What is the role of art in critical theory?

Critical theory is a philosophical approach that sets out to challenge dominant social structures. While classical philosophy often seeks to explain society, critical theory strives to transform it, with the goal of advancing human emancipation. For these thinkers, emancipation means breaking free from hegemonic social frameworks—intellectually, physically, and culturally. Emerging from the Frankfurt School through figures like Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, critical theory shed light on the power dynamics that endanger marginalized communities. Critical theorists also recognized art as a powerful tool to dismantle oppressive systems. Feminist artists, for example, have been pivotal in their struggles for social change. Their art is not only a personal reflection of hardship but also a bold means of voicing and exposing the conditions of forced subjugation.

What is the role of art in critical theory?

Chicago’s use of art to resist dominant culture reflects philosopher Herbert Marcuse’s view that art itself can be a revolutionary act. Influenced by Karl Marx, Marcuse argued that within a capitalist society we experience a deep sense of estrangement from one another. For him, art becomes a means of countering this alienation. Yet, on the other side of the dialectic, Marcuse also suggested that art can contribute to alienation. In the act of creating, the artist distances themselves from the chains of the world. By imagining and portraying an ideal life far removed from reality, the artist constructs a vision shaped by their own ideals. This very sense of alienation, however, can also fuel the drive for social change. This is precisely what we see in The Dinner Party. Chicago envisions a world where women are celebrated for their achievements—a vision both ideal and distant from reality. Perhaps it was exactly this kind of alienation, described by Marcuse, that helped spark the feminist movement following the unveiling of the installation.

One of the Frankfurt School philosophers, Max Horkheimer, argued that any social change must pass through the creation of a more rational society. He insisted that unequal societies exist only because they lack a 'socially rational organization'. This idea is based on Marx's concept that capitalism is not a rational organization, and it is for this reason that we suffocate. It is Horkheimer's conclusion that equality and suffering are the results of a society organized around erroneous ideas. Therefore, a positive social change requires a collective change in people's thoughts. Feminist artists must therefore change people's attitudes towards women.

In 1985, Chicago took an even more extreme path to express her dissatisfaction with patriarchy. She put men in her sights. Her work Driving the World to Destruction (1985) depicts a man seizing a plane, indicating his control. The man is very muscular and masculine, which is a mockery of Renaissance Italian art that glorifies the masculine hero. She exaggerates these traits, to mock his constant search for domination. The works that Chicago saw on her trip to Rome, which depict masculinity as sage and virtuous, inspired her to demonstrate exactly the opposite. Driving the World to Destruction is an exposition of folly, the idea that masculinity is superior.

By critiquing the instinct to valorize masculinity, Chicago touched upon Horkheimer's ideas. Horkheimer would agree with Chicago that a primary reason for women's oppression is an irrational school of thought surrounding femininity. Both would say that if society were organized in a more rational way, women's repression would no longer exist. For Chicago, a rational society would see femininity as equally appreciated as masculinity. In accordance with Horkheimer's philosophy, Chicago uses Driving the World to Destruction to insist on a rational view of gender.

There is also a typology that allows to synthesize the different preferences according to the citizen's psychology in three great categories:

• The esthetesThe esthetes appreciate abstract entertainments, dense and demanding.
• The intellectualsThe intellectuals love entertainments that presume refined intellect. They are looking for meaning, responses, facts.
• The sombresThe sombres are interested in dramatic objects, dark, even funeral.

Although people may find themselves somewhere in a blend of the three categories, it is still fascinating to observe the connection between personality and cultural preferences. Built on basic personality traits, these preferences seem to develop and take shape over time. Depending on what we are drawn to, we do not perceive a cultural object in the same way—because we project different human qualities and meanings onto it.

Another philosopher of the Frankfurt school, Theodor W. Adorno was much more skeptical of political art. For him, art should remain autonomous. What this means is that art should be independent of social problems. Adorno was against art that was produced with the sole intention of sending a message because he did not consider it as an effective political strategy in late capitalism. It does not mean that he did not see the importance of politically engaged art, but simply that works that are obvious in their efforts to awaken consciences or agitate lose their legitimacy. He believed that to be effective, art should expose contradictions in the current society.