Art for Change

Re: Art for Change




I agree with most of what you say, art has not helped to change the world, and as far as people working together I don't see that happening either.

JagLep wrote:
Changing the world for the better requires people working together as a coherent entity. Art has nothing to do with that.

I feel like I can offer an informative response to what political art is. There is the textbook version: campaign posters, propaganda (actually an oxymoron to some), Ronald Reagan's hair-do, etc...

But if you open up the definition to the fact that politics come down to general power dynamics, the representaions in art increase ad infintum. It doesn't have to be about elephants, jack asses, and swastikas, etc.

I think I see where you're going with the quote above but I don't think you've articulated your intentions clearly enough regarding the relationship between nature of art and the nature of "changing the world." There are too many examples in the history of art that are nothing but the result of working together as a coherent entity. For example, the guilds of the rennaissance--if they weren't coherent entities, what were they?

And today Matthew Barney, Sol LeWitt, Jeff Koons, and many many other contemporary artists works are the end result of a very coherent entity of creative production. The concept of the romantic, hermetic genius artist may still exist (Jackson Pollock, VG), but it's definitely not what art is all about.

If you are so sure that this is not what art is all about, you should argue your case on what it is (to you).

The W.O.W. A-Portable--a pretty controversial artwork, but none-the-less included in one of the oldest and most reputable conteporary art exhibitions of all time ... no one has even commented on this in this forum. I posted a link to it few days back. Not being a woman, my response to the work is of course going to be wholly different, but not indifferent, to a woman's perspective on the work. But if we can agree that "political art" has more to do with life than propaganda, then what about this work in relation to the politics of sexual autonomy, state law, and (more often than not) a white man in a black robe telling women what they can and can't do with their body? And what about discussing this in the context of contemporary art? HERE IT IS! A place where values and paradigms are Meant to be overthrown, or at least whole-heartedly challenged. It is a (conceptually, and sometimes aesthetically) beautiful place where politics are constantly in flux (no regard to the sole concept of how the media selectively represents this cultural phenomenon).

If you don't accept this unfolding of political art, that's fine too. Some think that art dilutes the ontological autonomy of non-art, if there really is such a thing. For example: I used to work with one the world's leading authority's on Americana photography by women, now deceased, the beloved late P. Palmquist. We were organizing an exhibition of ephemera, which included cartography among other things, photographs etc., in an art context. My museum studies Professor scoffed at such a preposterous idea. He was a purist. But me and Pete, like any other curator or artist, were operating on the intention that the prospect of exhibiting anything in a new context enlightens rather than neutralizes or taints the purity of art as most know it.

I look at political art with a very wide angle lens. But thanks to those that use a microscope, we can keep the philisophical relationship dynamic, and therefore, alive.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying so-called political art its existence. All I'm saying is art doesn't need this kind of adjective. Why give it names like religious art, feminine art, punk art, gay art, erotic art, political art…? Call me a purist if you will, but I think art is strong enough to stand by itself.

I have no problem with political subject matter. That's not to say that I always agree with what's presented to me, but that's another story. So long as it's art and not a travesty of it, I don't mind the political innuendo. Motherwell's Elegies to the Spanish Republic are great examples of political subject matter, but would they lose their strength when considered as art per se?

I didn't mean to say that the making of art can't be a social act. Sure enough, artists and their assistants have been, and still are, working together on all kinds of projects. But where have we seen art pull this kind of cooperation off outside its realm? What I meant was that art is incapable of mobilizing people to work together for a better world - the world at large. The many cultural differences between nations render it virtually impossible.

Nature presents us with a couple of dualisms: male/female, dark/light, night/day etc. People have invented dualisms such as good/bad and right/wrong. If somebody considers something to be good, and the person next to them considers it bad because they think bad is good, how are the two of them going to get along? Would either one pull a 180? Maybe the solution might be as simple as forgetting about good or bad. Maybe people should just accept life for what it is, neither good nor bad. I believe that's the difference art is trying to make. But it does not take place in the same world where politics rules.

We may still not agree on the term, but other than that our views are not so different. You don't believe there is such a thing as non-art?

this one woke some people up.
and boomer great link it's one of the best webpages on the entire web!!!!
do you know of one like it for paintings?

http://www.newseum.org/pulitzer/

and Jagel what are you talking about Art is a universal language when people of different nationalities cant communicate through words then the easiest way is to communicate through pictures. Art wakes people up and grabs attention to issues that some may not be aware of listening to the news or reading a long newspaper article. Art can get a point across in 2 seconds it can combine an entire idea or time into one image that burns a memory or thought into your brain. Therefore it is not virtually impossible and is entirely possible to mobilize everyone to work together.

The worlds view of war completely shifted once photo journalists were allowed to travel with the soldiers and document the battlegrounds.

Live Aid is music and that helps change the world, music is art.

I'm talking amoral.

Art for Change
JagLep: I'm not denying so-called political art its existence. All I'm saying is art doesn't need this kind of adjective. Why give it names like religious art, feminine art, punk art, gay art, erotic art, political art…? Call me a purist if you will, but I think art is strong enough to stand by itself.

art liker :I think adjectives are useful to specify things. Thanks god all the books in the library aren't just called "Art Book(s)." How would we know how to find work done in medieval France compared to work in postcolonial Latin America??? Articulate language with the use of adjectives, especially when it comes to art is, I think, strengthened and much more useful in communication with words that associate it to anything other than its intrinsic ontology, or autonomous existence. Although there are plenty of things written that read like "art art art, art art art art art..." I do agree that we agree on some things, and not on others.

JagLep: I have no problem with political subject matter. That's not to say that I always agree with what's presented to me, but that's another story. So long as it's art and not a travesty of it, I don't mind the political innuendo. Motherwell's Elegies to the Spanish Republic are great examples of political subject matter, but would they lose their strength when considered as art per se?

art liker: An artwork that is a travesty of art in the name of politics... hrm. Read Art as Politics in the Third Reich by Jonathan Petrepolous. http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/REVIEWS/Petropou.HTM
I remember being very interested in Motherwell until I explored him in an Art History class, and his work was virtually nullified by my professor. That's another story too. But the bottom line is, his work is art, AND its discursive context is political.

JagLep: I didn't mean to say that the making of art can't be a social act. Sure enough, artists and their assistants have been, and still are, working together on all kinds of projects. But where have we seen art pull this kind of cooperation off outside its realm?

art liker: Still no response on WoW's "A-Portable" as an answer to the topic question. Am I just being stupid by offering this as an example???

JagLep: What I meant was that art is incapable of mobilizing people to work together for a better world - the world at large. The many cultural differences between nations render it virtually impossible.

art liker: OH NOOOOO! Biennial curators today-- IT'S THEIR VERY JOB (among other things) TO PROVIDE THE CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC BRIDGE THAT IS OTHERWISE A GAP AMONG NATIONS. Biennial examples: Venice, Havana, Dakar, Sao Paulo, Documenta, Cairo, Istanbul, Johannesburg. These exhibitions are "in the business" of doing exactly what you suggest cannot be done with art. Read Michael Brenson's "The Curator's Moment"

://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_4_57/ai_53747204/pg_7


JagLep: Nature presents us with a couple of dualisms: male/female, dark/light, night/day etc. People have invented dualisms such as good/bad and right/wrong. If somebody considers something to be good, and the person next to them considers it bad because they think bad is good, how are the two of them going to get along? Would either one pull a 180? Maybe the solution might be as simple as forgetting about good or bad. Maybe people should just accept life for what it is, neither good nor bad. I believe that's the difference art is trying to make. But it does not take place in the same world where politics rules.

art liker: I completely disagree with you on this. If contemporary art did not have various positions toward values on life and politics (in the braod context), there would not be a platform for it as viable form cultural expression. I agree, most (contemporary) art isn't expressed in simple terms of good/bad, but there are definitely opposing values expressed within the artistic field.

JagLep: We may still not agree on the term, but other than that our views are not so different. You don't believe there is such a thing as non-art?[/quote]

art liker: of course I think there is such a thing as non-art. Would the concept of art exist if it had nothing to compare itself to? Probably, but my answer still stands.

Re: Art for Change


Let's consider art versus non-art. How can we tell the difference? What if they look exactly the same? Take the Brillo Box, for example. In the museum, it's art; in the supermarket, it's non-art. Did its quiddity change, or could it be that the change of environment has affected the way we look at it? Anyway, it just goes to show that art allows anything to serve its purpose. And "anything" means anything, even if it's political. But the Brillo Box, of course, didn't become art on account of it being a box. And it's still non-art in the supermarket. So, as for anything political… Metaphorically speaking, politics is more likely to take place in the supermarket than in the museum. Please, bear with me on this one. If artists want to do politics under the pretext that it's art, what am I supposed to call them? Political artists, or artistic politicians? Jeez, even a work of art can become non-art. How's that for a paradox!

I'm not so much against "political art" as against politics dominating art in every which way. Even though anything political may be used for the sake of art, it doesn't work the other way around. The purpose of art is NOT to get a political message across, or to enhance people's political awareness. Unlike politics, art is strictly for the benefit of the individual. It's like "setting out on an inner voyage, seizing your prize, and then realizing that by its very nature you can't give it to anyone else." Art doesn't tell you what to do, or how to think. It's YOU that does that. YOU decide. YOU are boss. That's why art is incapable of mobilizing people to work together for whatever cause outside its realm. It leaves that up to Samaritans or political instigators, depending on the cause. Politics works your mind. And if you're not careful, it will mess it up. You may think your political view is your own but you have most likely adopted it. Once politics gets the better of you, you're lost. Art, on the other hand, sets your mind free. It doesn't concern itself with politics. Why? Because it doesn't have any sense of morality. Anything goes. There's no right or wrong, no good or bad. Art is absolute freedom. You wouldn't think of putting that label on politics, would you?

Art and politics just don't mix. Politics wants to be taken literally. Have you ever read a poem and taken it literally? Art wants you to go beyond the thing that represents it. Have you ever wondered if we people see things the same? And I mean that very literally. For example, would everybody see any one color as the same color? Suppose everybody sees it differently. Only you wouldn't know it because you can't see what each individual person sees. You couldn't begin to imagine that an innumerous amount of colors might exist outside the spectrum that you're familiar with. Well, that's what art is for. It makes it possible for you to imagine just that, not hindered by politics, morality and what have you. Art supersedes all that. So, what I'm trying to make clear here is that "political art" is non-art when its political intent rules the roost. But by the same token it's art, and then it should be considered as such in all its integrity. The consequence then, of course, would be that it loses its "politicalness" (if that's a word).

viewpoint
Miwon Kwon quotes Daniel Buren in her essay "One Place After Another: Notes on Site Specificity" in Theory in Contemporary Art Since 1985 (Malden, Blackwell Publishing, 2005) p. 34. Although 35 years old, I think the statement still holds validity for the theory and practice of art today.

Daniel Buren, 1970: "Art, what ever it may be, is exclusively political. What is called for is the analysis of formal and cultural limits (and not one or the other) within which art exists and struggles. These limits are many and of different intensities. Although the prevailing ideology and the associated artists try in every way to camouflage them, and although it is too early--to blow them up, the time has has come to unveil them.

Political "art,"----BLCH! More zyklon-B for the soul. The whole modern world is infested with soul-killing fumes.

If it's political "art" we're talking about, it's non-art. So, who cares if it's political?

If it's "political" art we're talking about, it's art. So, how can that be political?