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.

An individual’s voice. What makes it so controversial? Why does the expression of  someone’s voice cause so many problems in our society? How come it is so hard for people to accept the beliefs of others without a problem? I think about these questions constantly and the solutions to these problems will be an ongoing task. For me, these questions apply to the artist’s role as a political activist because it is the voice that makes this role so controversial.

The answer to those questions in my opinion are the different beliefs people have. No matter where you go or how simple the question, it is always a challenge to get the same answer from people.  On most issues and topics, people can not have one uniform opinion.  There is always a slight difference or change from one opinion to the other. For example, for our class when we created the spectrum, no two people liked “Metal Children” or “Kissing Fidel” exactly the same. All of us had a slight difference to our opinion and no two were the same. This is the same thing for many issues in a society. We have so many different opinions about every single thing. From politics to something as simple as food, we have different preferences.  Especially when it comes to politics which is such a sensitive subject for many because it sparks so many issues and problems in our society.

As a nation, politics creates so much tension and debate. What caused the recession?, Is Obama doing what he can to help us through the recession?, and  Is Obama a good president at all?  are some of the many issues that we hear in the media. Personally, I think that politics goes back to the individual voice. It is the individual’s voice that causes all this tension over the field of politics.  People each have a different side on issues of politics with our own solution that they believe in. That is why when a debate comes along they argue that belief constantly because they believe in it. I mean I know when I have an opinion of my own I share it. This goes for others in terms of debating. We want our freedom of expression and our voice to be heard because it is our right.

This is what makes the artist’s political voice so controversial. As an artist, he or she does not just entertain but they express their opinion about a certain subject.  The artist often addresses political issues in his or her work. They take a risk of exposing their opinion to the public.  Usually many people who have an opinion do talk about it; however, it is rare that they publish it or post it for a wide audience to see. Artists’ take on this responsibility and take on political issues in writing, acting, music, filming, or drawing.  By expressing their voice to the public, people who have a different opinion judge the work differently. This becomes the center of controversy. Different opinions clash with one another because artists place their political voice on display. I have seen people talk about several pieces of art on display in a way that opposes the piece.  You can see controversy about any article or film right on the sidewalk  We all  see it  and is probably happening as we speak.

Michael Moore is a great example of the use of political voice in Farenheit 9/11.  It was a documentary filled with so much controversy. The reason is just like any other artist. We all have different voices and some did not agree with how Michael Moore portrayed the war and 9/11 event. Yet he took the risk and put his voice out there to create controversy among the public because once again we all have an opinion of our own. It makes you wonder when can we have some kind of issue that we will all agree on. Hopefully someday we can.

Politics should not enter the classroom…but is there a justification for its presence in art? Why is it that some people are so afraid to discuss politics in an open forum, but are not afraid to talk about Seinfeld or Harry Potter?

My answer to these questions is that many people have very strong political views. Yes, people could love Seinfeld or hate Seinfeld, and the same could be said about of Harry Potter; however, these pieces of art and the messages they send don’t affect our everyday lives. Politics does.

Nowadays, people are quick to associate themselves with either liberals or conservatives, and want to be part of a group of extremists. Although in reality many of them are probably moderates, it’s not “the cool thing to be.” Personally, I think it’s crazy. Regardless of your political views on abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, it must be recognized that there are shady areas – issues are not always black and white.

I believe the artist has a duty to expose these shady areas, since they are often difficult to explain in words. Take the issue of gay marriage for example. Whether or not you think that gay marriage should be legalized, you could still agree that a photograph showing the happiness experienced by a same sex couple on their wedding day would be a very strong argument for the legalization of gay marriage. On the same token, a video depicting the horrors experienced by a girl who became pregnant against her will, could convince lawmakers to allow abortion in their states.

Many people turn to art to escape their real world problems. When I go to a movie, I’m looking for a laugh or a movie that renews my hope of a happy every after. Although some people may have been amused by Fahrenheit 9/11, others would view it as an attack on the government and would have been frustrated at Bush’s alleged involvement in the terrorist attacks. The majority of Americans (those who haven’t taken Arts in New York City) tend to view art as simply entertaining and beautiful. They don’t understand that art could have a purpose, much less a political purpose.

Additionally, art is universal. In order to read the newspaper, one must be literate, and most people who read the newspaper are well educated. Although the political views of the readers may differ from those of the writers, they are educated enough to be able to pick out the writer’s biases and accept a difference in opinion. I am not undermining the complexity of art, nor the abilities needed to interpret it. On the flip side, I believe the reason for the controversy caused by political messages found in art is a result of the inability of viewers to understand the art on enough levels. An ordinary person walking the street may only notice the artist’s view on the issue, but he or she needs to be able to look to deeper into the art to understand the artist’s message about the world in order to fully appreciate it.

The artist’s political role in society is his most controversial role because people tend to forget the politics is important in everything we do. Political figures establish and enforce the laws governing society. Artists have a right and an obligation to expose the political problems of society. Sure people look to art as an escape, but I believe everything in life must be a learning experience. Not necessarily textbook learning, but rather learning about the world we live in through art.

Sex, religion, and politics. These are the three things people say you shouldn’t mention when first meeting someone. Have you ever wondered why that is? What can these three things possibly have in common?

Well, each of these is very personal. You can’t just walk up to a person and say ‘hey there buddy, how’s your sex life going?’ You just can’t. That’s really weird. The same thing can go for politics. It is a very personal thing and if you openly criticize politics you may be criticizing a person’s beliefs. Many people even find that an attack on their beliefs is attacks on themselves, and they will not take this so well.

For this reason, the role of an artist as a political voice is a very controversial role. Even though art always reveals the personal view of the artist, some are opposed to having an artist’s political views expressed in their artwork. This is because uninformed people will be easy to influence. When the artist portrays a view the audience dislikes, they will be upset because of the power artwork has. If it is a masterpiece it will be able to convince people to pick up the same view.

Imagine if the greatest masterpiece of all time had the message of “yay communism!!” This would have people rethinking their own political systems and views. Of course, this can go the other way around like with The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. He wrote a book to promote socialism yet people totally ignored the message. For some it is easy to separate the work of art from the artist’s message, and for others it is not. It is these people that make political art controversial.

The role of the artist as a political voice is also controversial because of who sponsors the art. If the government sponsors art then there is a chance that the artist looks towards pleasing his sponsor rather than pleasing the audience or truly expressing himself. In a way this will result in propaganda.

In the excerpt we read from “Theater” Mamet brings up noteworthy points about political art. One specific point I would like to mention is his idea about “meaningless spectacles.” These spectacles are works that arrive at a conclusion without first exploring how to get to that conclusion. Political art that does this will just overtly state that an idea is bad without giving reasons why. This type of political art is ineffective and considered controversial because the way it criticizes another view without stating reasons. It’s like when you are giving criticism on something, if you were to tell someone that the song they worked so hard to compose was just garbage, people would think you are mean and not ask you for criticism anymore. However if you were to explain the reasons why you think something is bad people will be more inclined to listen to your views. As with the artist as a political voice, they cannot simply state something, they must present facts and allow the audience to be the judge. This style is achieved by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, and it is brought him great success.

Also in Series 8, Sontag mentions something I found very interesting, that “photographs cannot create a moral position, but they can reinforce one—and can help build a nascent one.” This supports the assertion I made before, that because art is powerful it becomes controversial when the artist attempts to persuade the audience of a political view.

If the artist can express what they want, what’s the big deal about political art? Why can’t people separate the politics from the artwork, or must they treat the piece as a whole? System of a Down says it well in their song “Hypnotize”:

Mesmerize the simple minded

Propaganda leaves us blinded…

The “simple minded” or common people will be easily influenced by such things as propaganda. Perhaps people categorize political art with propaganda, which already has a negative connotation with it. So, what makes something political art and what makes something propaganda? Is there a difference? Is this where the controversy comes from? Perhaps…