A key role of art in politics has been to create the cultural basis for a consensus that is the foundation for political stability. While art can be used to criticize a political situation, it can also serve to buttress a political order by forming and justifying a consensus. Such forms of art are often referred to as mythic, for instance in Herbert Marcuse’s Affirmative Character of Culture, in Walter Benjamin’s ideas on myth in “Critique of Violence” and auratic art in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” or in Carl Schmitt’s investigation of mythic art in Hamlet or Hecuba. The status of such forms of art and representation is controversial because they can be seen to be allied with dominant political structures. But such art also serves the important function of bringing a community together around a set of shared values and thus heading off conflicts that might lead to the exacerbation of political divides. The papers in this special session seek to understand the workings of an aesthetics of consensus from both theoretical and practical perspectives. In doing so, the session will contribute to our understanding of how aesthetic representations de-fuse conflict by establishing common understandings.

In his presentation, Matthew Cooper argues that Friedrich Schelling conceived of history as a tragic drama that compels continuous moral reorientation, requiring its actors to deliberate within evolving contexts of collective action. Yet, individual autonomy is not subordinated to this unfolding narrative; rather, Schelling’s tragic vision highlights the limits of human perspective, the unforeseen consequences of action, and the moral claims of others emerging beyond one’s immediate view. Rejecting Kant’s notion of the sublime as a triumph over nature, Schelling instead envisions a tragic sublime—one where human freedom remains entangled with nature and fate. Here, ethical action is not an assertion of autonomy but an engagement with the shifting grounds of action in a transforming environment. In this conception, art establishes a common moral basis for individual action.

David Pan’s paper looks at the way in which both Carl Einstein, in Georges Braque, and Hans-Georg Gadamer, in Truth and Method, theorize the ways in which art creates aesthetic constructions of conceptual totality that can become the basis of consensus. While there is something mythic in this function of art, the function of myth here is not to obscure or to mystify but to establish conceptual structures that make sense of the world for a specific community. Art's role is not simply affirmative but also constructive and, in this way, politically formative.

Jonas Weaver focuses on Wolfgang Koeppen’s 1951 novel Tauben im Gras, which highlights the dark irony of the re-establishment of democracy in West Germany: in the politically necessary rush to create a liberal consensus to suppress the remnants of National Socialism, the people most harmed by Nazi policies were also excluded, in part due to the lingering presence of certain fascist methods and attitudes. Koeppen’s work attempts to generate an adequate aesthetic representation of the unintentional consequences of the sociopolitical transition from fascism to democracy. Weaver’s paper shows how the drive toward consensus also contains specific costs.

Loren Goodman explores the literary-musical hybrid art form of the national anthem as a powerful instrument of governance capable of shaping public sentiment and shared national values. In particular, Goodman presents the results and implications of case studies on public performances of “The Star-Spangled Banner” gone awry. A product of Francis Scott Key’s lyrical apology “Defense of Fort M’Henry” and John Stafford Smith’s 1773 drinking song (itself a tribute to the 6^th century Greek erotic poet) “Anacreon in Heaven,” this anthem is well known for encapsulating American values such as bravery, freedom, chivalry, hard work, pride, and vigilance. What does it mean, then, when contemporary performers’ attempts to embody and amplify such values lead to their accidental, often comedic subversion? Reading closely, this paper argues such performances constitute comedic rituals of collective public self-criticism and celebration, questioning, reifying and reinforcing through satiric function shared values and sentiments embodied in the song.

Each paper presentation will be limited to 13 minutes to allow ample time for discussion. The panel includes a post-doctoral fellow, a contingent faculty member at a liberal arts college, an associate professor (at a South Korean university), and a professor. While three of the panelists are in German studies, one is in American literature.