Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

(sometimes, of the state itself),” argues Julius, “and is responsive to the contingencies of
political life” (113). Observing that these works of art are confrontational, reflexive,
disinterested, and public, and that they are consciously or purposely offensive, he notes
that they are typically directed towards two types of audiences: the opposition, those they
intend to offend, and those they intend to bring to an uprising.
In an 1857 essay entitled “New Tendencies in Art,” Théophile Thoré observed
that the modern era, which he welcomed, opened up traditional barriers between cultures
and societies, and created a new “universal” society (379). He perceived that this
breaking of boundaries had also occurred in art with the rise of Modernism, where fresh
ideas, new perspectives, and radical concepts redefined previous conceptualizations of art
by charting unexplored territory with regard to form and content, and expanding the
horizons of what was possible. The relationship between art and institutional power are
complex and ambiguous, for there are a number of alternatives of how the former can
affect the latter: art can either precipitate, reflect or serve as an aid to understanding
social and/or political changes. Contrary to the opinions of the critics above, Julius
believes that over the last century, the category of transgressive works that aim to
challenge the state has been ineffectual and stigmatized by failure. “The political
challenges [of Art] … have been muted,” argues Julius (186) and in contrast to the use
value of taboo-breaking art, he readily discards the subversive potential of the
transgressive with regard to political discourses. He partly bases this conclusion on
Theodor Adorno whom he quotes: “every work of Art is an uncommitted crime” (222).
Art is a “crime” for its motive may be ideologically driven and aim to challenge existing
political conditions, yet it remains “uncommitted” because by definition, Art is
85