Rachel Koopmans: Systematic Ideology and Diversity within Art Theory
Winner, 2010 George Walford International Essay Prize.
“Ideology” is a word steeped in connotation. The origins of the term have been traced back to the time of the French Revolution, when in 1796 Destutt de Tracy used it to describe the “science of the formation of ideas”; already with its first usage “ideology” provoked controversy, because Destutt de Tracy intended ideology to replace theology as a means of unifying science, politics, economics, etc. [1] In the 19th and 20th centuries there have been words used similarly to ideology, such as the German word weltanschauung and the English worldview, but neither of these are synonymous with ideology. Ideologies alone are founded on the belief that science should be the basis for how one views the world.
Systematic ideology began as an attempt to rationally examine and describe how people’s attitudes and ideas arise and mature. The theory is thus marked by an attempt to analyze the larger picture, and to make generalizations which transcend cultural and historical barriers. The definition of ideology commonly used in systematic ideology is the following: an ideology comprises the “basic ideas (or rather, the assumptions) underlying any system of ideas” which will extend to cover the “whole field of propositions – political, economic, religious, philosophical, scientific or otherwise.” [2]
Although proponents of systematic ideology have recognized that one’s ideology is not restricted to politics, by far the majority of writing on ideology has been concerned with political theory and practice. This focus on politics is natural considering how the first advocates of systematic ideology were united by an interest in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Founder of the main journal of systematic ideology, Ideological Commentary, George Walford writes, “We shall start our enquiry where the influence of ideology is generally recognized, in politics.” [3] However, Walford [himself] did not restrict application of the theory to politics. Since it began, systematic ideology has been applied to topics of very little relation to politics.
One area that George Walford himself applied systematic ideology to is religion. In issue 8 of Ideological Commentary Walford wrote an essay entitled “Some Notes on the Ideology of Religion.” The essay consists of brief points which Walford describes as, “a rough indication of the general lines which a systematic ideological study of religion might be expected to follow.” [4] This essay will provide a similar introduction to applying systematic ideology to the realm of art and aesthetics. Although it is impossible to cover the vast movements and views within art history, this paper will demonstrate through numerous examples that systematic ideology can be profitably applied to understandings of what makes good art.
At the crux of systematic ideology is the identification of seven major ideologies. These ideologies are not simply what is representative in contemporary politics, but are rather presented as having a traceable evolutionary nature. The theory demonstrates that there is a triangular representation of ideologies, where the bottom layer represents both the first ideology to exist, and also the ideology which will always represent the vast majority of people. This trend continues as subsequent ideologies represent fewer and fewer people. Ideologies become increasingly complex in nature and are represented more by intellectuals. However, the contributors to systematic ideology made clear that if one represents the simpler ideologies, then that does not mean that one is less intelligent. In fact, an individual who has developed into a more complex ideological framework will not be completely free from less complex ideologies, for, “Systematic ideology insists on persistence as a feature of all developmental systems.” [5]
In Walford’s essay “Some Notes on the Ideology of Religion” he refers to six major ideologies as protostatic, epistatic, parastatic, protodynamic, epidynamic, and paradynamic [6] (the seventh is identified by George Hay as metadynamic [7]). These ideologies were elsewhere (and more frequently) described with different terminology (namely expediency, domination, precision, reformation, revolution, repudiation, and ideology of ideologies). Walford addressed this difference, and said that arguments could be made for using either set of terms. Walford felt that using protostatic, epistatic, etc. could, “facilitate discussion among people familiar with the ideas as they have so far been developed” so he would, “in future use them at least occasionally, to ensure that they remain available to those who find them useful.” [8] Thus, for the purpose of this paper the terms used will be consistent with those employed by Walford predominately in his earlier works.
The Major Ideologies
The first and most widely held ideology is protostatic. Every single person, to a greater or lesser extent, operates with this ideology because it is characterized by doing what comes naturally. Harold Walsby identifies assumptions as the ultimate basis of ideologies, and he writes, “In order to resist or escape the limitation and re-confirm the self-deterministic assumption, we are driven into certain forms of behaviour we call instinctive.” [9] Thus, most actions that one performs which are unconsidered decisions function as an outgrowth of the protostatic ideology. When connecting the expedient nature of the protostatic to a political movement, Walford identifies it with the non-politicals. [10] This connection highlights the large number of people who express little interest in politics even in democratic societies. Thus, protostatic is the most widely held ideology because it is the easiest and most convenient.
The second main ideology is termed epistatic and is marked by a traditional attitude. When acting from the principles of the epistatic ideology, one is comfortable with the past and opposed to change. Not only does this lead to conventionality, but it also leads to unity as the people in the masses demonstrate a loyalty to the group. Walford writes that those who display this ideology, “will often tolerate practices which embody the principles professed only in a general way, as we speak of a course of action being correct in principle, meaning it may be faulty in detail.” [11] Patriotism and conformity are both signs of the epistatic, and for Walford the Conservative political party is its prime example.
The third major ideology is “parastatic,” and it is marked by a push for adaptation. In “Meet Systematic Ideology” George Walford says that, “Ethics predominate over conformity and compliance, in religion as elsewhere.” [12] Those who employ this ideology want to make decisions because they believe it is the right way to go, not because it is what they have been told to do. Because this is oftentimes a reaction to the epistatic ideology, there is friction between the two groups. However, the parastatic ideology appears more mature because the advocators have critically examined what they hold to be true, whereas the first epistatic ideology gains its support from general opinion. A political example of the parastatic ideology is Liberalism, and seeking ways to improve society is a common feature. [13]
The previous three ideologies have been examples of ediostatic ideologies. Walford recognized a division between the 6 major ideologies, whereby the first three are marked by hostility towards the environment, and the second three are marked by hostility towards society. Or in other words, the first three desire stability, and the second three desire change. [14]
The fourth major ideology is protodynamic. Rather than being content with societal structure, those who embrace the protodynamic ideology recognize that the present societal structure has inherent flaws. Thus, the basic assumptions adhered to undergo a significant change between the parastatic and the protodynamic ideologies. Zvi Lamm says that the protodynamic ideology “maintains that society needs to be amended structurally, not merely improved superficially.” [15] The change that is desired is to be achieved peacefully, “by an accumulation of minor changes. It exhibits the ethos of reform.” [16] Concerned not only with making a feasible political system, the protodynamic demonstrates an acute concern for the individual and a humanism which extends beyond that of the parastatic.
The fifth ideology is epidynamic. The most notable feature of the epidynamic is its desire to break completely with the past. Whereas the other ideologies that wanted change recognized some good in the past, or at least did not see harm in making change gradual, the epidynamic, “Assumes classes to be in a conflict resolvable only by revolution, violent if need be…” [17]This revolution is viewed as a natural development in history, and a means of liberation. [18] The epidynamic is a push for a radically different future, a future based again on presuppositions completely different from the parastatic. However, the epidynamic differs from the protodynamic because it, “Sets its own values aggressively against conventional ones” [19] and demonstrates a ruthlessness when surveying less complex ideologies.
The sixth ideology is paradynamic. This ideology, “Condemns all that has gone before,” [20] and so it pushes for a new system devoid of any similarity to the past. The anarchists are the best example of the paradynamic, and because anarchy is, “guided by theory almost to the exclusion of experience, … it can claim no practical successes to demonstrate the validity of its theorizing.” [21] The problems that the epidynamic had recognized as being a result of the flaws of the previous political system, are now recognized as being a consequence of having political systems.
The seventh and final major ideology Walford identifies is metadynamic. This ideology is unique because it does not represent a new tier, but rather an ideology which is present from the start but which gains increasing strength as the ideologies gain complexity. Zvi Lamm describes the reason that the metadynamic exists by saying, “The people who belong to this group try to understand the phenomenon known as ideology, and thus defeat ideologies as factors limiting their freedoms.” [22]
A good understanding of how Walford categorized the major ideologies is necessary to apply systematic ideology to other areas of volitional behaviour. To apply these categories, one must first gain an adequate understanding of the system, and then seek to find examples of the major ideologies in the specified area – in this case, art. However, while examples can be found for each of the ideologies described by Walford, with Trevor Blake one must recognize that, “A major ideology is one which may have many specific examples but is not generally expressed in a ‘pure’ form.” [23] Thus, when seeking to demonstrate that the trends systematic ideology has identified in politics apply to other areas, there may be several different manifestations within art history, and examples will not fully exemplify all of the characteristics of the ideology with which it identifies most closely.
Viewing Theories of Art within the Schema of Systematic Ideology
When Walford applies systematic ideology to religion, he notes that the protostatic ideology is marked by rituals used to gain the gods’ favour. [24] Similarly, the protostatic ideology within art is also concerned with ritual. Any complex art that is present in the protostatic is used. The natural instincts in an individual may cause one to make simple drawings, paintings, or songs, but anything that demonstrates complexity in the protostatic ideology serves a purpose.
One of the common characteristics of early art is its religious importance. The earliest works of art were cave drawings depicting animals. In “Art Through the Ages” some of the oldest known cave paintings, found in the Dordogne region of France, are described. “Each painting reflects the keen observation and extraordinary memory of the hunter-artist… It is almost as if the artist were constructing a pictorial definition of the animal, capturing its very essence.” [25] This is high praise for art created using rudimentary tools, and so one might suppose that a surprisingly developed aesthetic accompanied the art at one time. However, according to contemporary interpretation, this is not so: “The fact that the paintings are never found in those parts of the caves that were inhabited or near daylight rules out any purely decorative purpose…. The remoteness and difficulty of access of many of these sites and the fact that they appear to have been used for centuries strongly suggest that the prehistoric hunter attributed magical properties to them.” [26] Other early forms of art demonstrate this connection to religion as well. [27]
The protostatic ideology is marked by an undifferentiated worldview, and this also is demonstrated in artistic endeavor. With an example like the cave drawing, the precision used may seem to point to a need for beauty which points to a more complex ideology. However, this is not so. “[T]he artist’s aim to be realistic may be explained by his probable conviction that the painting’s magical power was directly linked to its lifelikeness,” [28] therefore the artist in all likelihood did not view his work as “art” as commonly done today.
As art history progressed, art began to have a distinct place, no longer just used in rituals or for good fortune. This progression marks the move from the protostatic ideology to the epistatic ideology. The epistatic in art is marked by a move to have art for its own sake, but with very limited thought as to what constitutes art. One example of the epistatic today is kitsch art. One author describes kitsch as, “that peculiar disease that we can instantly recognize but never precisely define, and whose Austro-German name links it to the mass movements and crowd sentiments of the 20th century.” [29] Kitsch art is art that is appreciated because of how it evokes superficial emotion, and its critics hold it to be untrue to reality. The reason such art is widely accepted is because many people have not seriously considered what makes art good.
Some people may object to the idea that a large portion of art theory is marked by an attitude of comfortableness and conformity – is not the avant-garde artist a typical figure in the 20th century? George Walford recognized this issue, but undermines its power by noting, “Some artists have rebelled as some workers have taken part in revolutions, but artists as a group, like workers as a group, spend most of their time and energy in activities which support existing society. During the sixties Bob Dylan, Tom Paxton and other pop stars made their names with songs of protest; they also made their fortunes in this way and, that done, most of them relaxed into comfortable conformity along with most of their maturing audience.” [30]
The epistatic is comfortable with what is commonly accepted as art, and so art movements of more complex ideologies are opposed. Formulated ideas of art by the epistatic may follow the lines of “what is pleasing or beautiful,” but when pressed, there is little substance to his or her idea of what “beautiful” means. Examples abound of art which is appreciated for a sentiment it evokes while the viewer or listener has no formed opinion as to why he or she likes it. The epistatic ideology in art is marked by opinions formed on the basis of sentiment, rather objective criteria.
With the move from epistatic to parastatic, the concept of “beauty” gains increasing complexity. Those of the parastatic mindset still appreciate the traditional assumption that art is what is considered beautiful, but now philosophers and artists try to isolate the defining characteristic of beauty. Like the epistatic, the parastatic begins with the assumption that art’s primary function is to make one’s environment more pleasing. Aesthetics is dominated by this assumption until the eighteenth century, when the idea of beauty and art takes a marked twist. However, until then the philosophical inquiries of men such as Francis Hutcheson and David Hume demonstrate a desire to speak in terms relating to beauty when examining ideas about art and expressing what makes great art good.
For example, Plotinus begins his sixth tractate of Ennead One by asking, “What, then, is it that gives comeliness to material forms and draws the ear to the sweetness perceived in sounds, and what is the secret of the beauty there is in all that derives from Soul?” [31] Although Plotinus was himself not convinced that artists were true makers of beauty, his influence was felt on many subsequent theories of aesthetics. As Dabney Townsend writes, “Only a slight twist of Plotinian method turns it into a positive theory of art.” [32]
Francis Hutcheson may be considered more quickly than Plotinus as a positive advocator of beauty in art. In his work An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, Hutcheson tries to determine what arouses pleasure of the senses. In Section II he writes, “Since it is certain that we have Ideas of Beauty and Harmony, let us examine what Quality in Objects excites these Ideas, or is the occasion of them.” [33] Hutcheson then follows with this conclusion: “The Figures which excite in us the Ideas of Beauty, seem to be those in which there is Uniformity amidst Variety…[W]hat we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the mathematical style, seem to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety: so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity.” [34] From these statements the reader can learn that Hutcheson considers beauty to be rationally analyzable. In terms of the parastatic ideology, Hutcheson’s aesthetic shows an individual and intellectual attempt to progress within a conventional framework.
Likewise, David Hume represents the parastatic in his idea concerning standards of taste. For Hume, universal ideas of beauty are attained through education. “Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and, nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty.” [35] Underlying Hume’s conclusion is an underlying recognition that those of the epistatic ideology, the majority of people, have not developed an aesthetic capable of offering a valid critique. This is in agreement with systematic ideology, which says that subsequent ideologies have increasingly complex and formed beliefs.
The ideology which follows the parastatic – the protodynamic – represents a push for a new framework when considering aesthetics. As the ideology characterized by reform, the protodynamic envisions greater depth to art than what can be offered when its definitive feature is beauty. Arthur C. Danto recognizes this shift when he writes, “I regard the discovery that something can be good art without being beautiful as one of the great conceptual clarifications of twentieth-century philosophy of art…” [36] Even earlier G. E. Lessing had concluded, “But, as already observed, the realm of art has in modern times been greatly enlarged. Its imitations are allowed to extend over all visible nature, of which beauty constitutes but a small part. Truth and expression are taken as its first law. As nature always sacrifices beauty to higher ends, so should the artist subordinate it to his general purpose, and not pursue it farther than truth and expression allow.” [37] With the philosopher Burke and an artist such as Goya, one can see an ideology of art emerging which recognizes, like socialists, “the need for a substantially different system and sets out to achieve it peacefully by an accumulation of minor changes.” [38] For aesthetics, these minor changes are shown in theories of art as well as works of art, which seek to demonstrate the importance of considerations beyond beauty.
An important aspect introduced to art in the protodynamic is the concept of the sublime. For Edmund Burke, the idea of the sublime took on a unique meaning. When summarizing some of Lyotard’s writing on politics and art, Alison Ross writes, “Kant provides both the sense of the object of a sublime feeling as ill-formed and the feeling itself as an un-regulable one, but it is Burke that gives an additional, existential force to the negative pleasure of sublime feeling as an anxiety in the face of the possibility of the ‘nothing.'” [39] This contribution from Burke is picked up on by Kenneth Clark in relation to romanticism, for he says, “It is arguable that the Romantic movement first showed itself as an expression of fear; and this was spelled out in the first philosophical treatise on the subject, Burke’s Inquiry into the Origins of the Sublime.” [40] With the Romantics, the emphasis on creating art which moved beyond the bounds established by a set concept of beauty is apparent.
Goya has been identified with the Romantic movement, and his artwork has clear examples that express fear and angst. The protodynamic is characterized by pushing for change that is radical, and yet which does not cry out for change all at once. While Goya’s work at times highlights the beauty of the world, it also shows a darker and deeper side to life. “Goya enjoys everything, enters into everything: he accepts the pleasant side of things. All the same, there is usually something disturbing, even in the early Goyas – some sharp flavour in his delicious eighteenth-century macedoines.” [41] Through the joint effort of aestheticians and artists, a fundamental move was happening whereby beauty was being slowly wrested from its comfortable position as the foundation of all art.
There were some, however, who were not happy with the slowness of the change. Artists who embraced the epidynamic were determined to see change come quickly. A revolution began in art, where beauty was not only dismissed as foundational, but was viewed as needing to be violently opposed. In The Meanings of Modern Art John Russell comments on the covertness of any connection to the past by certain artists. He notes that their alliance with previous art, “may be concealed, as it was when Dubuffet literally dragged painting through the mud with his Corps de Dame series in 1950, or when the English painter Francis Bacon around the same time was producing what were then regarded as gratuitous scenes of horror, or when Roy Lichtenstein said that his ambition had been to paint pictures which were so despicable that nobody would put them on the wall.” [42] There can be no doubt that such artists wanted very much to be seen as a new movement, a radical breaking with the past.
A colourful example of such an artist today is Damien Hirst, who has been described as, “the ‘Britpack’ artist who sparked controversy in the 1990s by displaying macabre high-tech exhibits of dead sharks, sliced cows, or lambs in vitrines of formaldehyde…” [43] Such displays of rotting corpses will be a loud statement to anyone who attends the exhibit wanting to see traditional beauty. While Hirst’s artwork is not merely a statement against beauty, it definitely does appear to be a way to hammer home the idea that beauty should not be the foundation of art. The advocators of the protodynamic in art would agree with Friedrich von Schiller who said, “beauty too must die, though it holds gods and men in thrall.” [44]
Such statements create tension between the epistatic and the epidynamic. Cynthia Freeland notes, “Controversy erupted about funding of the US Endowment Fund for the Arts (NEA) in the late 1980s after bodies were penetrated and exposed, as blood, urine, and semen became newly prominent in art… Probably the critics of modern art are nostalgic for beautiful and uplifting work like the Sistine Chapel. There, at least the bodies of martyred saints or torments of sinners at the Last Judgment were wonderfully painted, with a clear moral aim…” [45] The great divide between the intellectual artist and the masses seems to be getting too wide to be bridged.
And yet one more major ideology follows. In the paradynamic, beauty being foundational is no longer an issue for debate. The paradynamic assumes what the epidynamic fought for, and has moved on to create art that represents these new assumptions without trying to be shocking. If the epidynamic was trying to change the foundation of aesthetics, the paradynamic tries to move beyond any formal defining characteristic of art. Creating art without an aesthetic may be counter-intuitive, leaving one floundering without a means of labeling something as art or non-art, but it has been attempted.
Marcel Duchamp was a member of the Dada movement, and he tried to take his ideas to their logical end. With his work he tried to incorporate an element of chance, which was in line with the Dadaist attempt to proceed from a total absence of genius associated with artistry. When designating some of his ready-mades, Duchamp said, “A point I very much want to establish is, that the choice of these ready-mades was never dictated by an aesthetic delectation. The choice was based on a reaction of visual indifference, with at the same time a total absence of good or bad taste, in fact a complete anaesthesia.” [46] Incredibly enough there have been a select few movements and artists within movements who have repudiated any value in established standards for art. Michelle Dantini described part of the art world post-1960s by saying, “A partial continuity existed in the anti-theoretical approach taken by neo-Dada and Pop: comic strips, cinema stars, and canned food made reference to an untheorizable world of private desires, small everyday fetishisms, routine, and slightly regressive gratification. Moreover, Pop Art – in the specific cases of Claes Oldenburg and Andy Warhol – was characterized by a particularly corrosive anti-aestheticism.” [47]
While the art of the paradynamic is here referred to as “untheorizable,” and its political counterpart has been described as, “guided by theory almost to the exclusion of experience,” [48] an investigation reveals swiftly that there isn’t a discrepancy between the two. Whereby in politics the paradynamic takes its “negative identification with society to its ultimate conclusion” [49] by rejecting all forms of government, with art it is a move to go beyond any formal aesthetic. The term “untheorizable” was referring to the artists’ rejection of aesthetics, but “guided by theory almost to the exclusion of experience” was used in reference to how it has practically been demonstrated in politics. There have not been any historical examples of nations administrated by anarchists, but there have been some examples of the paradynamic in art.
The examples that have been used to illustrate the major ideologies have not always followed chronological order. For example, Damien Hirst (1965) was used as an example of a protodynamic pushing to revolutionize aesthetics, while Andy Warhol (1928-1987) was mentioned in conjunction with the paradynamic, which is more complex than the protodynamic. This serves to illustrate Walford’s point that all ideologies are present at all times. As some individuals develop an increasingly complex ideology, the vast majority of people will make very minor changes to their ideologies. The fact that Damien Hirst still feels compelled to create art which blatantly goes against the conventional idea of beauty merely speaks to the unsurprising fact that the vast majority of people still claim beauty as the foundation of art.
When looking at the history and contemporary situation of a field of study such as art, systematic ideology provides a helpful method of grouping and then analyzing. Because systematic ideology is an example of the metadynamic, it, “bestows upon those who accept it the ability to penetrate into the content of all ideologies, that is to obtain control over them or to liberate them.” [50] Rather than trying to examine the system that one is within, systematic ideology allows one to step beyond and look over the road that one has traveled. By thinking of the possibilities for viewpoints within each ideology when applying it to a subject such as art, one is able to understand how each movement interacts with previous and subsequent ideologies, and one is pushed to think in a more complex manner than one otherwise might. Issues such as the gap between the epistatic and the epidynamic, which was mentioned earlier, can be resolved by understanding how the major ideologies relate. The richness of systematic ideology and the diversity within art have served to complement each other’s assets, and to demonstrate the power of interdisciplinary study.
Endnotes
[1]Terrell, Timothy D. The Economics of Destutt De Tracy. Page 2. July 28, 1999. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Terrell1.pdf
[2] Harold Walsby, “Definition of Ideology,” Part II Chapter 2 of The Domain Of Ideologies, 1946. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=87
[3] George Walford, “Introduction,” Beyond Politics: An Outline of Systematic Ideology, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=16
[4] Walford, “Some Notes on the Ideology of Religion,” Ideological Commentary Issue 08, 1980. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=135
[5] Walford, “Ideology in the Reviews,” Ideological Commentary Issue 63, 1994. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=344
[6] Ideological Commentary #08, 1986. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=135
[7] “Names for the Major Ideologies,” Ideological Commentary Issue 06, 1980. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=133
[8] Walford, “Editorial Notes,” Ideological Commentary Issue 18, 1985. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=174
[9] “The Absolute Assumption,” Part II Chapter 5 of The Domain Of Ideologies, 1946. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=90
[10] Walford, “Chapter 5: From Politics to Ideology,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=20
[11] Walford, “Chapter 5: From Politics to Ideology,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=20
[12] Ideological Commentary 1994. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=246
[13] Walford, “The Political Series,” Ideological Commentary 34, 1988. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=201
[14] Trevor Blake, “What is Systematic Ideology?” http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=127
[15] “Ideologies in a Hierarchal Order,” Ideological Commentary Issue 14, 1984. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=162
[16] Walford, “Chapter 5: From Politics to Ideology,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=20
[17] Walford, “Meet Systematic Ideology,” 1994. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=246
[18] Zvi Lamm, “Ideologies in a Hierarchal Order,” Ideological Commentary Issue 14, 1984. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=162
[19] Walford, “Meet Systematic Ideology,” 1994. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=246
[20] Walford, “Meet Systematic Ideology,” 1994. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=246
[21] Walford, “Chapter 3: The British Political Series,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=18
[22] “Ideologies in a Hierarchal Order,” Ideological Commentary Issue 14, 1984. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=162
[23] Trevor Blake, “What is Systematic Ideology?” http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=127
[24] “Some Notes on the Ideology of Religion,” Ideological Commentary Issue 08, 1980. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=135
[25] Gardner, Helen , Horst de la Croix, and Richard G. Tansey. Art Through the Ages. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970. p15.
[26] Gardner, Helen , Horst de la Croix, and Richard G. Tansey. Art Through the Ages. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970. p16.
[27] See for example sculptures from Jericho in the New Stone Age Era. H. W. Janson and Anthony F. Janson, History of Art, 6th ed. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001. p36.
[28] Gardner, Helen , Horst de la Croix, and Richard G. Tansey. Art Through the Ages. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970. p16.
[29] Roger Scruton, “Beauty is In the Eye .” Times of London 14 Mar. 2009, eLibrary. Chatham-Kent Public Library. 23 May 2009
[30] Walford, “The Conventional Artist,” Chapter 20 of Angles on Anarchism, 2nd ed., The Estate of George Walford: 2003. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=120
[31] The Six Enneads, Stephen MacKenna and B.S. Page, Trans., Kessinger Publishing, 2004. p50.
[32] “Plotinus,” Aesthetics: Classic Readings from the Western Tradition, 2nd ed, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001. p47.
[33] Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue: In Two Treatises. 3rd ed., London: J. and J. Knapton, 1729. p16.
[34] Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue: In Two Treatises. 3rd ed., London: J. and J. Knapton, 1729. p17.
[35] The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Vol. 3 of 4. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1854. p265.
[36] The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2003. p58.
[37] Laocoon: An Essay Upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry, Ellen Frotingham, Trans. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1887. p16.
[38] Walford, “Chapter 5: From Politics to Ideology,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=20
[39] Ross, Alison. “The Art of the Sublime: Lyotard and the Politics of the Avant-Garde.” Philosophy Today 49.1 (2005). eLibrary. Chatham-Kent Public Library. 23 May 2009
[40] The Romantic Rebellion, Don Mills, ON: Longman Canada Ltd., 1973. p45.
[41] Kenneth Clark, The Romantic Rebellion, Don Mills, ON: Longman Canada Ltd., 1973. p70.
[42] John Russell, The Meanings of Modern Art, New York: Harper and Row, 1981. p375.
[43] Cynthia Freeland, But Is it Art? An Introduction to Art Theory, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p6.
[44] As Qtd. by John Russell, The Meanings of Modern Art, New York: Harper & Row, 1981. p378.
[45] Cynthia Freeland, But Is it Art? An Introduction to Art Theory, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p7.
[46] Statement at The Art of Assemblage: A Symposium As Qtd. in Richardson Concepts of Modern Art. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. p118.
[47] Modern & Contemporary Art, New York: Sterling, 2005. p138.
[48] Walford, “Chapter 3: The British Political Series,” Beyond Politics, 1990. http://gwiep.net/wp//?p=18
[49] Zvi Lamm, “Ideologies in a Hierarchal Order,” Ideological Commentary Issue 14, 1984. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=162
[50] Zvi Lamm, “Ideologies in a Hierarchal Order,” Ideological Commentary Issue 14, 1984. http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=162