You don't need to wait for Paul de Man for the idea of the wild man (functionality) to enter aesthetic theory (31:00), given Kant's discussion in the third critique of the Indian sachem, who can't appreciate fancy cooking other than for its functional value as food. In other words, he can't appreciate it in itself, but only for a purpose. In the introduction to the critique of political economy, Marx discusses the possibility of aesthetic appreciation of Greek sculpture independently of its ritual function in slaves societies. The point there is that the work does not only exist as appearance, in itself, but that even as appearance it exists for us (it is thoroughly social) and therefore gives us pleasure, or whatever else can be defined as interest-concept-purpose. Going further in this direction, we could also think of a Becher project as object-cause of desire, in the Lacanian sense. That wouldn't bring you immediately to a politics of art but it could contribute to a more developed theory that would allow for a critique of neoliberal aesthetics. The level of concept (as Kant sees it, and as developed in modern art by Duchamp in particular) enters the Bechers' work through the strategy of seriality, without which their work would simply recover nineteenth-century romantic views of anything deemed fleeting, which photography itself presupposes, but which repetition (pattern, design) works to postpone. In other words, the interest of the Bechers' photography relies on seriality, which fudges (for me) the argument presented here concerning the relevance of the distinction in the theories of action, which is resolved with the notion of intention. If the insight is that the function of the aesthetic is to efface functionality, and as seen in neoliberal aesthetics, which is related i.e. to purely economic speculation in LV Mies, then, unless I'm missing something, a homology is being proposed between idealist aesthetics and neoliberal economics (through this peculiar detour into action theory), which is up for debate and discussion among Marxist cultural critics.
You don't need to wait for Paul de Man for the idea of the wild man (functionality) to enter aesthetic theory (31:00), given Kant's discussion in the third critique of the Indian sachem, who can't appreciate fancy cooking other than for its functional value as food. In other words, he can't appreciate it in itself, but only for a purpose. In the introduction to the critique of political economy, Marx discusses the possibility of aesthetic appreciation of Greek sculpture independently of its ritual function in slaves societies. The point there is that the work does not only exist as appearance, in itself, but that even as appearance it exists for us (it is thoroughly social) and therefore gives us pleasure, or whatever else can be defined as interest-concept-purpose. Going further in this direction, we could also think of a Becher project as object-cause of desire, in the Lacanian sense. That wouldn't bring you immediately to a politics of art but it could contribute to a more developed theory that would allow for a critique of neoliberal aesthetics. The level of concept (as Kant sees it, and as developed in modern art by Duchamp in particular) enters the Bechers' work through the strategy of seriality, without which their work would simply recover nineteenth-century romantic views of anything deemed fleeting, which photography itself presupposes, but which repetition (pattern, design) works to postpone. In other words, the interest of the Bechers' photography relies on seriality, which fudges (for me) the argument presented here concerning the relevance of the distinction in the theories of action, which is resolved with the notion of intention. If the insight is that the function of the aesthetic is to efface functionality, and as seen in neoliberal aesthetics, which is related i.e. to purely economic speculation in LV Mies, then, unless I'm missing something, a homology is being proposed between idealist aesthetics and neoliberal economics (through this peculiar detour into action theory), which is up for debate and discussion among Marxist cultural critics.