Translated by Tanja Ohlsen

Wolfgang Ullrich’s book Die Kunst nach dem Ende ihrer Autonomie (Art After the End of its Autonomy), published in 2022 by Wagenbach Verlag, is mainly based on the difference between autonomous and post-autonomous art. It is not a purely academic book, but an essayistic volume which shows Ullrich’s thinking. This formal ambiguity, however, casts its shadow on the content. Instead of discussing the term “autonomy” at the beginning of the book, he haltingly pursues it over 173 pages. He places autonomous art very close to the understanding of the avant-garde of the 20^th century, for which autonomy was synonym to authority, meaning the authority of art trying to break with its own history and to find new criteria of evaluation (Ullrich 2022: 41). Those who think of Robespierre now, might as well recall his fate. Because, after as much as 116 pages Ullrich relativises the idea of an absolute autonomy in a main sentence that sounds like a subclause, an absolute autonomy in which “by the way” not even “the earliest advocates for the idea of autonomy”, like Schiller, had truly believed (Ullrich 2022: 116).

According to Ullrich, post-autonomous art is in contrast mainly marked by its desire to gain importance by seeking it outside the field of art. To such art Ullrich counts artist-sneakers like the TZ-BS-06 by Takashi Murakami, who entered the field of fashion and commodities, as well as Ai Weiwei’s work Law of the Journey (published first 2017), that engages with the subject of refugees (Ullrich 2022: 10, 128f.). In my opinion, one thing is clear: the attention, artists gain in those other areas, is owed to the respect they earned in the field of art—that implies that those, who turn outwards while neglecting the field of art they come from, are in danger to lose respect there.

It should be easy to avoid this risk by deciding to make use of one’s own sources. Ullrich does not regard the development of autonomous art itself as negative—even though the book’s title might suggest otherwise. He gives examples of art with a political message while remaining formally successful, such as Kerry James Marshall’s painting Untitled (Underpainting) from 2018, in which Marshall cleverly intertwines form and content. The title not only hints to his art-historical knowledge—it can be read as a quotation of Concept Art—but also to his technical knowledge. Traditionally, an underpainting was done in gray or brown tones, in order to control the distribution of contrasts. The actual colours were applied later. It is no coincidence that all of Marshall’s depicted figures are black. He combines the assumedly technical necessity with the representation of Black people, who have often been excluded from the museum apparatus, thus conveying his message in a humorous way.

It would have been useful to place Marshall within the art historical context, since his practice is situated at the intersection of autonomy and political engagement.

This tension is clearly visible when we look at one of the best-known topoi of the art world: l’art pour l’art.

Literally it says “art for the art”, meaning “art for art’s sake”. It marks the essence of the modern dispute around artistic autonomy. While realist art like that of Courbet depicted the world as it were, and was political on account of the subjects which did not correspond to the common repertoire, the artists of the l’art-pour-l’art-movement had a different aim. Writers like Flaubert didn’t want to describe reality, but to create reality through their writing (Bourdieu 2010: 157). L’art pour l’art is rather an aesthetic program which, however, is apolitical only at first sight. Just as Musil’s Man without Qualities does have a quality—namely, that he does not have one—l’art pour l’art is not divinely given, but a mechanism of distinction: turning away from a critique explicitly aimed to social reality.

Thus, the question of freedom of art is at the same time the question of what it should be free from and what the protagonists of the art want to distinguish themselves from. While the Dada movement, emerging after the First World War, indulged in nihilism, the artists of the Neue Sachlichkeit shortly after were looking for the “new human”. Art is always political, either in form or content, only means and the scale are different. Precisely because of this political relevance, it has its own provision in the German constitution. But not because art is free, according to Article Five of the German Constitutional Law, it enjoys a certain autonomy, but because the authors of the Constitutional Law attributed particular value to art and wanted to protect it from attacks. Freedom of art is not created by the constitution, merely chartered. Artists realize the freedom of art by their actions. The strength of art lies in the fact, that they do this within a cultural and symbolic sphere.

Neoliberalism is more and more penetrating and corrupting the arts, however it is bound to fail as long as there are artists who don’t give in to the economic pull of the art market and don’t adapt their work to its structures. The starting point of artistic production is the human being, the combination of body and mind as a repository of knowledge materializing itself in the work of art without being discursive. It isn’t even fully accessible to the artists themselves, and we can only use it in parts. The artist owns a knowledge unknown to themselves. Freedom of art thus lies in the unavailability of one’s own knowledge for everybody.

Thus, it is small wonder that the double bind of l’art pour l’art can only be identified from a historical distance. Artists of the 19^th and 20^th century first had to believe in their program, in order to realize it.

The opposition of autonomous and post-autonomous art can therefore only be described as inadequate. In Ullrich, time seems to stand still. The connection between autonomous and post-autonomous art stays vague, since he only historicizes the concept of autonomy, without mentioning the avantgarde´s misunderstanding of themselves as the driving force for its development. The two terms stand side by side incoherently, linked only by their common linguistic root. However, the knowledge, that the autonomy of art has always been only relative, regardless of what it proclaimed, opens the possibility to trace the trajectory from autonomous to post-autonomous art. Ullrich’s book began with the claim to follow this trace. The result is, unfortunately, the assertion of a paradigm shift, supported only by examples confirming this claim. The book is undoubtedly clever and raises many questions—like any good book should—however, the author leaves us pretty much alone with them.

References

Bourdieu, P. (2010). Die Regeln der Kunst (1st ed., 1992). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Ullrich, W. (2022). Die Kunst nach dem Ende ihrer Autonomie. Berlin: Wagenbach.

Moriz Hertel, born in Bamberg in 1998, is studying art history for a master's degree and fine arts for a diploma. His current work focuses on olfaction and performative practices.