The Historical Structures of Control over Art
... and the Possibility of Liberation through Technology
The question of what art is has repeatedly arisen throughout human history as a fundamental inquiry. Musical and visual artistic activities, despite not directly contributing to biological survival in the way sleep or food do, have been practiced continuously in almost every culture. This suggests that art is not “unnecessary” for human existence, but rather has fulfilled indispensable roles at social and spiritual levels.
Viewed historically, art has functioned as a domain closely tied to religion and political power. Ancient temple architecture, religious painting, and ritual music served as apparatuses that made a community’s worldview visible and audible, while power projected its prestige and legitimacy sensorially through magnificent court music and monumental architecture. At this stage, the value of art lay not in the expression of individual interiority, but in its symbolic force that sustained the order and faith of the entire community. Art was a core component of “highly spiritual activities” embedded in religious ritual and structures of rule.
From the modern era onward, however, art came to be conceptualized as a realm autonomous from religion and royalty, and the idea of “art for art’s sake” spread. Artists distanced themselves from the commissions of churches and courts, and began to be portrayed as agents who pursue expressions grounded in their own sensibility and thought. At first glance this appears to be a gain in the freedom of art, a movement to liberate spirituality from religion and power, yet at the same time a modern framework emerged that separated art from social function and regarded it as something “superfluous.” Because art became independent from religious and political utility, it was subsequently reorganized within capitalist society as a “commodity.”
With the development of modern capitalism, music and visual art became objects of trade on the market, and the value of works came to be measured by their price and attractiveness as investment. In this situation, “spirituality” or the “pursuit of truth” in art is overshadowed by money as a prominent, interchangeable value. In the contemporary world, moreover, metrics on social media such as follower counts and “likes” function as criteria of value, and conformity to algorithms becomes the condition of visibility. These mechanisms are akin to a kind of “lottery” with platform companies as the house, and creators find it difficult to autonomously determine how their expressions will be evaluated.
Within this structure, a specific problem faced by artistic personnel becomes apparent. In the case of musicians, for example, they often can only acquire high levels of skill and expressive power by devoting enormous amounts of time to performance and practice, excluding sleep. This allocation of time tends to reduce opportunities, relative to others, for the learning and experience of general “sociality” and “common sense.” In the fields of visual and performing arts as well, devoting most of life to production, rehearsal, and performance often pushes understanding of labor law and social security, negotiating skills, and economic literacy—skills for safeguarding one’s life—to the back burner. As a result, artistic personnel possess high capabilities in expression, yet are frequently placed in a weak position within capitalist work environments and contractual relations, and the passion of “turning what one loves into a job” risks becoming fertile ground for exploitation.
Taking into account these historical and structural conditions, we can say that art has consistently secured its social significance through dependence on some sort of “Other.” In the past, religion and royalty; after the modern era, markets and record companies; and in the present, platform corporations and algorithms have functioned as such “Others.” Artists are imagined as agents of free individual expression, while the social recognition of their work and the foundations of their livelihood have always been entrusted to external structures. If we emphasize only “autonomy” without severing this relationship of dependence, artists risk remaining as figures who enact symbolic resistance under structurally controlling conditions.
In contrast, in the contemporary world, the widespread diffusion of digital technologies such as computers, the internet, and artificial intelligence, and their functioning as infrastructure, opens up new possibilities vis-à-vis this situation. These technologies are indeed developed and operated by corporations, and their profit structures remain within capitalist frameworks. At the same time, they are provided as “tools” to which individuals can gain access at relatively low cost and use according to their own purposes, and this is a decisive difference from traditional religious organizations or record companies. Digital tools and networks can be utilized as foundations for creation, dissemination, learning, and community formation without dependence on a specific patron, and this condition may well be unprecedented in the history of art.
Digital technologies, including generative AI, not only broaden entry points to expression, but also bring opportunities to reconsider definitions of authorship and creativity. As environments are established where people without specialized training can generate works of a certain level, the premise that “only artists are subjects of expression” is being destabilized. At the same time, professional artists can position AI as a collaborative partner and redefine their own style and authorship. What is crucial here is understanding these technologies not as mere automatic generation devices, but as tools capable of mediating one’s own thought and sensibility, and manipulating them in a consciously agentive way. By doing so, artists can stand again not merely as participants in the capitalist algorithmic game, but as agents who present alternative senses of time and value.
Seen from this perspective, the use of computers, the internet, and AI can be considered a core means in attempts to pursue “liberation from the control of art.” It does not mean leaving the formation of artistic value entirely in the hands of the unified rules of religion, power, or markets, but rather preparing conditions in which individuals and communities can attribute meaning and evaluate according to their own criteria. In educational settings, it is necessary not only to teach how to use these technologies, but also to teach structural understanding of them and critical reading, so that young artistic personnel can cultivate capacities to design their own lives and values autonomously, while balancing expressive power and sociality.
Relativizing structures of control over art and, by leveraging digital infrastructure, expanding freedom of expression and public value is a practice that has great significance in the long trajectory of human history. It is a process of transforming art from a tool of a privileged stratum into something that can be shared as a means for many people to question themselves and the world, and at the same time an attempt to update the entire spiritual history of humankind. Calls and practices oriented toward such “liberation from the control of art” thus contain the potential to fundamentally alter the position of art in future society.
Viewed historically, art has functioned as a domain closely tied to religion and political power. Ancient temple architecture, religious painting, and ritual music served as apparatuses that made a community’s worldview visible and audible, while power projected its prestige and legitimacy sensorially through magnificent court music and monumental architecture. At this stage, the value of art lay not in the expression of individual interiority, but in its symbolic force that sustained the order and faith of the entire community. Art was a core component of “highly spiritual activities” embedded in religious ritual and structures of rule.
From the modern era onward, however, art came to be conceptualized as a realm autonomous from religion and royalty, and the idea of “art for art’s sake” spread. Artists distanced themselves from the commissions of churches and courts, and began to be portrayed as agents who pursue expressions grounded in their own sensibility and thought. At first glance this appears to be a gain in the freedom of art, a movement to liberate spirituality from religion and power, yet at the same time a modern framework emerged that separated art from social function and regarded it as something “superfluous.” Because art became independent from religious and political utility, it was subsequently reorganized within capitalist society as a “commodity.”
With the development of modern capitalism, music and visual art became objects of trade on the market, and the value of works came to be measured by their price and attractiveness as investment. In this situation, “spirituality” or the “pursuit of truth” in art is overshadowed by money as a prominent, interchangeable value. In the contemporary world, moreover, metrics on social media such as follower counts and “likes” function as criteria of value, and conformity to algorithms becomes the condition of visibility. These mechanisms are akin to a kind of “lottery” with platform companies as the house, and creators find it difficult to autonomously determine how their expressions will be evaluated.
Within this structure, a specific problem faced by artistic personnel becomes apparent. In the case of musicians, for example, they often can only acquire high levels of skill and expressive power by devoting enormous amounts of time to performance and practice, excluding sleep. This allocation of time tends to reduce opportunities, relative to others, for the learning and experience of general “sociality” and “common sense.” In the fields of visual and performing arts as well, devoting most of life to production, rehearsal, and performance often pushes understanding of labor law and social security, negotiating skills, and economic literacy—skills for safeguarding one’s life—to the back burner. As a result, artistic personnel possess high capabilities in expression, yet are frequently placed in a weak position within capitalist work environments and contractual relations, and the passion of “turning what one loves into a job” risks becoming fertile ground for exploitation.
Taking into account these historical and structural conditions, we can say that art has consistently secured its social significance through dependence on some sort of “Other.” In the past, religion and royalty; after the modern era, markets and record companies; and in the present, platform corporations and algorithms have functioned as such “Others.” Artists are imagined as agents of free individual expression, while the social recognition of their work and the foundations of their livelihood have always been entrusted to external structures. If we emphasize only “autonomy” without severing this relationship of dependence, artists risk remaining as figures who enact symbolic resistance under structurally controlling conditions.
In contrast, in the contemporary world, the widespread diffusion of digital technologies such as computers, the internet, and artificial intelligence, and their functioning as infrastructure, opens up new possibilities vis-à-vis this situation. These technologies are indeed developed and operated by corporations, and their profit structures remain within capitalist frameworks. At the same time, they are provided as “tools” to which individuals can gain access at relatively low cost and use according to their own purposes, and this is a decisive difference from traditional religious organizations or record companies. Digital tools and networks can be utilized as foundations for creation, dissemination, learning, and community formation without dependence on a specific patron, and this condition may well be unprecedented in the history of art.
Digital technologies, including generative AI, not only broaden entry points to expression, but also bring opportunities to reconsider definitions of authorship and creativity. As environments are established where people without specialized training can generate works of a certain level, the premise that “only artists are subjects of expression” is being destabilized. At the same time, professional artists can position AI as a collaborative partner and redefine their own style and authorship. What is crucial here is understanding these technologies not as mere automatic generation devices, but as tools capable of mediating one’s own thought and sensibility, and manipulating them in a consciously agentive way. By doing so, artists can stand again not merely as participants in the capitalist algorithmic game, but as agents who present alternative senses of time and value.
Seen from this perspective, the use of computers, the internet, and AI can be considered a core means in attempts to pursue “liberation from the control of art.” It does not mean leaving the formation of artistic value entirely in the hands of the unified rules of religion, power, or markets, but rather preparing conditions in which individuals and communities can attribute meaning and evaluate according to their own criteria. In educational settings, it is necessary not only to teach how to use these technologies, but also to teach structural understanding of them and critical reading, so that young artistic personnel can cultivate capacities to design their own lives and values autonomously, while balancing expressive power and sociality.
Relativizing structures of control over art and, by leveraging digital infrastructure, expanding freedom of expression and public value is a practice that has great significance in the long trajectory of human history. It is a process of transforming art from a tool of a privileged stratum into something that can be shared as a means for many people to question themselves and the world, and at the same time an attempt to update the entire spiritual history of humankind. Calls and practices oriented toward such “liberation from the control of art” thus contain the potential to fundamentally alter the position of art in future society.