you may take a look at the history of modern art especially after ww2 in some metropolises like ny and the relation b/w galleries and politics.i,ve read some intreested thing but in persian!

Have you ever looked at Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West"? According to him, during the natural evolution of a High Culture [=~ a civilization-unit], certain individuals do have to assume power - and of course they have to use it responsibly. Unfortunately and inevitably, some of them are subsequently guilty of "incorrect behaviour", but at other times they are well guided and inspired by what might be called the "Spirit and requirements of the Era". It is a long book, not too easy to digest in a first reading. I tried to summarize some of its points in http://DLMcN.com/oswaldspengler.html ... That^ book has been translated (from German) into several languages, including English, French, and a few Slavonic ones. Faust is mentioned (in a few places) in Spengler's thesis.

• Est-ce que je peux t'écrire en francais ou en espagnol? Ce que tu poses comme question est un aspect de la pensée politique de Rousseau. Je te conseil l'article de Courtois, Economie politique du spectacle dans la Lettre à d'Alembert », Annales Jean-Jacques Rousseau, tome 46, Droz, 2005, p. 13-51. Bon Travail!

Are you looking into aesthetic political theory or do I misunderstand your question?

The difference between an aesthetics of politics and one of power might not be as clear as you mention it. In general I would reread Walter Benjamin, and the issue itself is covered by Michel Foucault. So much for theory, if you are looking for artistic representations of power and/or narrations of power, that would be something else. Maybe you will get more useful answers if you could clearify you question.

I may cause some confusions, co I will explain myself. At first to the relation of aesthetic and politic (art and politic). This problem is not of my main interest, because I am not trying to research how was the power transformed in the history of mankind and how does it, the current state of polity, reflects in the works of Fine Art or in the thoughts of philosophers. This approach should be just one of minor and mainly of additional help. What am I really interested in, is the power as such, and the attraction (I think is mainly aesthetic) that the power causes. More accurately I can say, that I think (just hypothetical) that not just the gaining of power is accompanied by aesthetical interest, but the worshiping of people or some other entity with power is to. What I am searching is the relation, or rather connection between power and aesthetic, what creates us desire for power. Of course this last, can be answered just by psychological approach, or by conclusion of genetics and cultural studies about adaptation of man, but it doesn’t explain the popularity of myths and stories about powerful people. The power itself must create some aesthetic attraction and recipients in the reception of power, things connected with power, or stories about gaining or losing power, must be some attracted. In the global I am trying to find some aesthetical aspects in reception of power, and of power as such. Any evolution of power would be very useful, but if there would be not some reflection, connection or analysis about aesthetical aspects of power, and aesthetical influence of power, I would be again on the beginning. This is the reason why I mention Faust (and all of his myths). This storyline is still alive and attracts people all around the world. All recipients are aesthetically interested in the story, in the fight between good and evil and so on, but besides all of this, they must be (or so I think) interested also in the power.

SO, do you mean, the attraction of power-- people are drawn to power, lured by it, attracted to it, admire desire it; rather than something  of beauty or art itself?

Perhaps I should explain why it seemed that the word "aesthetic" might be appropriate in my context. After reading Spengler's book, one has to admit that there is something ineffable in the process by which his High Cultures are born, develop, and fade away; (see "Decline ..." vol. I pp. 160, 428, and vol.II p. 435). And from time to time, certain outstanding individuals do fulfil indispensable roles in that saga; in other words, they are an integral and necessary component of the whole scenario.

Lots of work done on the politics of dress and power. Dressed to Rule by Mansel is a start. Jennifer Craik a political scientist has written extensively in this area - The Face of Fashion and Uniforms Exposed are two book she has written. My PhD Thesis was on military dress of the 18th century - very much the aesthetics of power

I also completed in my PhD On the power of dress for Australian working women, in terms of aesthetic markers of power. I used Foucault...also there has been a lot written on performance and power...Jefferey Alexander maybe?

Any of the plentiful research on Picasso´s cartoon critique of Franco leading up to the painting "Guernica" would give you many, many books and articles dealing with the aesthetic understanding of power. Incidentally, Picasso was the Director of the Prado Museum under the Second Spanish Republic, which fell when the dictator Franco acceded to power.  Franco kept Picasso Director of the Prado, although Picasso lived in exile and did nothing in that office.

Well, from Schiller artistic utopia to Jacques Ranciere and Pierre Bourdieu there is a lot of writting around the topic. Nicolas Bourriaud's  is one of the more recient approaches...

Although I am not sure if my suggestion will be useful to you you might like to have a look at "Practical Aesthetics: Events, Affects and Art after 9/11" by Prof. Jill Bennett, I.B.Tauris, London, 2012. Bennett is Professor and Director of the National Institute for Experimental Arts at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Her book "...explores artistic developments in relation to current events to argue that understanding aesthetics is as vital to social and political theory as it is to the arts".

Here is a paper in artistic research that I have written about how gender and power were problematized in an operatic context, through performance of repertoire and improvisation. This is written from the performer´s perspective, though. Have a nice weekend! 

good and rather broad question - not sure if this will help. i am thinking of the movement in social practice arts - Shannon Jackson, Grant Kester and earlier relational writings on art - Suzi Gablik, and feminist public art - Mierle Laderman Ukeles, Suzanne Lacy. Steve Baker -  postmodern animal. And there are multiple critiques of modernist art practices ranging from Griselda Pollack to James Elkins... enjoy the research and don't forget to browse the numerous art journals that may well have some great articles.

also agree that guernica is a lovely example - and many critics have written on this.

You could try:

"The Turn of Art: The Avant-Garde and Power" by Krzysztof Ziarek

New Literary History, Vol. 33, No. 1, Reconsiderations of Literary Theory, Literary History (Winter, 2002), pp. 89-107

It is not a scholar paper, but it is a film that you may find interesting. It's called "Vincere", by italian filmaker Marco Bellochio (2009) and it covers a period of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It is interreting because it shows the "aestethics of power" in the rise of Mussolini and uses itself some aestethic resources empoyed by fascism.

this is totally dedicated to this question: http://e-spania.revues.org/32

that could be of interest too:  http://e-spania.revues.org/324

A recent south american version of that, can found here

Against Typological Tyranny in Archaeology: A South American Perspective. C. Gnecco & C. Langebaek Eds. 2013

Pineda Camacho, Roberto. The labyrinth of identity. Symbols of transformation and power in pre-hispanic Colombia´s precious metalwork, 2005 [2000]

http://www.robertopinedacamacho.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pineda-2005-The-labyrinth-of-identity.pdf

Also

Rowlands, Michael.The materiality of sacred power. In: Rethinking materiality. The engagement of mind with the material world. Eds. E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew. Pp. 197-203. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2004

Excellent question.  I would think that you would want to look in the direction of the connection between imagination and power.  The problem is that in most examples of aesthetic attraction to power (perhaps especially cult of personality examples), we speak of the imagination as captured.  In other words, imagination is allowed to move in only one direction: towards the cult of personality.  As it does so, it becomes less and less about aesthetics and more and more about the power one is attracted to, whether political or religious.  So you may be able to focus on something like the importance of an initial aesthetic attraction (the extraordinary public speaker or the beautifully compelling narrative), but it will quickly shift into a politics of power or religious submission and away from the initial aesthetic attraction.  It will be very difficult to avoid either the politics of power or a religious renunciation of political power.

Two suggestions:

1) There is no reason that attraction must be aesthetic in some way.  Attraction can be for all sorts of reasons or even no reason at all.

2) I would view the films of and read studies of the famous Nazi filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl.  There are several.  And I would read studies of aesthetic attraction to the Buddhist concept of no-self and the Christian concept of the cross.  These are not identical concepts but they do involve something like religious renunciation of political power for the sake of power that involves a radical limiting of the self.  The latter may provide some contrast to the aesthetic attraction of political power in Riefenstahl's films.

I can recommend two contributions by Albrecht Koschorke which deal with the fictional aspects of power: Koschorke, Albrecht; Lüdemann, Susanne; Frank, Thomas; Matala de Mazza, Ethel: Der fiktive Staat. Konstruktionen des politischen Körpers in der Geschichte Europas, Frankfurt am Main 2007. Koschorke, Albrecht: Macht und Fiktion, in: Thomas Frank u.a. (Hg.): Des Kaisers neue Kleider. Über das Imaginäre politischer Herrschaft, Frankfurt am Main 2002, S. 73-85. 

Both publications examine the interrelations between political and social systems and orders of the imagination; since power is dependent on the recognition and acceptance of the individual, it is essential for power to be imagined as present and legitimate. Therefore the symbolic and imaginary dimensions of power can be analyzed in terms of fiction. Though both publications are in German, this may be helpful and inspiring.

The following three publications might address some aspects of your question about the relationship between aesthetics and power:

Cannadine, David & Simon Price (eds.). 1987. Rituals of royalty: Power and ceremonial in traditional societies. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Christie, Jessica Joyce & Patricia Joan Sarro (eds.). 2006. Palaces and power in the Americas: From Peru to the Northwest Coast. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas Press

Helms, Mary W. 1993. Craft and the kingly ideal: Art, trade, and power. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas Press (considers the political symbolism of trade & artisanal goods in non-industrial societies)

I red some of mention works. Especially the Spenglers Declain of the West is very interesting, although it works mostly with the “destiny” and history of Germanic folks. It cross my mind that this morphological analyses focus (not entirely) more on the development of Germany, than on the transformation of power. T. Hobbes says that there are natural (original) and institutional power. Either way, the power are always in the hands of somebody, who creates subjects from other people, or in the competence of some institutions. In most of the work there was always researched the forms, modifications, purposes and means of power in different period of time or all above of power as such. I didn´t encounter till now with some understanding of power as such (I know I repeat myself). What I mean is: we can and could understand power as some intangible, essential, abstract dimension, as some kind of constant placed in the subconscious of a man. In this cause the relation of power and aesthetic would be much wider as it is now.

If we focus on the relation of art and power, or art and politics, we ends up with the conclusions about representation (means, forms, purposes) of power, or with the substitution of power. I personally differ the relation “aesthetic – politics”, “aesthetic – power” and “art – politics”, “art – power”. In so many examples of the relation of art and power/politics, there are always conclusions how does the power/ politics influence the art (theme, form, freedom etc.) and vice versa. I try to understand “The power” (in its abstract and essential, maybe transcendental meaning) as some kind of determinant or guidance form of human preference, aesthetic interest or taste (If I am mistaken, please correct me, but I know, I had a long way to go). Almost all versions of the story of Faust are very helpful in the expressing of the place of power in everyday live and in aesthetic reception of everyday reality and art. But the main questions still are: Why are we so interested in the power? and How could we in aesthetic way interpret power as such?

I may present some conclusions that I already (not definitely) have reached in the question of aesthetic interest and aesthetic influence/impact of power (on the example of Faust). Of course these are still hypothesis:

1, the desire for and aesthetic interest in power lies in divine (something incomprehensible that amazed people and brings interest in supernatural, powerful and eternal);

2, attempts to reach immortality (immortality as characteristic of deity, and condition to be free, which comes again from the status of divinity);

3, the attraction of forbidden (Z. Freud very delicately, intuitively and exacts writes about taboo and the contradiction of fear and attraction in taboo);

4, daemons and pact with them (unnatural way, how to reach requested amount of power) → demonic creatures were always in the scope of humans, because their represents darkness and desire inside of every person. I could not ignore interest in misshapen creatures and monsters in every one historic period, and the role they played in achieve of power. Also U. Eco widely described the aesthetic interest in ugly and repellent creatures and ugliness in the relation of unnatural power;

5, Envy of powerful people (Spengler writes that reader do not pity great tragic powerful characters, but they “enjoy” In some way, their sufferings);

6, C. G. Jung and his notion of shadow (collective and personal shadow) → likewise the content with personal shadow could not vanish, because it is not entirely made of darkness, so could not be gone the interest in power. Especially doctor Faust and later also Mefistofeles represents the form of personal and collective shadow, the desire of power, and the danger to “fall from heaven” and maybe, this presence of danger makes it so interesting, amusing and attractive to humans.

Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Marcus Aurelius, Julius Caesar and the Prophet Mohamed are all discussed by Spengler in varying degrees.

I think you may be interested, in a more applied sense, by the works of . Bianchi Bandinelli for the Roman Imperial Art, and of Louis Marin about the French classical kings and their image.

Relations between Power and Architecture is the main research field of Agnieszka Zabłocka-Kos, art historian affiliated with the University of Wrocław. Below you will find links to her bibliograhy (part of it in German/English, also available online) and one chosen article in pdf. It deals with the urbanistic and architecture of Wrocław (Breslau) and Poznań (Posen) under the Prussian rule, e.g. as the manifestatnion of power.

http://www.historiasztuki.uni.wroc.pl/sklad/azk/publikacje.html#k1f

http://www.historiasztuki.uni.wroc.pl/sklad/azk/pdf/Preussen,%20Deutschland%20und%20Europa%201701-2001.pdf

You can read Foucault's work on Power. He has related the aesthetics of existence to power in The Use of Pleasure.

Ghertner, D. A. (2011). Rule by aesthetics: World-class city making in Delhi. Worlding cities: asian experiments and the art of being global, 279-306.

Ghertner, D. A. (2010). Calculating without numbers: aesthetic governmentality in Delhi's slums. Economy and Society, 39(2), 185-217.

This topic ( the aestethics of power) is all through Nietszche, and, recently, in Foucault and Badiou

there are many studies of how the Nazis used aesthetics to manipulate the masses.

You might look at Terry Eagleton's book THE IDEOLOGY OF THE AESTHETIC. Eagleton shows that ideology and power are intrinsic in aesthetic theory, and how aesthetics has functioned coercively.

    You might also scroll through the contents of the on-line, peer-reviewed, open access journal CONTEMPORARY AESTHETICS .  It publishes out-of-the-ordinary and cutting edge papers in aesthetics. 

I don't think anyone has mentioned Frederick the Great of Prussia. At one time he could be  considered the epitome of the Enlightenment ideal monarch. This gets topical for me as I am currently reading "Evening in the Palace of Reason, Bach Meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment" by James R. Gaines.

Frederick was a very effective monarch and aesthetics was just one of his tools and from what I remember was focused entirely on music of what we call the Galant period.

Karl

and yes I am running the Galant thread.

The most amazing work which deals with aesthetics of violence and fellowship of power is Male Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit