One absurd complaint I keep coming across is that a political proposal based on analytical principles is contrary to art. Precisely the opposite is true.
Note: This post is not an attack on art. It’s an argument that dry principles are better at defending art than art itself:
- Principles are more inclusive than aesthetics.
Although some artists perceive them as being cold and sterile, the advantage of principles is that they are minimalistic. As a result, they are, by nature, compatible with a large number of variations. In contrast to this, aesthetic frameworks often aim for a more expansive vision. It is normal for one aesthetic framework to clash with most others.
A government ruled by principles can say: Tolerate all subcultures except the ones that go against a given list of criteria.
Compared to this, it would be normal for most aesthetic frameworks to be opposed to all subcultures except the ones that fit its vision. It is possible to invent an aesthetic that gets around this, but principles don’t have this problem to begin with.
Therefore, if a system of government is committed to implementing one particular aesthetic, such a system would, by default, clash with a much larger number of people than one based on principles.
- Aesthetic government is necessarily despotic.
Aesthetic frameworks aren’t fully justified by reasoning. They usually have some rational basis, but there is a plethora of unjustified elements accompanying it. This is as it should be. Aesthetics is intended to bring emotional satisfaction. Trying to justify the entirety of aesthetics by reasoning defeats the purpose.
However, if you try to use aesthetics in government, you will run into a problem: since there is no reasoning justifying aesthetics, it is arbitrary by nature. When power is justified by aesthetics, such a government is necessarily involved in an arbitrary exercise of power. Forcing people to do things for no reason fits the definition of despotism.
- Governments with aesthetic appeal are more technocratic than ones based on dry principles.
To make an aesthetic government work, you have to hire trained experts to judge whether your vision is being correctly implemented. A much lower level of expertise is sufficient for a system grounded in principles. You don’t have to be trained in a style of art. All you need is to spot a verbal contradiction, and everyone else will see it too. This is not usually the case when judging a style of art.
This is why, counterintuitive as it may seem, a government based on dry principles is a more popular government than one which attracts the masses by aesthetic means.
For the above reasons, a politics based on aesthetics is more prone to totalitarianism than one based on principles. Unless an artist is sure that a political movement trying to implement one specific aesthetic is compatible with their particular aesthetic, they should consider supporting a movement to implement reasonable principles instead.
Snapshots of the Labyrinth 