I am counted among the many who thank little baby Jesus that today art can be defined, not by strict rules of form, but by what type of message it is trying to send. We should all offer up thanks that, within reason, choices made by one artist are no more inherently valid than any other’s. That being said, no one has to necessarily like anything in particular either, and so I declare to you here today that generally speaking I can not stand “Political Art”.
Art is a broad subject encompassing everything from individual creativity, to local and regional art scenes, to the international market. Political discussion ranges just as far from individual freedoms to world wars. Italian scholar Mirella Bandini said, “There is no separation between art and politics; the two confront each other in revolutionary terms.” Of course art and politics can’t help bumping into each other as they are jostled together among all other societal forces in the great dice cup of human existence (OMG! I just used a metaphor). All aspects of life are interlaced with politics…especially art. I do not deny that in some way or another “all art is political”. Art’s avaunt guard is constantly sending out feelers, searching for and forging new pathways of thought, and indeed anything provocative cannot be completely free of the stink of politics.
For example, Vladimir Nabokov said that throughout the 1800s, the Russian Tsars, “remained aware that anything outstanding and original in the way of creative thought was a jarring note and a stride toward Revolution.”
But art can certainly be political without falling into the pigeon hole label of “Political Art.” Too often this is not the case as artists try to be political for the sake of being political producing so much of the snarky, trite, poopy faced sneers of the liberal not-so-elite. Victor Cassidy perhaps said it best in “Conservative Art?” for Chicago Art Magazine:
Usually it’s the weaklings who make political art — and most of it is photomontage that depends for its effect upon our recognition of the people being demonized. Since the political landscape changes very rapidly, such work can become obsolete overnight.
That’s just the thing about “Political Art”. It generally stinks and is relevant during the narrowest slices of time. Many who see value in art as a means to a political end offer up the political work of Diego Rivera, Kathe Kollwitz or others timeless greats as validation for every caricature of dear ol’ George W. Bush ever made. But are we provincial Texas artists, gathering together in hip, grungy, alternative galleries this July, going to compare ourselves to a few historical icons? Are this year’s “Corporations Aren’t People” images ever going to be appreciated for anything other than their illustrative cleverness? Are we going to fill all the galleries with framed editorial cartoons?
So then, is there any point to engage in such a thing? While avaunt guard art reflects revolutionary thought that flows into and through politics, giving form to new thoughts and changing ideals, does it really change minds? Too often relying upon trite allegories and subversive propaganda, it does not affect much change or rally anyone other than those already inclined to agree. Most of us have been to or been a part of “Political Art” shows that were conceived for, filled with and attended by people of a particular ilk. So what is accomplished with a show full of like-minded folks standing around congratulating each other for their cleverness?
I am with the artist Victor Burgin who said, “The work of ‘political artists’ usually harms no one, and I would defend their right to make it; what I cannot support is their self-serving assumption that it ‘somehow’ has a political effect in the real world.”
Ben Davis in “What Good Is Political Art in Times Like These?” for the online publication ARTINFO dismissed it as posturing and self-righteousness, saying:
The tradition of avant-garde political art always looks silly when stacked against the needs of live political movements.
There is no elegant fit between art and politics, no ideal meld of the two. What is needed for effective political activism…most often does not call for something that is particularly aesthetically refined, just as what ‘works’ best aesthetically in a gallery is not usually a slogan or a placard.
This brings me to what I might call and existential question of sorts. If all art is political, is all art “Political Art”? If it is, what good is the label? Why have a special month for it? Well, I believe it is important as one in any number of artificially induced ways to get people creating, giving them a point of departure in a vast universe of possibilities. Political Art Month also gets some people who may otherwise not think of it, into galleries. Everyone loves an “event”! Let’s just hope the art of “Political Art Month” has value outside its politics and does some good for area artists and the galleries who hang their work.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – End 🤗
