چکیده:
هنر سیاسی چیست و هنر چگونه می‌تواند سیاسی باشد؟ در این مقاله با بررسی مفهوم «عدم اجماع» در اندیشه ژاک رانسیر به بازتعریف مفهوم هنر سیاسی پرداخته و نشان داده می‌شود هنر ازآن‌رو که پیغامی سیاسی را انتقال می‌دهد، سیاسی نیست. اثر هنری با گسست از تجربة معمول، نوعی کارکرد خاص را شکل می‌دهد؛ کارکردی که شکلی از «عدم اجماع» را بنا می‌نهد. رابطة میان هنر و سیاست همچنین رابطة میان هنر و جامعه را باید در قالب فرم‌های «عدم اجماع» فهمید و نه پیغام یا موضوعی که اثر هنری انتقال می‌دهد. هنرمند از طریق کنش استتیکی می‌تواند آنچه جامعه به‌عنوان امر مشترک حس می‌کند، می‌شنود، می‌بیند، درک می‌کند و می‌فهمد را تغییر دهد و رابطه‌ای که بین یک شیء خاص و کارکرد آن در جامعه وجود داشت را ملغی کند. هنرمند می‌تواند هر چیزی را از بداهت پیشین خلاص کرده و در درون فرمی از «عدم اجماع» بر سر معنا یا کارکرد آن، قرار دهد. بنابراین هنر ازآن‌رو که پیغامی سیاسی را انتقال دهد یا واکنشی مستقیم به اتفاق‌های جامعه باشد، سیاسی نیست. بلکه سیاست هنر در برکندن نظام خاصی از محسوسات، زیر سوال بردن امر بدیهی و خلق معناها و روابط جدید میان چیزها است.
What is political art and how can art be political? Dealing with political art has always been a contentious issue because the prevalent notions of these two areas have made it difficult to determine a specific relationship; studying such a situation requires rethinking of concepts; by rethinking Jacques Ranciere's thoughts, the concepts of “Politics” and “Aesthetic Art” will be reconsidered; this will help us open our way to answer what the political art is.Jacques Ranciere's particular approach to both the arts and politics conqueror is the way for this research. Ranciere considers the work of art to be a special distribution of time and space. In his view, the work of art has a complex connection with the common and the sensible. He believes that art and politics, as two separate but intertwined spaces, are shaping “the distribution of the sensible” and the common.In this article, by examining the concept of “Dissensus” in Jacques Ranciere's thought, its redefines the concept of political art and shows that art is not political because it conveys a political message. A work of art by break from the usual experience, it forms a special function; a function that forms a form of “Dissensus”. The relationship between art and politics, as well as the relationship between art and society, must be understood in terms of “Dissensus” forms, not the political message or the subject that the work of art conveys. A work of art can release everything from previous status within the framework of “Dissensus” on its meaning or function. As a result, art is not political in that it is a direct protest or reaction to the events of society; on the contrary, the politics of art is in breaking down fixed contractual meanings and creating new meanings and relationships between things. Art and politics both represent forms of “Dissensus” Both of them, as two separate but intertwined spaces, are shaping the “distribution of the tangible” and the common; From this perspective, it is possible to reflect on the political intervention of artists, and what the arts offer to society is a change in physical positions and movements, theological functions, the division of visible and invisible things. A work of art can shape the space of society. Through a reshaping of the senses, the work of art affects everything that can be seen, heard, said, and even thought. In other words, artistic activities affect the way things are done, the forms of visibility, and the state of things in society. By redistributing the sensible the works of art influence the division of public space, the actions taken, and the type of participation in society. Through the work of art, the artist can deconstruct the superficial layers of social discourses and decipher them by revealing the state of things.
(
, 
, 
)
