Politicalism
Posted by ben on 12 Mar 2007 at 05:58 pm | Tagged as: essays, responses/reviews
I just saw a headline on the Glasstire RSS feed that reads: “Current event protest art is finally making a comeback.” I have to confess I have an instinctive revulsion to most political art, which I generally find manipulative and cynical. My favorite example from recent years is this Richard Serra print of the famous photograph of the hooded Abu Ghraib prisoner standing on a box. As a political issue, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the following revelations about torture were appalling to me, but I find this print to be a banal and unproductive form of political activity. Richard Serra may be a minor deity in the art world, but does he really think he can shift public opinion by reproducing an image that has been printed in magazines and newspapers all over the world? This Economist cover, for instance, was much more powerful for me, because it was backed up by actual political analysis. What we need in our politics is thoughtful critical discourse, not shrill activism. What we need in our art is depth of feeling, not emotional manipulation. Arthur Danto took up this issue in more depth with his essay Beauty and Morality. I feel about this Richard Serra print roughly the same as Danto felt about a Chris Burden piece called The Other Vietnam Memorial, which listed the names of the Vietnamese victims of the war: “It does not help the dead and it does not move the living, and in the end it seems merely a clever idea, almost a gimmick, a kind of moralizing toy. Everything about it as art is wrong, given its subject and its intentions. And because it fails as art, it fails morally, extenuated only by the presumed good intentions of the artist.” Danto may have changed his mind about the conclusion of this essay (”the time of day appropriate to action and change may not be appropriate either for philosophy or for art”), but my feeling is still that protest art is much more likely to cheapen the artistic process than to improve political or social conditions.
I dont believe that most political art is an intentional attempt at manipulation. I would say that it is simply an expression of how the artist feels about a given subject. Art as a vehicle of one’s emotion. An outlet. With all going on in the world today, it is hard for an artist not to set it aside from their work.
Many musical artists have had great success with the use of politically driven songs and the public responded postivily. Examples include Rage Against the Machine, Green Day and even John Mayer’s new single.
That we are talking about visual stimulation should not make the difference. Did any of the songs from the previously mentioned artist improve political or social conditions??? No. Did they cheapen the musical process? No.
So what is your point?
Because it is visual art it is somehow more sacred? Visual art follows different rules?
This kind of thinking is why visual art will never be consumed and enjoyed by the mainstream public.
Art is the sacred cow enjoyed by the few for the few.. who think they are better for it.
Correct me if I am wrong… please.
Love your site.
Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that there are many ways to express how you are feeling — musically, visually, etc — without attacking a specific ideology, movement, or political figure. I should have been clearer in the post, but what I am objecting to is activist art or protest art, not all art that deals with political issues. For instance, I’m a big fan of Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece, which is definitely political, but really raises questions more than pushing the viewer towards a stance. If people want to express their anger, that’s fine. But I think that when you place your catharsis on display, it often ends up being manipulative in one way or another. Maybe I’m being too idealistic, and perhaps it’s not all that bad to use art to raise awareness of a particular issue, or convince people of its importance. But I tend to think that art (and music) should help to engage people in a conversation, and I find it hard to believe that that’s what most of this activist art is trying to accomplish.
Your point about music is interesting, since there are actually some protest songs that I like. But there are a couple of things I would say about that. One is that there are lots of songs I like musically, but which I find lyrically weak. The second point is that music is, I think, an inherently more social form of art. Music was, until recently, always enjoyed in social situations, and most often created by groups of people. So it naturally lends itself to social activities, such as political activism. Its role in this context is not so much to make political arguments, but to give strength during trying times. I don’t think painting, for instance, serves so well in this capacity. That is not an elitist statement about art, but just, I hope, a recognition that we interact with different kinds of art in different ways.
As far as the elitism of visual art, it is true that the art world tends to be more elitist than the music world or the film world. Although you can find elitists everywhere. There are populist artists out there, but they tend to call themselves designers or potters. But I don’t think my argument rests on elitism — at least I hope it doesn’t.
Thanks again for your comment, and your kind words about the site.
Excellent. Fleshed out your point nicely. I was obviously confusing political art and activism (where by the intent of the artist overwhelms the piece itself.)
Keep on keeping on.
Glad that helped to clarify things!
[...] Posted by ben on 21 Mar 2007 at 05:17 pm | Tagged as: responses/reviews Bill Davenport writes on the show that sparked my rant about activist art. Lo and behold, this is one of those shows that tries to raise awareness without quite being able to articulate the problem, and ends up making everyone either feel victimized by some vague power structure or annoyed that they are being preached to by someone who doesn’t really understand what is going on. In the case of energy dependence, most of us are all too aware of what’s at stake, so there’s probably very little need to raise awareness of the problem. And the solution is so complex that no one has quite reached it yet, despite the scores of scientists, economists, and political theorists working on it. So what does he hope to achieve? [...]
Late as usual, but if someone ends up here as I have, here is my opinion/perspective.
I think the issue here is blatancy and/or timeliness. “Stop Bush” is a very specific and timely statement, which, to me, is its problem. My opinion is that art (visual, music, etc.) works best when it is somewhat transcendental. Bush is going to be out of office in a few years. Then there will inevitably (hopefully) be “Stop Obama/Clinton/Whoever” works of art. Work that strives to go beyond simple/catchy user-friendly political statements such as “Stop Bush,” “Go Vegan,” “Fuck the Police,” and whatnot are not necessarily bad ideas to propagate, but they lack the conversation that is necessary to enact social/political/economic change and their artistic merits suffer because of it. There are, of course, very amazing and blatantly political works of art (obvious examples are “Guernica,” “The Third of May,” etc.).
Anyway, as someone who tries to address “political” issues through my art, this is an interesting issue. Some stuff is better blatant, but works of art that are intended to be around longer than four years should have more backbone.
I’m glad Woody Guthrie sang, “You fascists bound to lose,” instead of “You Nazis bound to lose.” Etc.
[...] This response by Derek Allen Brown [...]
[...] Posted by ben on 28 Dec 2007 at 02:42 pm | Tagged as: responses/reviews A recent post by Edward Winkleman (via Conscientious) responding to an article in The Art Newspaper asks whether artists have a “responsibility to participate in the political debate” through their work. I dealt with this issue back in March, but it’s a complex topic that I’ve had a few more thoughts about since then. [...]
You just don’t get it. Then you write about it to show the world that you really don’t get it. That makes you a moron. I feel sorry for you.
John
Thanks for this thoughtful and erudite blog! Sometimes it’s hard to remember we’re in the 21st century the way some people are determined to dictate what choices other people get to make. Feels like the Middle Ages.