Working within the context of disenfranchised and marginalised communities, we come to witness the disparities that exist between differing aesthetic judgements, and to recognise the play of cultural politics and power in the inclusion/exclusion dynamics of taste and style. In this sense, the field of Critical Aesthetics extends the analyses of Critical Architectural Theory beyond the specifics of building design or urban planning into the heart of the of cultural politics, demonstrating how cultural capital, symbolic capital, manufactured scarcity (see Glossary) and other dynamics of cultural power play a part in maintaining the existing social order. Although a critique of the singular importance of class as a social variable is central to Critical Theory, it is not altogether ignored in critical theorising – particularly in the field of aesthetics. Here, the embodiment of class distinction is central to notions of style and taste. One need only witness the differing legitimations given to “high” aesthetic forms compared to those of common culture to recognise the play of power politics.

 

This dynamic becomes clear in the demystification of cultural polarities. Ballet vs, Hip Hop, Poetry vs. Rap, Art vs. Craft, etc. What is at stake is the power to define what stands as a legitimate cultural practice, and specifically, where in the social spectrum this power is located. This dynamic becomes more pronounced for the students as they work across cultural boundaries as, inevitably they do in the examples available here. What unfolds in the context of Critical Practice in a cross-cultural medium is a sense of reflective shock at one’s own previous lack of awareness, and the extent to which one’s own cultural privilege insulates one from engaging in the aesthetic reality of the marginalised other. What becomes clear more specifically is that there are two quite separate aesthetic systems, one of which has been silenced or “drowned out” by the other. The one we are familiar with – that which emanates from 14th Century European culture – is abstract, almost aloof, hierarchical, non (or even anti-) political, based upon individualism, and exclusion. The other - usually indigenous - is grounded in the community and its (hi)stories in which the artist exists as an important member of (within) the community, rather than as a lonely and isolated genius. Of course it is not difficult to recognise the exigencies of capitalism in the individualistic role of the modern designer or artist. Critical Aesthetic Theory challenges this role model and suggests alternative modes of aesthetic participation. In architectural design in a trans-cultural context these modes become self-evident, since the markers and co-ordinates in this strange landscape are completely unrecognisable.

TrackBack URI for this entry