Using Arts Emancipatory and Progressive Purposes - Essay Example

Can and Should the Arts be used for Emancipatory and Progressive Purposes? By Table of Contents Introduction 3 Can Artists Foster Progress and Emancipation? 4 The Arts: Definitions and Concepts 4 The Artists and the Arts 7 Should Art Be Used for Progressive and Emancipatory Purposes 10 The Connection Between Art and the World: Reality 10 The Connection Between Art and World: Beauty 13 Conclusion 16 Bibliography 19 Introduction Throughout history, science and technology has been associated with human emancipation and progress (Restivo, 1989, p. 164). Conventional wisdom dictates that advances in science and technology reflect the acquisition and sharing of knowledge which drives progress and human emancipation. Man becomes knowledgeable through science and technology and therefore more self-sufficient, independent and innovative, all of which are elements of progress and emancipation (Restivo, 1989, p. 164). By contrast, the arts are usually associated with entertainment and are typically lauded for its pleasure rather than its educational value. In this regard, the arts are usually associated with recreation, distractions and amusements (Wolff & Geahigan, 1997, p. 1). Proponents of the arts argue however that the arts are embodied knowledge and quite often interprets, constructs and criticizes life. In this regard, the arts like the sciences, also transfers knowledge. The arts aids in shaping an “understanding of the world” as it is or as it should be and as such can and often does, guide progress and emancipation (Metallinos, 2009, p. 146). Therefore, the arts can be powerful communication sources and may transfer knowledge relative to social, political and cultural realities and in doing so can raise consciousness and lead to progress and emancipation. The purpose of this research paper is to explore and analyse the assumption that the arts are powerful social, political and cultural communications and whether or not the arts should be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes. This is a particularly complex issue as arts are not all expressive and some are wholly aimed at creating pleasure and economic investment. Even so, given the communication associated with the arts, this research paper explores whether or not it is fair to impose emancipation and progressive responsibilities on artists. In order to determine whether or not the arts can and should be used for emancipatory and progressive purposes, cultural and political theories of the arts will be analysed. Can Artists Foster Progress and Emancipation? The Arts: Definitions and Concepts The arts are often defined as representations and expressions of life, nature, objects and human feelings and activities. Art as a representation and/or an expression is immediately defined as a communication between the artists and the audience to which it is directed or exposed. In this regard, art is said to be reflective in that it often invokes human emotions and thoughts. At the same time, some arts such as instrumental classical or any instrumental musical piece may simply invoke happy emotions and not involve anything other than momentary pleasure (Stecker, 2010, p. 98). When art is progressive it has the potential to aid audiences in the acquisition of knowledge “about the objective forces at work in” their respective societies (Davis, 1994, p. 200). This does not necessarily mean that progressive art is purely politically motivated. According to Davis (1994), even a romantic song has the potential to be progressive provided it “incorporates a sensitivity toward the lives of” an oppressed group (p. 200). Progressiveness and emancipation in the arts are not always associated with sensitivity and therefore change for an oppressed group. Progress and emancipation can also be associated with fostering positive or liberal change. The utility of art toward progress and emancipation for liberal change is profoundly demonstrated during the 1960s pop art culture. During this period of time, artists such as Warhol, Lichenstein, and Wesselmann, among others introduced art characterised as beat and rock expressed in music, poster arts, and embodied the “flower child cult” and the “drug scene” (Huyssen, 1975, p. 77). This pop art came to be symbolic of the new generation of opposition to authority and aligned with liberalism (Huyssen, 1975, p. 77). It can certainly be argued that pop art was progressive and emancipatory in that it inspired freedom from archaic norms and encourage free expression and imagination. At the same time, pop culture also created conflicts and contradictions in society with the creation of a subculture largely perceived as rebellious by those who remained committed to authority and convention (Gonzalez, 1991, p. 63). Pop art can also be interpreted by reference to 20th century German philosopher and social theorists Merbert Marcuse who saw art, particularly by the younger generation as liberating. According to Marcuse, the youth use art for mobilising “oppositional forces destined to develop new consciousness, a new sensibility and a new imagination” (Marcuse, 2007, p. 160). For Marcuse (2007) while art may also represent a “private and personal” escape from reality, it is much more than a mere “body trip” and could also represent or symbolise or motivate “movements aiming at a total reconstruction of society and the ascent of a new rationality” (p. 160). Raaij (1993) argues that pop art emerged as a manifestation of man’s transition from modernism into post-modernism. Post-modernism is characterised by fragmentation in that individuals became emancipated in that they were freed of rigid norms and strictures and free to express their desires in ways that were not possible previously (Raaij, 1993). Babias (2004) informs however, that not all arts are geared toward progress and emancipation in that while some art works are intended to deconstruct life’s experiences, others are designed to merely construct it from the perspective of the artists. Other artists are only concerned with extracting the beauty of life’s experiences (Babias, 2004). These diverse artistic aspirations and representations are more clearly delineated by the art works produced for consumption during the 1990s and centred on globalisation. Images emerged depicting, mass consumerism, mass production, environmental damages, chaos and conflict which were intended to deconstruct and construct the ills of globalisation and can be associated with a progressive and emancipatory agenda. At the same time, some art works were largely focused on the production of “exotic” and interesting worlds (Babias, 2004, p. 101). Ranciere (2009) also sees art works as especially complex and multi-dimensional. From Ranciere’s (2009) perspective, art must be evaluated from one of three different angles: beauty, form or truth (p. 33). In this regard, art may be nothing more than an attempt to “shape a world of pure beauty, which has no political relevance” (Ranciere, 2009, p.33). Similarly, when art is evaluated as a form, it might be nothing more than the construction of a “fanciful” or “ideal” existence (Ranciere, 2009, p. 33). Finally, art works may: …achieve in their own sphere the same autonomy that is at the core of the modern project and is pursued in democratic or revolutionary politics (Ranciere, 2009, p. 33). The arts are therefore associated with knowledge creation in a subjective way as creators are able to express their perceptions of social, cultural and political issues both “creatively” and “intuitively” (Foster, 2007, p. 20). The arts are also inherently social as, the product itself is created by people for others and thus provides a method of communication and quite often influences or at least communicates, political, cultural and social ideology (Siegel, 2009, p. 3). Cultural theorists such as Ernest Bloch, advocated for the arts to be interpreted as both progressive and reflective in that artistic creations reflect societal struggles and at the same time invite change and progress (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2002, p. 28). The arts are human creative and imaginative expressions that ultimately awakens human consciousness (Shelley/Brett-Smith, 1921, p. 51). John Dewey (1934) expresses similar sentiments about works of art. For Dewey (1934) art is at once an aesthetic experience, but it must also be viewed in context as an expression of emotion and experience which presents a narrative both reflective and progressive (p. 3). In the words of Marcuse (2007): Art has an inherent, internal political potential – first as indictment of the existing human condition: as an indictment of the existing mode of life and secondly, as the imagery of repressed and tabooed possibilities of freedom (p. 160). There is no doubt that the arts can be used for emancipation and progressive purposes. The arts are varied communicative and intuitive creative expressions of experiences and perspectives. As a result, art can be purely idealistic and convey beauty and form with no political or social intent. At the same time, art can be ideological in nature and as such can be used to express political ideology or disenchantment with the social, political, cultural and/or economic status quo. Art movements such as pop art have indeed demonstrated that the arts can be progressive and emancipatory. However, just because art can be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes does not necessarily mean that it should be used that way. In order to further determine whether or not the arts should be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes, it is necessary to examine who artists are and how they value art and they use art. The Artists and the Arts Nineteenth century poet Percy Shelley (cited in Brett-Smith,1921) argued that artists and especially poets are highly sensitive and intelligent allowing them to appeal to consciousness (p. 49). Indeed, Shelley (Brett-Smith, 1921) argued that without the work of artists, social and political knowledge and empathy would not have been passed on from one generation to another (p. 51). Shelley, like other poets and authors of the Romantic era promoted the idea that the poet and artists in general were uniquely gifted individuals with persuasive powers of expression (Chaplin & Faflak, 2011, p. 46). As Romantic poets believed in their unique abilities and experiences, their poetry “became more expressive” (Chaplin & Faflak, 2011, p. 46). Corresponding with this belief in the creative ingenuity of artists was an attempt to use poetry as a tool for transformation. For example, Wordsworth argued that poetry should be directed toward “the circumstances of ordinary people” (Chaplin & Faflak, 2011, p. 47). Chaplin and Faflak (2011) noted that the Romantic era was replete with politically motivated and socially embedded prose. The prose was written in a way to reach the common man and engage attention toward important “social issue of the time” and quite often reflected “sympathy with revolutionary or reformist causes” (Chaplin & Faflak, 2011, p. 47). For example, William Cowper wrote poems sympathetic to the abolitionist movement and Shelley condemned the Peterloo massacre during 1819. According to Chaplin and Faflak (2011), much of the Romantic poetry “retained a radical dimension that grew out of the revolutionary movements of the 1770s, 80s and 90s” (p. 47). Artists are therefore seen as gifted communicators and knowledge bearers, primarily informed by their own experiences and the experiences of others. Dewey (1934) in Art as Experience speaks of “the esthetic” (p. 3) and calls attention to the artist, the time and place and the audience. For Dewey (1934), art goes beyond a mere aesthetic experience, but embodies feelings, history and change. Its physical beauty captures visual attention and stimulates the mind and at last, captures the “ear” (Dewey, 1934, p. 3). Therefore, for Dewey, the artist is inseparable from the art that he or she creates. Twentieth century German philosopher Martin Heidegger had a similar opinion of the artist. According to Heidegger, when evaluating a work of art, one must look at the artist’s activities. The question for consideration is what “makes the artist that what he is?” (van den Braembussche, 2009, p. 202). According to Heidegger, the artist is an artist “because of his work” (van den Braembussche, 2009, p. 202). In other words, the art and the artist are both identified by reference to the creator and the resulting work of art. Heidegger comes back to creativity and skill. When one is exposed to art, one is exposed to craft, skill and creativity. The artist’s skill, craft and creativity made the art possible (van den Braembussche, 2009, p. 203). The artist typically uses skill and craft that transfers his or her emotions and sensations to an object that is communicated and experienced by those who are exposed to it (van den Braembussche, 2009, p. 204). Thus Heidegger’s concept of the artist is compliments Shelley’s concept of the artist. Where Shelley emphasised the artist’s sensitivity and intelligence, Heidegger emphasised the artist’s creative ability and skills to communicate his or her feelings and to invoke those feelings in those who are exposed to his or her art works. Pavel Filonov, a Russian avant-garde painter and art theorist goes further to conceptualize the artist as more than a mere communicator and skilled craftsman with passions and sensitivity (Wunsche, 2011, p. 136). For, Filonov the artist is skilled enough to not only innovate and use his or her innovative skills to change and enhance the direction of art, but could also “participate in and shape the process of human evolution” (Wunsche, 2011, p. 137). The artist is not just an individual who simply “studies and then depicts nature or the natural world,” but the artist is also an individual that produces work that reflects “a particular state in the developmental process of humanity” (Wunsche, 2011, p. 137). According to Filonov, works of art have been known to be: …an indication or reflection of a qualitative change in the consciousness of its creator, who, in turn, would induce the work’s viewer to adapt to the psychophysiological changes represented (Wunsche, 2011, p. 137). Artists are therefore conceptualised as creative, passionate and skilled observers who either consciously or subconsciously constructs or deconstructs the natural world as it is or as it should be or how it might be in the future. Using skills in this construction and or deconstruction, the artist is able to attract attention to the resulting work of art. The work of art can therefore invoke and inspire change or at the least sympathy for the social or political cause reflected in the work of art. Since artists have the skills and the passions to inspire or invoke human reaction to social causes via his or her work of art, art can be used for emancipatory and progressive purposes. The question for consideration is, although art can be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes, should it be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes? Should Art Be Used for Progressive and Emancipatory Purposes The Connection Between Art and the World: Reality Levine (2011) argues that when an individual is born, he or she is thrust into a world that is already made and predetermined. The artist, as an individual is also thrust into a predetermined world. What distinguishes the artists from the ordinary individual is that the artist can create an alternative reality of the world that he or she lives in. In this alternative reality, the artist has the ability to shape a new and more appropriate world than the one that he or she has been condemned to live in. Since art is seen, heard or read by others, the artist is able to share this alternative reality with others and in doing so can appeal to the emotions of others. This is known as the “aesthetic experience” of art (Levine, 2011, p. 24). It is this aesthetic experience that can raise consciousness and invoke change as the enlightened recipient of the work of art can consciously seek to change his or her reality or the world in which he or she lives. As Levine (2011) puts it, art not only impacts the emotions of its audience: …it also has the capacity to change our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. The work can be a re-description of the world, a presentation of an alternative reality that helps us to see ourselves and others differently (p. 26). For example, a wealthy family may exploit servants without giving thought to the harsh realities of the servants’ lives. A work of art humanises the servant and brings the harsh realities of the servants’ lives into sharp focus and in a way that invokes the sympathies of the wealthy that have a tendency to overwork and perhaps underpay their servants. If this is the outcome of a work of art, then it makes sense that art should be used for emancipatory and progressive purposes. If a work of art heightens awareness of the suffering of an oppressed class of workers, it is expected that those who are oppressed and their oppressors will naturally seek to change the way that they are treated. The difficulty with this however, is that art is not always directed toward or available to those who might be necessary actors in change. As McCumber (1989) argues, art is not always easy to understand and for many portions of the population exposed to it, it invokes little to no emotion. This is particularly so with poetry which usually does not appeal to many beyond intellectuals who already have a fixed notion of what needs to be changed and how. Simple works, posters and television campaigns which are for the most part, hardly art as they are usually functional have a greater impact on individuals who would make a difference in orchestrating social change (McCumber, 1989). Thus according to McCumber (1989) art by definition is a production of skill and craft that is not easy to understand and appreciate and is often only appreciated and understood by those who already have fixed ideas about the world in which we live. Therefore, in order to make a difference in terms of promulgating emancipation and progress, art would have to be produced with less skill and craft so as to be understood and appreciated by the masses. This means that the quality of art would have be compromised for the sake of generating emancipation and progress. On the other hand, art was used by the slaves in the New World for emancipation and progress. Slaves routinely created ritual dance, music and art as a means of documenting their experiences and freeing themselves by creating an alternative reality that provided a happy escape from the harsh realities of plantation life. In other words, through art, the slaves were able to have their own “voice” and in doing so were able to emancipate themselves, if only temporarily (Levine, 2007, p. 30). Levine (2007) suggests that the ritualistic art was one way of generating black consciousness among the slaves and awareness of the injustices of slavery which was a key factor in the movement toward emancipation and progress. In other words, art does not always lose its unique form in order to be understood and appreciated by the masses. As demonstrated by the art created and enjoyed by the slaves, art can be entirely communicative and still qualify as an exceptional work of art. Another good example is offered by Nietupski and O’Mara (2011). According to Nietupski and O’Mara (2011) some works of art are exquisite and capture a history that is a reminder of inequality and as such reinforce emancipation and progress. For instance, the gu bronze artifacts of the Shang Dynasy of the 16th century in China are reflective of two power divisions: slavery and the wealthy. The gu bronze artefacts were created through the skill and labour of the slaves for the wealthy who coveted them (Nietupski & O’Mara, 2011). Therefore, the gu bronze artefacts were symbols of both power and oppression and remain in museums today as a reminder of exploitation by one class over another. It is conceivable that these artefacts can invoke emotional responses which inspire further emancipation and progress even today. It is difficult to look at the gu bronze and merely observe its beauty, without taking account of the slave labour that was used to produce the gu bronze artefact and the wealthy owner who commanded its construction. Dewey (1934) speaks of the knowledge and history imparted by the Parthenon and the interrelation between the artists, the people to whom it was erected and the knowledge passed at the time and throughout the ages. Thus when art is produced in the way that art was produced during the Shang Dynasty via the gu bronze artefacts or the Parthenon, and the art created by the African Slaves in the New World, it should be used for emancipation and progress. Since these arts were created as a result of slavery and oppression, it makes sense that it should be used to heighten awareness of oppression and exploitation as a means of promoting emancipation and progress. However, the question is whether or not an artist should take responsibility for promoting emancipation and progress. The questions for consideration is the extent to which art should be used for emancipatory and progressive purpose. Would such an imposition threaten the emancipation and progressiveness of artists? When should artists assume responsibility for commandeering emancipation and progress? Is this too onerous a burden and would it compromise innovation and creativity? The Connection Between Art and World: Beauty As demonstrated in this research, art can and has been used for political and social purposes. Howver, Habermas theory of modernity suggest that art may not be as directed toward political agendas as perceived, but may be merely interpreted that way by the art critic. For the artist, the arts are nothing more than a place for “experimentation and play” and while there may be emancipation and progress, it is nothing more than an “exploration” (Fleming, p. 1997, 196). Of course, not all artists are merely exploring. As seen with poets of the Romantic Era, some artists consciously seek to promote emancipation and progress. However, others are merely using sensitive subjects to propel aesthetic experiences and to ensure that their art works are accepted and purchased. Dutton (2009) also argue that art is quite often used to oppose emancipation and progress in the globalization era. For example, a poll conducted in the US, Africa and Europe revealed that a vast majority of participants preferred art work in their homes that depicted landscaping with children and animals in it. While it is quite possible that these images represent the kinds of painting that people typically expect to find in their homes, they also represent what might be thought of as a resistance to the forces of globalization (Dutton, 2009). Globalization itself is associated with progress and emancipation as it facilitates the free movement of goods and services and therefore people and capital across borders. It is not clear however whether or not artists deliberately create landscape paintings as a means of expressing resistance to globalisation or merely as a means of selling what is popular among households. Eighteenth century, German philosopher G.W. Hegel did not see art as a means of promoting emancipation and progress. For Hegel, the sciences were best suited to emancipation and progress. The arts were there for entertainment, recreation and relaxation. Hegel specifically noted that: Beauty and art does indeed pervade all the business of life like a friendly genius and brightly adorns all our surroundings whether or inner or outer, mitigating the seriousness of our circumstances and the complexities of the actual world, extinguishing idleness in an entertaining way….Art belongs rather to the indulgence and relaxation of the spirit (Danto, 2004, p. 63). It is therefore clear that art is viewed differently by theorists. While some theorists and artists themselves see art as a means of invoking and inspiring revolutionary and political and social changes, others see art as purely recreational with entertainment value. This may be a result of the different types and styles of art and the different types and styles of artists. Some artist consciously use art to express their beliefs and desires for change while others simply create art for the sake of art itself or for the purpose of earning an income. Artist may choose to create works of art solely for the purpose of creating beauty or reflecting the beauty in their worlds or in the world at large. In order to promote innovation and creativity, it is essential that artists retain creative freedom. In this regard, restraints on an artist’s creative license can impact the quality of his or her work. If an artist feels compelled to use art for emancipatory and progressive purposes, it might stifle his ability to create high quality and innovative works of art. An artist should be left to create and produce art on the basis of what inspires the artist. If the artist is inspired by a social or political cause, then by all means, the artist should use, if he chooses to, his artistic expressions for emancipatory and progressive purposes. However, if an artist is moved by the beauty of the sunrise and wishes to capture it in a painting or a poem, or a song, then he or she should be free to do so. Although beauty is significant to art, the modern art movement emphasized what is referred to as “non-beauty” and “ugly art” as a means of rejecting the notion that art should always arouse positive emotions (Ronen, 2009, p. 38). Paintings such as Marcel Duchamp’s “mustached” Mona Lisa and Joseph Beuys’ How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare appeared to condemn beauty (Ronen, 2009, p. 38). These paintings were designed to convey the artists’ belief that art need not simply inspire positive emotions, but could also inspire sympathy and negative emotions (Ronen, 2009, p. 39). In other words, art and pleasure and art and beauty need not be synonymous. Art could be ugly or unpleasant and at the same time represent skill and craft. At the same time, art did not have to be political or social and could be entirely personal, representing a personal opinion of the artist. For example, the Mona Lisa with a mustache was a personal choice and statement and not a social, political or cultural statement intended to promote emancipation or progress. Arguably, such a painting might inspire others to think less of beauty and to feel more comfortable with themselves. However, this might be nothing more than a fashion trend and so such would not represent progress or emancipation. In other words, artists should be free to create as they see fit. If artists want to promote progress and emancipation through their artistic creations, the choice should be theirs alone. If artists were compelled to create art for emancipatory and progressive purposes, not only would the quality of art be compromised, but many artists would be out of work. Moreover, compelling artists to use arts for emancipatory and progressive purpose would not only limit the artist’s creative freedom, but would limit consumer choices. For example, some consumers prefer classical music over pop music and some consumers prefer horror films over comedy films. In other words, the artists freedom to create according to his or her own skills, knowledge and inspiration correspond with the market for art works. Therefore, if an artist is inclined to create art for the purpose of arousing positive or negative emotions or for the purpose of promoting emancipation and progress, the artists should be free to make that choice. Conclusion This research reveals that both theoretically and in practice art can be used for emancipatory and progressive purposes. Many artists are by nature highly intelligent and sensitive and can be passionate in the expression of their specific art skills. For example, Romantic era poets were highly intelligent and passionate about specific social and political causes and used their poetry to heightened awareness of social and political causes at the time. Moreover, art, depending on the subject matter can appeal to the passions and sympathy of its audience and as such can inspire positive change to correct a wrong. For example, the wealthy may become more profoundly aware of the suffering of the poor if exposed to a work of art highlighting the struggles of the poor. This could inspire a change in the treatment of labourers and the poor in general and can promote progress and emancipation. In other words, the artists by nature and the work of art produced by artists can be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes. Since art can be used for progressive and emancipatory purposes, should it be used for these purposes? There are some instances in history where art was used successfully for progressive and emancipatory purposes. For example, pop art promoted greater liberties among the youth and progress away from existing norms that were somewhat repressive. During the slave trade, African slaves used art as a means of emancipating themselves from the harsh realities of their lives. Art has also demonstrated its ability to perpetuate the need to ensure that emancipation and progress are maintained and improved. For example the bronze gu artefacts of the Shang Dynasty serves as a reminder of enslavement and exploitation and the sharp division among the classes during that era. The gu artefacts also serve as a reminder of how valuable progress and emancipation are. In this regard, historical art work that can be used as an educational tool about emancipation and progress should be used for those purposes. Artists are inspired by different experiences. As Dewey (1934) argues, art is an experience and cannot be segregated from the artist. An artist may have no experience with or sympathy for social issues or may not be inspired by social or political causes. Similarly, an artist may simply enjoy replicating the beauty of nature and nothing more. In this regard, artists have a skill and should use their skills as they see fit or in accordance with what inspires their creativity. Artists require inspiration and if an artist is not inspired to promote emancipation and progression, the artist should not be compelled to use art for those purposes. Just as there are artists who are not inspired by emancipation and progress, there are consumers who are also not concerned with emancipation and progress. There is a market for all kinds of art and as such, artists should be free to meet the collective demands of the market. Bibliography Babias, M. Spring/Summer 2004. ‘Subject Production and Political Art Practice.’ Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry. Vol. 9: 101-109. Brett-Smith, H.F.B. 1921. Peacock’s Four Ages of Poetry: Shelley’s Defence of Poetry; Browning’s Essay on Shelley. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Chaplin, S. and Faflak, J. 2011. The Romanticism Handbook. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Danto, A.C. 2004. The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art. Peru, ILL: Open Court Publishing Company. Davis, A.Y. 1994. Women, Culture & Politics. New York, NY: First Vintage Books. Dewey, J. 1934. Art as Experience. New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Group. Dutton, D. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Edgar, A. and Sedgwick, P. 2002. Cultural Theory: The Key Thinkers. London: Routledge. Fleming, M. 1997. Emancipation and Illusion: Rationality and Gender in Habermas’s Theory of Modernity. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Foster, V. 2007. ‘The Art of Empathy: Employing the Arts in Social Inquiry with Poor, Working-Class Women.’ Art, Identity and Social Justice, Vol. 34(1)(107): 12-27. Gonzalez, J.-P. 1991. ‘Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony of Music in Latin-America: The Chilean Pop.’ Popular Music and Society, Vol. 15(2): 63-78. Huyysen, A. Winter 1975. ‘The Cultural Politics of Pop: Reception and Critique of US Pop Art in the Federal Republic of Germany.’ New German Critique, Vol. 4: 77-97. Levine, S.K. 2011. ‘Art Opens to the World: Expressive Arts and Social Action.’ In Levine, S.K. and Levine, E. (Eds.) Art in Action: Expressive Arts Therapy and Social Change. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ch. 1. Levine, L.W. 2007. Black Culture and Black Consciousness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Marcuse, H. 2007. Art and Liberation: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Vol. 4. Oxon: Routledge. McCumber, J. 1989. Poetic Interaction: Language, Freedom, Reason. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press. Metallinos, N. 2009. Television Aesthetics: Perceptual, Cognitive and Compositional Bases. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Neitupski, P.K. and O’Mara, J. 2011. Reading Asian Art and Artifacts: Windows to Asia on American College Campuses. Lanham, MD: Lehigh University Press. Raaij, W.F. van. September 1993. ‘Postmodern Consumption.’ Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 14(3): 541-563. Ranciee, J. 2009. ‘Contemporary Art and the Politics of Aesthetics.’ In Hinderliter, B.; Maimon, V.; Mansoon, J. and McCormick, S. (Eds.) Communities of Sense: Rethinking Aesthetics and Politics. Duke University Press, 31-50. Restivo, S. 1989.‘In the Clutches of Daedalus: Science, Society, and Progress.’ In Goldman, Steven, L. (Ed.) Science, Technology, and Social Progress. Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Presses. Ronen, R. 2009. Aesthetics of Anxiety. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Siegel, A.2009. ‘Sociology of Objects Case Study: Terra-Cotta Playing Hide-and-Seek in the Art Worlds.’ Music and Arts in Action, Vol. 2(1): 3-20. Stecker, R. 2010. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Van den Braembussche, A.A. 2009. Thinking Art: An Introduction to Philosophy of Art. The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media. Wolff, T.E. and Geahigan, G. 1997. Art Criticism and Education. Chicago, ILL: University of Illinois Press. Wunsche, I. 2011. ‘Organic Visions and Biological Models in Russian Avant-Garde Art.’ In Botar, O.A.I. and Wunsche, I. (Eds.) Biocentrism and Modernism. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Chapter 6. Read More