From aesthetics to manipulation

From aesthetics to manipulation

Meléndez López Teodulo

It is evident that we call aesthetic resources are part of contemporary political game both customization, drama and staging. If a government has used the theater has been to Hugo Chavez. Just look at the management of their disease and their use for purposes of strengthening the regime. We have seen from ancestral African practices to occurrences where the leader becomes a martyr, from misuse of the official media to highlight such practices and banalities as the unstoppable rise in number of followers on Twitter.

While far have been considered aesthetics and politics have had a relationship in the field of philosophy, as he began testifying Plato to Walter Benjamin's closest or Nietzsche himself. There are links to terms, as we role play, simulations, hedonism and narration in the current political practice. We can say that the political process has been forged in this way, it builds a mask candidate, opinion makers cash. There is a media space forming a mass culture. The station is biased with respect to accommodating your favorite candidate or filed a notice as the key that leads to confusion between dramatic and political work performance. This is what we call politics as spectacle, featuring the current president and from the other side by those who claim to defend freedom of expression.

Kant defined the aesthetic as a set of judgments that are made from the feeling and is therefore subjective. When there are no criteria for judging or reflection show is become the only real reality. When cohabiting aesthetic feelings and thoughts is a field of conscious feeling, as it should be the policy. All aesthetic that excludes the critical dimension leads to the decision without reflection. Jacques Rancière, in his wonderful book The viewer emancipated invaluable paints a picture of the role of spectator positioned as a central point between aesthetics and politics.

He calls the paradox of the spectator, which leads us to conclude with an apparent truism, there is no theater without spectators. That is, if people were not focused their attention on the spectacle offered by the theater itself would fall. Rancière reminds us that looking at the show and look is the opposite of knowing. What we show is an appearance in front of it the viewer does not act. This pathos, of similes between aesthetics and politics, shows unarmed citizen, one who puts in the tables are self-division of the subject due to lack of knowledge and information. In the theater itself unique two breaks, one practiced by Brecht and another by Artaud. In the policy arena we are seeing the passing of spectators to actors, as in Spain or angry with the Arab peoples with their uprising against dictatorship for decades.

Transformed viewers must learn to move to the community and determine the pace of the assembly work. A policy can not attend, as theater, take a seat and remain silent while the work takes place. In a democracy we imposed an aesthetic manipulation. In dictatorships of flattening. The tables distinguish between the true essence of the theater and the simulation of the show. In a democracy we must distinguish between the performance gives us the power and who want to replace it with a collective where all tax act. Artaud would say there back to the community that the possession of his own energies.

If there's somewhere to go back to interweave aesthetics and politics is politics Venezuela because this became a spectacle, mainly due to the indiscriminate use of national radio and television because the regime has an aesthetic that produces immediate attention viewers will not be affected. Do not attend, it is true, as silent spectators, as they protest in social networks, the new scenario-in a way that pleases and librettists as in the original script was always included this form of protest outside any action. On the other hand, who were locked in their dressing room in pursuit of a single proposal, the electoral route to replace actors, scriptwriters and the performance is more akin to Beckett since all activity is limited to waiting for Godot.

This theater of Venezuela, who call it respect for the aesthetics, but more like a circus continuous function, leads to the loss of all social authenticity. Guy Debord, whose thesis is not known Derrière, insists the problem of mimetic contemplation, a collective world whose reality is nothing but dispossession. What phrase summed up in his magnificent "The more man contemplates, the less it is."

In this forest certainly a sign that reads Derrière all starts when we ignore the opposition between looking and when we act and that the visible light is nothing that the configuration of domination. He adds: "the principle of emancipation is the dissociation between cause and effect." And to continue the theater remove this exteriority is the telos of the performance. The people power is the ability to translate what he is looking. Once translated you can change it will capture all the manipulation.

teodulolopezm@yahoo.com