of works stood in for universal claims about contemporary practices. Embedded in each of the selected artists’ works is a renewed concern for the way a manipulation of materials and their effect on the senses is connected to a wider politics. In Ranciére’s terms, the representation of a political subject belies the very eidos of the political aesthetic. However, ‘representation’ is a problem in another way. The rejection of work that represents the other comes from an ethical demand to consider the impact art has on the world, how it might contribute positively to a community’s well-being. The artworks and films featured here were developed for this particular historical moment, and despite their differing ways they share a common theme: the critical revaluation of forms of power – particularly those emanating from patriarchal structures or judgements – through material methods of making. [184]