This was a question pointed to me when I applied for a class in the summer; April 8th of last year; the class in question was an introduction to the concept Arte Útil. Basically it’s a form of practical art that would eventually move from being art to being a utility. I remember some classes half the time was taken up by debates over whether or not this was considered art in the first place, and there were very passionate debaters on both sides. Perhaps it was my postmodernist views of things or the fact that I was the only non-visual art student in that class (writing major), but I had no real commitment to an absolute definition of art.
'''\_ (\:) _/''' - Oh well, anyways…
Before I could be allowed to join the class, I first needed to: “Explain how you think aesthetics can disrupt institutional structures”
And here was my response to it, and I feel this can be especially relevant in US society today:
“For me with a question as grand as this, I find it useful to take the sentence and trade in the significant words in the sentence with the dictionary definition of said words. It tends make the question feel more grounded and precise, so as to potentially prevent me from wondering from subject to subject only to realize that I’m not addressing the question.
So how can a principle concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty disrupt a mechanism of social order, driven by a social purpose, that governs the behavior of a set of individuals in a community?
If the institutional structures in question do not fulfill the actual requirements that define an institutional structure, then that needs to be pointed out; If they fail to properly govern the behaviors of individuals; If they don’t have a clear social purpose; if the purpose is to clearly favor a single or a few individuals over the rest of the social order; and If there are institutions with clear contentious social purpose, which works very well at the cost of the individuals.
This is just for those that run unjust institutes that think of themselves as so slick or so untouchable that they would have the gall to openly admit to those contentious goals. But what about those that stay closeted on the way these institutions run? To have unspoken rules? These are probably the biggest obstacles for artists wishing to disrupt a social order because it raises so many questions.
How much do we really know about the institutions endemic in our societies? How much do we know about the rules that they enforce? How much can we know? How much do we want to know? These are the question that the aesthetic ought to conjure up and persist until the curiosity is quenched by an honest and straightforward answer or until the thirst overwhelms the masses and actions need to be taking place.”
I still hold this to be true. So hopefully, for whatever reason, this helps you to clarify some things, if you're into practical art and activism.