Anniversaries are appropriate times for reflection. On this, the 50th anniversary of the American Society for Aesthetics, I want to explore a complicated and confusing situation currently facing Anglo-American aesthetics. Works of art were once esteemed as objects of beauty. I In the past several years, however, artists have been accused of encouraging teenage suicide, urban rage, violence against women, and poisoning American culture. Museum directors have been indicted on obscenity charges, and artists and organizations receiving federal grants have been required to sign pledges that they will not promote, disseminate, or produce materials that may be considered obscene. Today in America, as in other times and places, artists face demands for their art to conform to religious and moral criteria. These demands are not new, but they challenge the view that artistic expression falls under the protection of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.2 Also in the past several years, aestheticians have had to face a theoretical assault on the division between art and politics. That division is sacrosanct to the formalist aesthetics that has largely dominated the ASA since its founding. Now, the idea of aesthetic so dear to professional aestheticians, has itself come under attack. We can begin to bring some order to these chaotic and disturbing events if we cast them in terms of two debates. The first is taking place in the real of politics and art, outside professional aesthetics. It centers on the role the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) plays in providing federally financed support for the arts. The second debate is taking place within the profession of aesthetics. It centers on a specifically philosophical issue, namely, the adequacy-even feasibility-of an aesthetics built around the idea of art's autonomy. The two debates might at first appear to be completely unconnected. One takes place in the world of politics outside the academy, the other within it; moreover, whereas the NEA debate appears to be concerned with wholly practical matters such as the allocation of tax dollars and the role of government in supporting the arts, the autonomy debate is primarily philosophical and theoretical in character. But in fact, the two debates are connected. Both are concerned with the issues of art, politics, and autonomy. And both present us with a choice between the same unattractive alternatives: either we embrace the political character of art and risk subjecting art and artists to political interference, or we protect art and its makers from political interference by insisting upon their autonomy, but at the cost of denying the political character of art and its broader connection with life. If we are ever to get beyond these stale alternativesboth of which require the sacrifice of something essential to the understanding of art-we must look closely at what is meant by the autonomy of art. 3 Suggesting that we reconsider the autonomy of art may make it sound as if I plan to take the standard liberal line against the politicization of the artworld. I don't. I want to argue, on the contrary, that political art-the work of Hans Haacke, Barbara Kruger, Judy Chicago, Faith Ringgold, Vito Acconci, Scott Tyler, David Hammonds, and others-is important, both for political reasons and for artistic ones. But, whether or not one agrees with this judgment, political art is at the center of what is happening in contemporary art. Thus, I will demonstrate, it is increasingly important to understand the challenge that polit-