Art is not politics.
Simply put, art gravitates toward showing rather than telling, which by its very nature is the reason why art is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Art in general is thought as a form of entertainment and this in itself differs from the motives of politics, which is to contemplate laws and to pass them for the welfare of the general public.
Frankly speaking, political matters are not as enjoyable as art, which is why I choose to abstain from getting involved with any of the serious business at all. But on the flipside, I really do enjoy fine art and its limitless expression.
Since it appears that art has no relation to politics, especially for those uninterested in neither of the two, why is it the case that so often the two coincide, creating political art in the form of cartoons, movies, paintings, and even poetry?
The answer essentially contradicts and limits what art is. Political cartoons attempt to draw attention to a certain issue by taking a position in the argument—we forget that art is intended to be viewed, interpreted and appreciated by all. This is exactly why the artist as a political voice is the most controversial of his roles, as compared to his roles as a social critic and a curator of culture.
People are wary of appreciating political art [even if it’s good], because they are afraid of the repercussions of their appraisal. Does liking a political piece indirectly equate to agreeing with the statement being made? Political art is a very touchy subject because it involves the artist, the public, and the government. Both the public and government are affected by what the artist chooses to portray in his art. For instance the stance of the artist may contradict with the individual’s beliefs and as a result the impassioned individuals take action against the art piece/gallery in the forms of protests and complaints.
An example of this is the photograph done by Andres Serrano titled Piss Christ. Thousands of people took offense to this photograph, notably United States senators Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms. Others stated that the piece violated laws on separation of church and state. However some people did enjoy his photograph. Lucy Lippard, an art critic, presented a constructive case in which she believed the photograph was mysterious and beautiful.
I agree with Lippard’s point of view that in the presence of art it is important to keep an open mind and to actually think about what you dislike about the piece. No one would have acted against Piss Christ, if Serrano did not mention that it was a crucifix submerged in his own urine. For the most part the piece looked like it was taken in sepia tone.
Another example of how people take offense towards artwork is in the movie Wall-E. The New York magazine said the film was a critique of the “free market” where a government-run corporation controls 100% of the economy. This would be an absurd assumption, considering the fact that this movie was intended for pre-teens and teenagers. This brings up a fine point—is it necessary for the artist to confine his artwork to satisfy the principles of the society in which he is raised? Then what is art? A broken winged bird that cannot fly.
The amount of contempt for the artist as a political voice is frightening and heartbreaking. If the public ever accepts one of the polarized political views, what is to become of art, or political art for that matter? Is all artwork that disagrees with the general consensus to be rejected and forgotten? What is art if it is no longer capable of [free] expression?
People forget that artists are attempting to abridge the gaps formed from our differences in color, race, education, language, and social status. They are fighting for those who are scared to voice their opinions. Art should bring us together, not apart.
