Module 6: We are witness to a number of exhibitions and art works that involve commentary or reactions to socio-political issues. Art as activism has always been a highly contested arena, with many varied perspectives on the multiple issues involved. Think about an area in which art and politics had often come into contact, and state the various positions and reasoning for such positions. (6 Modules)
Taming
A Rebel Culture
Political
Art?
It
is an easy enough position to take when an artist, critic, curator or an
academic claims that all art is political. While the position may seem
inquisitive and the semantics involved may seemingly offer an alternative to
widely held views that delineate art and politics, it is a position that is
easy enough to argue for. A closer look at how this position is arrived upon
offers reasons why I consider this position slightly. The social relations that
govern all human production be it art or beyond it, is considered political as
social relations ultimately have political dimensions. The relationship between
an artist and the society that he is a part of, the sort of economic dynamics
within which he operates to ply his craft, and the very many artists who see
themselves above and beyond petty preoccupations such as politics and thereby
take a very political stand-it is all political (if you wish to contextualize
it as such). I think no one capable of logical reasoning is going to dispute a
statement such as “all artworks are political owing to how they offer
perspectives on social relations”. By this reasoning, naturally everything is
political. It is the sort of uninspired position that hampers any meaningful
analysis of the issues that rise out of overlaps between art and politics. Especially
since this essay is about a particular-political art.
I
tend to have a very simplistic litmus test to determine if an artist and his
artworks are political. While not foolproof, it helps to narrow the
ever-extending list of artists. If an artist’s works are compared to the other
artworks of its time and those who shape art aficionado opinions, such as
critics and historians, trace influences to other art movements, then it is
probably not political enough for me to qualify as political art; Whereas
political art would probably be considered in terms of signposts that denote
socio-political events of the era. Simplistic maybe, perhaps over-simplistic,
but this test allowed me to quickly narrow down the list I had to look at when
I started studying artworks that are considered to be political art.
And
of course, at this juncture, it is important to state clearly what I mean by
political art. Political art has to offer a commentary, make a statement, about
various socio-political, cultural issues. Intentions of artists who produce
political art if plotted cover a wide spectrum. From creating awareness to
defeating a policy or even to sway the public to opt for a particular
politician over another, it is all political art. It is the sort of art that
purports to alter how we perceive the world around us, to make us understand
what is going on in the world in the hope of altering it for the better; Better
as according to the artist of course. And so an artist who produces political
art is also a shaper of (public more than the art critics’) opinions. Political
art has a determined activist angle to it, which is why political art and
activist art are often conflated. Merely representing the world is not enough
to qualify as political art, as such not all art that is about politics can be
termed political art. The function of the artwork in some sense defines whether
it is political art or otherwise. The idea is to challenge the way things are,
and to facilitate a change for the better. Moving beyond artworks that are
merely for contemplation and appreciation, political art has a strong action
component that is required of its viewer.
For
most people, engagement with what they would consider art would be at the
museum. The museum as an institution defines what art is and determines what is
good and otherwise. I would like to draw attention to the demographic of museum
visitors. If I could pander to common stereotype, it is a select group that
visits museums, especially art museums. What is art and what is not is defined
by a small pool of people for the benefit of a slightly larger pool of people
of mostly similar background. This oversimplification helps illustrate a point.
The world of art consists of a very small populace. Political art in this sense
is determinedly opposed to this as it targets a wide audience-the polis, in its
entirety. This is the reason why apart from the potency of the content in
inspiring change of some manner, political art’s success is also determined by
its reach. At this juncture, I would like to write about street art in hopes of
refining my focus.
Political
art, by virtue of having the need to have a wide reach, contends itself with a
venue for its “show” unlike any museum or gallery. The streets, the mass media,
the digital media are all platforms to showcase political art. The basis of
street art itself is political since it is often an overt, ostentatious and
illegal display of resistance against the privatization of space. Control of
the space is in the hands of a select few, the owners or the state and so the
space in some sense becomes colonized by them. Street artists thus serve to
resist this colonization of space in order to assert that these spaces are
democratic venues open for everyone’s usage. Shepard Fairey expands on this by
claiming that it is the right of taxpayers to use these spaces, the same way
corporations use the spaces for advertising.
Street
art while a derivative of graffiti, goes beyond tagging. The works of street
artists have conceptual content and are used as platforms for the artists to
voice opinions that are seldom heard and/or give voice to the marginal groups.
The function of being a social commentary and the freedom that is afforded to
artists who do not have to worry about institutional backing allows for a raw,
unvarnished viewpoint that may at times seem raw and brutal. The works have to
compete with the mess of what surrounds them. This is opposed to works shown in
museums that allow for people to succumb to indulgence where they can retreat
into silence and solitude. The brash quality, rather the lack of subtlety, is
often derided by those who see street art as something of a pariah in the art
world. Perhaps the rubrics that critics use to judge art need to be
re-evaluated where street art, and political art, is concerned since the medium
they work with necessitates the treatment. Street art cannot afford to be
indirect in its communication of ideas. The wide reach that it contends with
and the competition for visual arrest means that the message has to be conveyed
in as few words as possible with a simple discourse that immediately evokes a
visceral reaction or at worst a reflective moment. In this sense, it is truly
democratic as an art form. While it goes without saying that street art allows
for these voices to be heard, it also works with a platform that is not assured
an audience. The notion of a captive audience, one that museums benefit from,
is alien to street artists. The works of street artists can be ignored if not
compelling enough, aesthetically and conceptually. Street art and political art
thus have many overlaps and oftentimes one serves as a subset of the other. A
needless clarification would be if I state that not all street art is political
art, and not all political art is street art.
Banksy
and Shepard Fairey have been by far the most iconic street artists and their
success is in large part due to their strong social commentary element (and of
course their employment of brand culture to position themselves as creative
entrepreneurs). While street artists, they have made a name for themselves as
political activists, with art being their medium for activism. Their success
has brought to the fore many issues about street art and political art that had
previously not been addressed widely.
Mainstream?
Political
street art combines social action, social theory and art to pave the way for a
diversity of views that were hitherto not heard. While it may not be the best
of didactic tools, Murray Edelman even claims that it is through the arts that
our views of politics are engendered, and only indirectly through personal
immediate experience. This is why there is an assumption oftentimes that what
is reflected on “canvas” is akin to their own reasoning.
Although
these art forms are considered to be fringe, and it is the artworks that are
within the accepted art contexts that are considered mainstream, the fact is
that political street art is more mainstream than most other art forms. The
sheer reach of the artworks makes it mainstream. In this way, Banksy and Fairey
occupy a coveted spot in the art world, for being able to operate in the
mainstream and beyond accepted art contexts. This brings to fore an important
issue. Art should not be defined narrowly and artworks should not have to be
bracketed within styles. Rather, art is better defined when you consider the
functions of the artwork.
Increasingly,
artworks of Banksy and Fairey are co-opted into institutions with the likes of
the Smithsonian being a patron of Fairey. While this recognition is a positive
turn, as it shows a maturing art world that is more inclusive, it is also a
troubling trend as has been argued by street artists themselves. While on the
streets, the social commentaries were uninhibited. Condemnations and criticisms
were exhibited freely such as against the state and the various apparatuses of
the state. Operating under the auspices of an institution such as a museum,
while giving the artworks a certain level of prestige, comes at a price. The
unruly, brash nature of the artworks gets tamed. The appropriation of the
artists and the artworks basically removes them from their contexts, their
natural elements and they thus become open to the museumising effect of the
institution. Curators get overzealous in slapping on meanings and
recontextualising the artworks. In some sense, as the artwork becomes more
mainstream in the conventional sense, from being fringe to going vogue, the
rebel culture that set street art and political art apart from the other art
forms is tamed.
While
some museums are coming forth to include these art forms, there is also the
problem of how most museums still have a revulsion towards them as being fringe
or not being art at all. The argument that is often put forth is that while the
social commentaries and the political activism is good for the streets, it has
no place in this form in the museums. And then there is the criticism that such
art is plain silly when compared to the actual needs of the issues that are
touched upon by the artists. The works are thus shrugged off as nothing more
than “abstract liberal pathos and
self-righteousness directed towards an uncertain audience”.
Yet another issue faced by the likes of Banksy
and Fairey as their works become more mainstream and popular is that they begin
to lose their credibility as street artists and as political artists. As their
works get duplicated and represented in institutions, whatever defined their
works as political street art get diminished. It is a balancing game of sorts
for the artists; Their crossover into the mainstream hinge on their fringe
cred. Their reputation as artists of the streets is integral to their value as
artists. This is why factors such as anonymity, the illegal nature of their
activities (through arrests) are highlighted and hyped by the artists. Their
anti-establishment rhetoric is praised for being alternative. As they crossover
into the mainstream, they are able to do so only through harping on their
difference from the mainstream.
In this thought piece, I have tried to establish
how political and street art can be integrated into the art world and also
touched upon the problems that arise out of this inclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment