In literary theory, especial in the academia world of China, we talked a lot about how to distinguish “the art for the people” and “L’ art pour L’art“. In Rancière’s universe, none of these definitions make sense, because art is no longer about consensus or for certain purpose(14), it is autonomy. It is mind-blowing because my expectation for art was only what Rancière would call as the representative regime of art.(43)
His critics about Madame Bovary is inspiring. As we usually think Emma’s story as an ethical story, Rancière thinks Emma was trying to bring art into life, (but the rising of bourgeois and capitalism would not allow this, so she must be killed, as Rancière claims in another essay) and his idea of aesthetic of daily life merges in that part.(55 )
Chantal Mouffe is more radical, sometimes even speaks from an opposite standpoint of the other two. By putting the mode of production into question, she challenges the possibility of building up the ensemble. In Mouffe’s idea, not even Marx’s definition of class is applicable, Identity is more solid in describing the ineffable changes of modern or postmodern life. She also thinks distinguishing political and non-political art is not necessary，because it is to symbolize social relations. (91)
Etienne Balibar holds an opinion in between, he reclaims the difference between “politics” and “political”, the autonomy of politics and the politics of emancipation seams testified for the artistic concept of Rancière.(2)