Peter Burger, On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society (1984)

Art for art’s sake discussed by Burger can be separated from society, and can be self-regulating, as characterized in bourgeois society. An artist can create discourse through the labour of creating art, and other art may interpellate on other artist’s ideals. Autonomist art integrates the idea of art being part of daily life, social values, and a way of de-politicizing function. The theory and function thus becomes independent from the aesthetic of the work, and the work becomes the praxis, a Marxist way of thinking by a disregard of theory.

The author of art does not only concern themselves of the intellectual property of their work but also brings into question the importance of the way the art was created. Autonomist then, is described as the artist creating art on his or her own terms, not demanded for by the art patron, or requested for by the monarchy.

Schiller’s interpretation of the autonomy of art is that avant-gardist art is not really disconnected from the praxis of life – that no matter what aesthetic value the art takes on, it is merely another ideological de facto. Historical courtly art may at times appear autonomous, while at other times bourgeois art may have that similarity as well. Autonomous art is sometimes confusing to identify. Burger conveniently describes the differences of sacral art to courtly art and finally to bourgeois art (autonomous art). There is a shift of production and reception in sacral art from the collective to the individual in bourgeois art.

There is a natural progression of the collective reception of art to an individualist ideal of looking at art. As times change, society becomes increasingly democratic and aware of public opinion, and the spectacle of the “self”. When I personally look at art in today’s perspective, a person would invoke what they get out of art by looking at it in a gallery. There is no collective attitude one would depict, but rather an introspective one. The personal implications derived from looking at a sacral piece of art or courtly art isn’t obviously apparent for the first time. The only real solution of art now is for art to evolve into an individualistic sense

Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades laugh in the face of individual creativity. He questions the validity of putting your name on a piece of art, and believes that art is freely exchangeable; his manifestations are examples of this idea. Barbara Kruger’s images are a perfect example of this individualistic ideal, of mass consumption and of art as a spectacle. She questions the social implications of materialism and of objectification of art.

– Stephen