When we think about politics, we often focus on laws, institutions, or debates. But philosopher Crispin Sartwell, in his book Political Aesthetics, invites us to reconsider this narrow view. Politics, he argues, is inseparable from its sensory and visual dimension—the images, styles, symbols, and rituals that shape how power is experienced and understood.
Not all art is political, but all politics is aesthetic; at their heart political ideologies, systems, and constitutions are aesthetic systems, multimedia artistic environments. (Sartwell, p. 1)
Politics is not just about words or policies; it is deeply aesthetic. The ways governments present themselves, the design of public spaces, the clothing of officials, and the choreography of ceremonies are all part of the political fabric. These aesthetic elements don’t merely decorate power—they help constitute it.
This post explores some of Sartwell’s key insights into political aesthetics and why understanding these sensory dimensions is essential to grasping how power functions and how resistance takes shape.
Politics Beyond Words: The Sensory Foundations of Power
Sartwell emphasizes that political authority depends heavily on aesthetic forms to command respect and legitimacy. Architecture, for example, is not just functional but symbolic. The grand, classical facades of many government buildings evoke ancient ideals of democracy and stability, while more authoritarian regimes may use stark, monumental designs to project control and permanence.
Obviously aesthetics can be used as a kind of clothing or ornamentation for political positions; aesthetics is the arena in which political propaganda is constructed. (Sartwell, p. 49-50)
Beyond buildings, political rituals—such as inaugurations or national celebrations—are highly orchestrated events that create shared emotional experiences and reinforce collective identity. These spectacles make abstract political concepts tangible through movement, sound, and symbolism. Even the design of a flag or the tone of a national anthem can evoke strong affective responses, anchoring individuals to a broader political narrative.
The uniforms and regalia worn by officials also play a crucial role. They mark social hierarchies and create clear visual distinctions between rulers and citizens. Wearing such symbols is a performance of authority that commands recognition and respect. These garments are not just indicators of rank; they are tools of persuasion, laden with historical references and cultural expectations.
Sartwell’s perspective helps us see these aesthetic forms as foundational to politics. They are not mere accessories but central to how political power is made real, emotionally resonant, and publicly intelligible.
Style as Political Language: Identity, Solidarity, and Resistance
Another important theme in Sartwell’s work is the role of aesthetics in political resistance and identity formation. Political movements often adopt distinctive styles—through clothing, symbols, colors, and gestures—to express values and foster solidarity.
Yet political aesthetics is also employed in the resistance to ideology, or in the formulation and presentation of alternative ideologies; resistance movements, revolutions, temporary autonomous zones have their iconographies and type styles. (Sartwell, p. 50)
These aesthetic choices function like a language, communicating allegiance and vision both within the movement and to outside observers. For instance, certain colors or symbols become powerful markers of belonging and defiance, linking participants to broader struggles. Whether it’s the use of a clenched fist, a stylized graphic, or even graffiti, these visual tools carry dense political meaning.
Sartwell points out that these aesthetic dimensions of resistance are not merely expressive; they are strategic. Movements use style to create visibility, build collective morale, and distinguish themselves from dominant power structures. The effectiveness of protest often relies on how compelling and memorable its aesthetic presentation is. Think of the visual coherence of the Civil Rights Movement, the punk aesthetic of anti-establishment youth in the 1970s, or the bold design work behind modern climate justice campaigns.
The aesthetics of resistance are also dynamic and contested. Dominant powers may attempt to suppress or appropriate them, while movements continuously evolve their expressions to maintain meaning and momentum. The ongoing contest over visual style and cultural symbolism underscores how deeply politics and aesthetics intertwine.
Ambiguities and Risks: The Double Edge of Political Aesthetics
While aesthetics can empower political engagement and foster collective identity, they also carry risks. When politics becomes excessively theatrical or oriented toward spectacle, it can distract from substantive issues and reduce citizens to passive spectators.
According to the basic Situationist document, Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, the modern media spectacle is so powerful and so pervasive and so univocal as an expression of late capitalism that it has become our universe; there is no way out or around. (Sartwell, p. 102)
Sartwell encourages readers to be wary of how beauty, grandeur, or drama can be manipulated in the service of domination. History offers many examples of regimes using aesthetics to glorify power, manufacture consent, or mask injustice. Monumental architecture, elaborate ceremonies, and carefully crafted images can create emotional resonance while concealing violent or oppressive practices.
This dynamic presents a fundamental tension: the same aesthetic forms that can inspire solidarity and resistance can also be harnessed to reinforce hierarchy and stifle dissent. Sartwell does not argue that aesthetics should be removed from politics—indeed, he insists this is impossible. Rather, he urges us to be critically aware of how aesthetic power operates, and to resist the temptation to treat visual spectacle as a substitute for ethical reflection.
The modern media environment complicates this further. Social platforms thrive on visual impact, and political messages are increasingly shaped to be attention-grabbing, memeable, and emotionally charged. This encourages styles of politics that prioritize appearance and affect over deliberation. Sartwell’s analysis invites us to ask how political aesthetics might be reclaimed for deeper, more substantive engagement.
Toward a Democratic and Inclusive Political Aesthetics
One of the more hopeful aspects of Sartwell’s view is his call to recognize aesthetic experience as a democratic and participatory domain. Aesthetic life is not confined to elite cultural institutions. It happens in the streets, in neighborhoods, in gestures and dress, in the small design decisions that shape how people move through shared space.
This understanding opens space for questioning whose aesthetic preferences dominate our environments. Who decides what a city looks like? Whose voices shape public monuments, urban planning, or school design? Sartwell’s framework encourages a deeper interrogation of taste and power—and the ways aesthetic judgments reflect and reinforce broader social structures.
More inclusivity in political aesthetics means elevating styles and traditions historically excluded from mainstream political representation. It means acknowledging how race, class, gender, and other social factors shape not only who gets heard but who gets seen. The aesthetics of power are never neutral, and a more just politics requires making visible those who have been systematically erased.
A democratic political aesthetics affirms the creative and expressive agency of all people. It encourages communities to shape their own visual environments and public rituals, reclaiming space for imagination and pluralism. Sartwell’s work offers a philosophical foundation for this project, grounding it in an expanded understanding of aesthetic life as a site of meaning, struggle, and transformation.
Seeing Politics with New Eyes: The Power of Aesthetic Awareness
Sartwell’s political aesthetics helps us move beyond limited frameworks that treat politics as purely rational or institutional. It reveals that politics is also emotional, symbolic, and embodied—woven through the textures of everyday life. Aesthetic forms mediate how we understand justice, authority, community, and conflict.
This expanded view fosters a richer kind of political awareness. Citizens who attend to aesthetic dynamics are better equipped to understand how power is maintained and how it might be challenged. They are also more attuned to the ways beauty, design, and style can uplift or exclude, unify or divide.
Importantly, aesthetic awareness encourages critical reflection. When we ask why a courtroom looks solemn, or why a protest is staged a certain way, or how political candidates curate their visual persona, we begin to see politics not just as a matter of content but of form. And when we examine form, we open possibilities for reimagining it.
Conclusion: The Aesthetic Fabric of Politics
Crispin Sartwell’s Political Aesthetics offers a compelling invitation to rethink how politics is constituted and contested through sensory and symbolic forms. From government buildings and public rituals to protest art and viral memes, the aesthetics of power are all around us.
By paying attention to political aesthetics, we gain tools to engage more thoughtfully with the world. We become more alert to how power works beneath the surface, and more capable of imagining alternatives. Aesthetic forms are not superficial to politics; they are central to how politics is lived.
To see politics anew is to see its aesthetics—and in doing so, to discover new ways of participating in the ongoing project of collective life.