Cover not available

Article published In: Communicating/Doing Politics
[Journal of Language and Politics 3:3] 2004
► pp. 385–407

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Controversial works of art

Some notes on public conflicts

 | University of Music and Performing ArtVienna
Published online: 7 January 2005
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.3.03zem
Art is a public affair because its meaning is always collectively negotiated. Thus, public conflicts that are triggered by works of art are essentially political and inevitable. The analysis of these conflicts points to the effective limits of acceptability of art in a given social constellation.
The following paper investigates two types of art conflicts: (1) conflicts that, at first glance, revolve around the interpretation and the aesthetic appreciation of an artwork; and (2) conflicts that explicitly call into question the legal legitimacy of publication of an artwork.
This investigation aims to reveal the variety of contents and conditions which pre-structure public conflicts. Further, it opens a normative discussion of the current forms of dealing with such conflicts in the mass media and in the jurisdiction. Such a critical discussion is necessary, since the political quality of a society can be assessed on how it relates to its own conflicting nature.
References (44)
Literature
Achtisaari, Martii, Frohwein, Jochen and Oreja, Marcelino. 2000. Bericht/Report. Heidelberg (see also http://www.virtual-institute.de/de/Bericht-EU/report.pdf ).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self. Gender Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. 1901. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710). In: George Berkeley. Works. Oxford: Clarendon. Vol. 11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolton, Richard (ed.). 1992. Culture Wars. Documents from Recent Controversies in the Arts. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bürger, Peter. 1974. Theorie der Avantgarde. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgtheater (ed.). 1989. Heldenplatz. Eine Dokumentation. Wien: Burgtheater.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Function of Social Conflicts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972(1956). Theorie sozialer Konflikte. Neuwied: Lucherhand.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, Rolf. 1965. Gesellschaft und Demokratie in Deutschland. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diers, Michael and König, Kasper (eds). 2001. “Der Bevölkerung”. Aufsätze und Dokumente zur Debatte um das Reichstagsprojekt von Hans Haacke. Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag der Buchhandlung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubin, Steven. 1992. Arresting Images. Impolitic Art and Uncivic Actions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Displays of Power. Controversy in the American Museum from “Encola Gay” to “Sensation”. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frowein, Jochen and Peukert, Wolfgang. 1996. Europäische MenschenRechtsKonvention. Kehl: Engel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallie, William. 1962(1956). Essentially contested concepts. In: Max Black (ed.). The Importance of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Pentice-Hall, 121–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1990 (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990(1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, Jörg. 1993. Die Freiheit, die ich meine. Frankfurt a. M.: Ullstein.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1995. One for All. The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffman, Barbara. 1991. They Thought Police are Out There. Reflexion on First Amendment. Art Journal. Nr. 3/19911, 39–44Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holzleithner, Elisabeth. 2000. An den Grenzen der Kunst. Reaktionen des Rechts. In: Tasos Zembylas (ed.). Kunst und Politik. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 50–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Innenministerium des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.). 2001. Skinheads und Rechtsextremismus. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janik, Allan. 1989. Controversy and human studies. In: Allan Janik. Style, Politics and the Future of Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janke, Pia (ed.). 2002. Die Nestbeschmutzerin. Jelinek & Österreich. Wien: Jung & Jung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johannessen, Kjell. 1994. Philosophy, art and intransitive understanding. In: Kjell Johannessen (ed.). Wittgenstein and Norway. Oslo: Solum Forlag, 218–250.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klimitsch, Peter. 1994. Die Kultur, die sie meinen. Wien: IG-Kultur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, Ludwig. 1971. Kunst im Konflikt. Kunst und Künstler im Widerstreit mit der Obrigkeit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lilienthal, Matthias and Philipp, Claus (eds). 2000. Schlingensiefs “Ausländer raus”. Frankfurt. a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lübbe, Hermann. 1998. Zwischen Herkunft und Zukunft. Bildung in einer dynamischen Zivilisation. Wien: Picus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luf, Gerhard. 2000. Kunstfreiheit. Aufgabe oder Überforderung des Rechts?. In: Tasos Zembylas (ed.). Kunst und Politik. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 21–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1994. Die Ausdifferenzierung des Kunstsystems. Bern: Benteli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-François. 1986. Philosophie und Malerei im Zeitalter ihres Experimentierens. Berlin: Merve.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öhlinger, Theo. 1985. “Das Gespenst” und die Freiheit der Kunst in Österreich. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 41, 190–199.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1969(1967). Sense-Giving and Sense-Reading. In: Michael Polanyi. Knowing and Being. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 181–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Das Fernsehen und die Öffentlichkeit. In: Lutz Wingert and Klaus Günther (eds). Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit. Festschrift für Jürgen Habermas. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 678–701.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tschmuck, Peter. 2003. Medienkonzentration in Österreich. In Andreas Resch (ed.). Kartelle in Österreich. Wien: Manz, 259–283.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNIKUM (ed.). 1996. An der Grenze des Erlaubten. Kunst und Zensur in Österreich. Klagenfurt: Unikum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waisman, Friedrich. 1962(1952). The Resources of Language. In Max Black (ed.). The Importance of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Pentice-Hall, 107–120.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Harrison. 1993. Careers and Creativity. Social Forces in the Arts. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiesenthal, Simon (ed.). 2000. Projekt Judenplatz Wien. Zur Konstruktion von Erinnerung. Wien: Zsolnay.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zembylas, Tasos. 1997. Kunst oder Nichtkunst. Über Bedingungen und Instanzen ästhetischer Beurteilung. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Kunst und Staat: Zwischen Förderung und Kontrolle. In Tasos Zembylas (ed.). Kunst und Politik. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 34–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue