Art and politics

Art is a powerful but inherently limited a political tool. It can deliver a message about a moral issue and perhaps make its audience feel guilty enough to want to make a difference. It can’t, however actually directly fix a problem. If there are real problems to address, why waste time making art? Aren’t there more effective ways to get a message across? Banksy’s Oil Spill Dolphin Ride can’t clean up a drop of the oil that was spilt in the Gulf of Mexico recently. It can, however, force its viewer to pay attention to unpleasant consequences of our petroleum “addiction” that can otherwise be easily ignored.

It could be suggested that all art is political. The difference is that some art reinforces society’s current order while some challenges the status quo. Throughout history, portraits were painted of (and almost exclusively commissioned by) the rich and powerful. Art that contradicted the desired message of the ruling class (and/or the church) would probably not be seen. The wealthy of our current age are similarly unlikely to purchase or fund artwork that offends their sensibilities or opposes their worldview in any significant manner. Rich art patrons who support “controversial” work are merely attempting to prove how “hip” and intellectual they are and to excuse and separate themselves from the crimes of their class. Even the seemingly completely apolitical abstract expressionist paintings of artists such as Jackson Pollock were promoted during the cold war by the CIA as examples of the individual freedom citizens had in the United States, supposedly a characteristic exclusive to our capitalist system.

Haacke’s MOMA Poll, while less direct than his later, more explicitly politically motivated work (such as Metromobiltan, the Shapolsky Manhattan Real Estate piece, etc.) confronts museum patrons with Governor (and MOMA trustee) Rockefeller’s implicit support of the Viet Nam War. The piece, however, seems less about this issue and more about effect his audience had upon the museum space. The audience is encouraged to participate in the artwork, directly manipulating the “sculpture” by depositing papers into one of the two transparent cubes. Despite the apparently overt political nature of the poll’s question, the message of the piece is somewhat muddled and it ends up closer his Condensation Cube and Grass Grows, in which the sculptures are altered by exterior forces.

The Art Workers Coalition’s Poster is an example of artwork expressing far more than mere words ever could. It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in the relative safety and luxury of the United States to ignore the harsh realities of the world. Art such as this can remind us of the true costs of our way of life. Juxtaposed over the photograph of the dead My Lai civilians is the seemingly detached testimony of a soldier / witness in the stark, dehumanizing type of bureaucratic government documents. We are forced to face the sheer horror of war when we are confronted by this incredibly disturbing image, the direct result of our nation’s military policy.

Even with all its limitations and “impotence” art can communicate ideas in ways that words cannot. While it may be easy to dismiss as an ineffective manner to change things, artistic “gimmicks” can often grab people’s attention far more effectively than social work or traditional protests. While a painting can’t feed the hungry or eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, it can change minds, which may, in the end be more significant than any single direct political action.