How does one judge political art?

Good questions but how about giving us an example to discuss?

Perhaps 'political' is just one way of interpreting a work of art.

by political art, I mean art whose intent is to discuss soci-political issues. For example, Kruger, or goya (historically). I've heard a number of people say they paint pictures of child abuse becuase they want people to be aware of the abuse, or say someone is making a political statement - about Iraq or somthing like that. Political art is some sort of socio-political commentary. Other kinds of art being those that are exploring some sort of visual strategy.
Another example would be one brought up in a different thread: Byron Kim's "skin."

Political art is very popular in the art world right now, and has been since the 60's.

I think it has always been there, sometimes open, sometimes quiet and subversive.

Artists and printers were so often in the rebel group!

It needs to be judged first for its qualities as art and secondly as a political statement.

The Nazis visited Picasso's studio in Paris in the war and he had recently finished Guernica, about the atrocities commited by the Nazis in the village of Guernica - they looked at it and said 'did you do that?' -

'No' he said 'YOU did'.


Some advertising is so powerful that it transcends the medium and becomes art - David Bailey did some brilliant work for Lynx the anti fur/anti blood sport charity.

One was a picture of a white fox dying in a leg trap in bloodstained snow with Poor Bitch written under and under that a glamourous woman in a coat made of its fur with Rich Bitch under it. Simple and telling.

The other was a TV ad - a glamorous model sashays down the catwalk at a fashion show trailing a fur coat - which leaves a stream of blood behind as she walks - as she reaches the end and twirls round the blood sprays the faces of the audience who recoil in horror ...

Yes, politics is an undercurrent in much art, even the time perio's influence on an artist would promote some sort of political undercurrent. By political art, I mean deliberately political. Art created to make a statement about a social or political issue.

So, you think aesthetics should be one consideration, because the political statement is taking the form of art?

also, how do political artists judge their own success?

I meant subversively circulated art/pamphlets whatever rather than just an undercurrent of subversiveness in mainstream art - although that of course has also always been there and not always realised by the ruling powers at all

Yes i do think aesthetics is an important consideration if they are naming it as art.

Judging success?

does it alter peoples perception? David Baileys ads and video did - and furs were either not sold by many chains of shops, or were hidden in back rooms like dirty books! - sadly Lynx went bankrupt and so with no voice of conscience, furs are returning.

Political art is not something i have made a study of but anyone looking at Kathe Kollowitz work cannot help but be moved - if people are made to think then maybe an artist can change some small part of the world.[/color]

I guess this thread would get more interesting if I found some political art and then we talked about it. Will try to get to that. Meanwhile, if anyone finds discussable links, you know what to do*.


*... flush the toilet three times, make some oyster stew, and call your mother.

Oscar Wilde said nothing succeeds like success....and here we are still discussing
Goya's "The 3rd of May" or Picasso's "Guernica" ... ...How do you judge political art....perhaps by the number of people it disturbs.

excellent point, shepaints,

So, one criteria for successful political art would be the number of people it reaches/ lasting influence. Anyone agree/diagree? I'd like to make a list of qualities by which to judge and then introduce some modern political work to judge.

agree

also how much does it affect the opinion of the people of the day?

does it have any lasting effect on peoples attitudes?

Guernica is admired but atrocities continue ..

Goya is admird but political massacres continue ....

Kollowitz is admired - there are still refugees ...

what politician was it who said something about those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat its mistakes? anyway it applies here.

Agreed. So context is included.

Oh, the history buffs will still repeat their mistakes, they'll just see it coming .

truth
I recall when the abstract expressionists and other "art for art's sake" painters were criticized for their apolitcal stance. It was argued that by painting apolitical works they were defacto establishmentarians. Now it is true that work that focuses ONLY on purely artistic-aesthetic goals does not make any contribution to political progress, but it is also the case that a painter is not likely to affect the political scene by means of his paintings. Some of my early drawings were expressions of my political values (an influence from Goya, Kollwitz and Daumier). But I had no illusions that they could ever affect political attitudes. Instead I compartmentalize my art and my political activities. There is no reason why an artist should not have an aethestically-oriented life of art making AND a politically-oriented life "on the streets," as it were. S/he'll be more effective in both spheres that way. I admit that it may feel very satisfying to EXPRESS one's political outrage (as did Goya, Picasso, Daumier, and Kollwitz), and that's a very good justification for painting political art. But I do not feel--as Shepaints has indicated--that they are politically effective.

I like the artists you mentioned (especially Goya) and I understand their rage. I also think they may have influenced politics in their time - because people didn't get information then the way they do now (no radios or televisions and not many news photographs.)

I see nothing wrong with political art, but over and over again I see people using it as the de facto for meaning in a work. They act as though their artwork cannot be judged, that it is unquestionably and immediately deep by the act of being political. I think that we can evaluate political art on a number of levels - and that we should.

I see so many examples of artwork about gender politics, bodily functions, highly controversial diseases... And most of it doesn't touch me. They seem more interested in citing an issue than making good work about it.

truth
Portal Star, I agree completely. Art consists of content and form. To me, form is most important, but content can be important, particularly when it is a poetical statement about the world and experience. But, you're right on when you say that an art work does not have impunity to ignore aesthetic form just because of the importance of its (political) content.

I carved on soap stone: the topic *sexual abuse to childs* because this is for me an importand way to show, whats happend in so many families world wide ,day and night.
and I carved 3 faces in one stone.
1. 'the victim' the child with open mouth and you can suspect at its cheeks impression....
2. 'the comitter', with a big friendly smile, and
3. 'the silence',...NOBODY is talking about .
hmm, maybe its political art. and maybe a lot of people dont like this kind of artworks. its not prittily and easy to look at.
but for me it was a need/ penetrated to work for this topic.
what do you think about this sculpture?
Regards

This is a sticky multi-leveled concept. I studied with a guy who believed that the positon as artist in itself is political. I see it this way in this day and age in America.
As far as the original question goes I believe that the postion of the Artist in question needs to be clear for the work to be effective; is the person acting politically and using art or is the person acting artistically and using politics. If there is some sort of clear balence then a political view can be intelligently presented if the artistic standards are acceptional. My examples: Washington Crossing The Delaware" great art and I won't venture into the politics here, it appears to be historic patriotism although I see the possibility of othe rinterpretations. Warhol's "Teddy Roosevelt" soul-less art and transparent politics. Leon Gollub's work in the mid 80's; brilliant art in a modern conventional sense and clear galvanizing politics of the anti-war/anti-violence sort; truthful. Barbara Kruger; I like her politics but her artistic format is not admirable to me. Damien Herst; bad art; bad politics. Jimi Hendrix playing the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock in 1969, to me is one of the greatest artistic//political expressions of humanity as far as breaking convention, mastery of a new medium, expression on a universal level and affecting so many people. Jasper Johns American Flags I admire greatly, especially the "white on white" ones as this lends them selves towards a freer interpretation and makes the "art-end" of the topic work independant of the narrative end.
Iguess I said enough here.

It is difficult to judge art without seeing it. Do you have pictures?
I have seen this subject slaughtered and seen it done well. You should be aware that it is not uniqe as a topic in and of itself - lots of artists do artwork about child abuse. In political art, I think you need to ask yourself whether your method is accomplishing something you want it to accomplish. Were your intentions to stop child abuse? To make others aware that you were abused? To get them to donate to charity? Was the venue you chose public (like barbara kruger) or private? What was the general response to the show?

truth
And we mustn't forget the most political of political painters, the muralists of post-revolutionary Mexico: Siquieros, Rivera and Orozco (among others). Their work was generally wonderful, aesthetically speaking. I studied one year in Mexico City--as I've said somewhere else--at the Academy of San Carlos. Rivera was the director there years before I arrived. I was a minor object of abuse because I adhered to the artistic values of American Abstract Expressionism (this was in 1955, the heyday of AEism) and my teachers were Social Realists, generally convinced of the political function of painting (particularly public murals).

Political art can be judged against the master: Daumier.

heliopo wrote:
I carved on soap stone: the topic *sexual abuse to childs* because this is for me an importand way to show, whats happend in so many families world wide ,day and night.
and I carved 3 faces in one stone.
1. 'the victim' the child with open mouth and you can suspect at its cheeks impression....
2. 'the comitter', with a big friendly smile, and
3. 'the silence',...NOBODY is talking about .
hmm, maybe its political art. and maybe a lot of people dont like this kind of artworks. its not prittily and easy to look at.
but for me it was a need/ penetrated to work for this topic.
what do you think about this sculpture?
Regards
Portal Star wrote:

It is difficult to judge art without seeing it. Do you have pictures?
I have seen this subject slaughtered and seen it done well. You should be aware that it is not uniqe as a topic in and of itself - lots of artists do artwork about child abuse. In political art, I think you need to ask yourself whether your method is accomplishing something you want it to accomplish. Were your intentions to stop child abuse? To make others aware that you were abused? To get them to donate to charity? Was the venue you chose public (like barbara kruger) or private? What was the general response to the show?
hi Portal Star, thanks for your interesting ...

I carved with smal ironfiles on soap the faces about sexual abuse to children, because it was my past.
1. I want to show, who works together.
1. the victim,
2. the committer,
and very importand
the 3. face, the silence.
Ido not want judge somebody. I only want to show this work , because its importand for me .because "the silence" about this topic is worldwide a big problem for the victims. I want to show the big smile of the committer, because mostly this guy is a good friend of the familie.
have my sculpture on a web page.( and some of my paintings )
if you register there for free, you can view my works in a bigger size.
EDIT (Moderator): Link Removed
regards ( sorry for my poor english)