Assuming valuable art is still being made, given it can no longer voice modernity except in a pastiche and irrelevance, in what way can it be utopian: by which I just mean capable of being read as a criticism of the rest of life?

  • What constitutes 'critically important art'? Why might it cease being possible after 'modernity' has ended? What is your definition of modernity? Why would it be 'utopian' necessarily? Adding this info to your question might improve it. Commented Jan 19 at 8:29
  • those are difficultr questions @Futilitarian !
    – user71083
    Commented Jan 19 at 8:38
  • idk this isn't the place to argue that art or philosophy is necessarily utopian in scope or the relation with modern, as opposed to post-modern, philosophy and society @Futilitarian if you ask just one thing to make the question more answerable, what would it be?
    – user71083
    Commented Jan 19 at 12:33
  • I guess I would ask for the definition of terms, so that responses are informed by a context that matches your intent. Commented Jan 19 at 12:37
  • of 'utopian' or also 'art' 'voice' 'modernity' 'important' @Futilitarian ?
    – user71083
    Commented Jan 19 at 12:38

1 Answer 1


Art as social criticism continues to have impact and efficacy, I would argue. For example:

It's true that one cannot trace a single coherent philosophical message in contemporary art. But that speaks more to the incoherency of contemporary philosophy than to any deficiency in art.

  • I think people criticise things that are salient for them. We don't all live in the same circumstances, and everything can't be salient.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Feb 19 at 0:46

You must log in to answer this question.