Rant 32: Is all art (politically) useless?

you are here: dialogue > webzine > rant 32: is all art (politically) useles ...

Rant 32: Is all art (politically) useless?

In keeping with the theme of this issue our new Ranter Becky Hunter asks us if political art can ever empower us? Or does it just reduce the anarchistic spirit to aesthetics and art dollars? Can art ever replace action? And if you displace the art from the original political context, does this dilute its message?

Contributed by: Becky Hunter

The views expressed in The Rant are those of Becky Hunter and forum contributors and unless specifically stated are not those of Axis. See Axis terms of use
Bloomberg Commission: Goshka Macuga, The Nature of the Beast, 2009, Whitechapel Gallery
Bloomberg Commission: Goshka Macuga, The Nature of the Beast, 2009, Whitechapel Gallery
view more details


Bloomberg Commission, Goshka Macuga, The Nature of the Beast, Whitechapel Gallery, 2009
Bloomberg Commission, Goshka Macuga, The Nature of the Beast, Whitechapel Gallery, 2009
view more details

Modern Moral Matters (Serpentine Gallery, London, 2010) is a brand new survey show of Richard Hamilton’s pop-political paintings and collages, including portraits of a ‘grinning, inane’ Tony Blair and the Israeli Nobel peace prize nominee Mordechai Vanunu. The Guardian’s Adrian Searle views Hamilton as deliberately ‘smug’, probing contemporary art’s ineffectiveness in the face of war, lies and terrorism. But to what end? In dire political situations shouldn’t we replace self-conscious pondering with concrete action? Indeed, don’t Hamilton’s critical credentials simply add politically correct brownie points (redeemable in cold, hard cash) to his slick cultural commodities? Kerr-ching!

Controversial Chinese iconoclast Ai Weiwei – with a Tate Turbine Hall commission in the pipeline - certainly doesn’t recoil from activism. He was once beaten so badly by Chinese police for criticising the government that he required emergency surgery. While this clearly shows the artist hits a nerve in his home country, Ai’s impact in the West is measured less through ethico-political clout and more by his growing celebrity-art-star marketability. This artist’s hard-core social activism translates to mere entertainment, ‘fun’ (Searle’s words) and gallery-tourist spectacle for an ever more commercial art world that is embedded deep in a lobotomised, Western leisure economy.

Can political art ever empower us? Or does it simply provide the gallery visitor with a self-satisfied moment of assumed moral superiority? Goshka Macuga’s exhibition The Nature of the Beast (Whitechapel Gallery, London, 2009-10) provides a ray of hope. Her research looks to past collaborations between artists and organisers, like the 1970s Art Workers Coalition. She also invites discussion groups to utilise the gallery space to hold public meetings and reinvigorate that old, activist spirit.

Sadly, Macuga is in the minority. If ‘political’ shows usually, dishearteningly, reflect on art’s impotence or distract us with flashy displays, then artists, galleries and their audiences are in serious trouble.

 

 

add a new commentadd a new comment
Posted by
Al
Post #1
Posted on 08 March 2010
Lets wait and see what Ai Weiwei does in the Turbine Hall. There's no reason why political art can't hit hard AND grab attention through entertainment or aesthetics. It will be interesting to see too the take up and effect of Macuga's offer of space for activist group meetings: revival or simply nostalgia for that old spirit?

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #2
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #1
Al - You make an interesting point about activist nostalgia. I'm hoping to obtain some information from the Whitechapel on the uptake and effectiveness of their offer of space for groups... I'll update this page if that info comes through... On Ai Weiwei's Turbine Hall piece, I suppose it is very difficult to measure the effect of any cultural work and it's debatable how important measurement is at all (I'm thinking of having to fill in funding forms asking about your work's 'impact'). I'm looking forward to seeing if Ai can subvert the leisure-space!

Posted by
Mike Huff
Post #3
Posted on 08 March 2010
Art can absolutely not replace action, but it can definitely help to gain awareness for an issue or even change someone's opinion. Unfortunately, with the growing commercialism of the arts in the West (especially in terms of music), the audience for something that is actually worthwhile is becoming smaller and smaller. It's great that a studio is trying to revive the spirit of activism, but if the "activists" just gather in a room once a week and talk to each other about issues they all agree on, what gets done?

Posted by
Richard F
Post #4
Posted on 08 March 2010
I have never quite heard a convincing argument to say that an Anthony Caro sculpture made from reclaimed steel isn't political.

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #5
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #3
Mike - your point about activists simply sitting together and talking is pertinent. We are certainly in danger of becoming a group of back-patters indulging in mutual congratulation, rather than doing anything useful! It also raises the question of why galleries might want to host such activist events - is it because 'politics' makes a gallery seem cutting edge, or is an anti-war position just so easy to agree with now, that it is a kind of marketing ploy? It's also interesting that you bring in music as it is definitely another example of the leisure industry taking over, leaving little room for social or artistic movement.

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #6
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #4
Richard - this is a really important issue that I didn't dare open up in my short text... It works in a similar way with 'minimalist' work such as Carl Andre's bricks doesn't it? Andre was explicit about wanting to identify with 'workers' in his use of found and commissioned industrial materials. Personally, I find the politics involved in modernist/minimalist art more interesting than those artists that choose to make a spectacle of it.

Posted by
Nick Wiltsher
Post #7
Posted on 08 March 2010
There seem to be two questions: (a) Is 'political' art useless? (b) Is all art politically useless? (a): Inclined to say yes, since it tends toward the trite and inert; on the other hand, many active protest groups take inspiration from situationism etc. (dunno if what they do qualifies as art, though), so maybe the problem is more with the media employed than with the aim of being political. (b): Inclined to say no, at least if the artist isn't primarily motivated by money. Politics is about power in all its manifestations; thus, lots of art is politically pertinent insofar as it questions established power dynamics (link here to point about minimalism?). Also, personal=political? One might also argue that the very act of making art is a political statement (an assertion of value independent of price?) – though only in the absence of the commodification alluded to above. Really, to answer either question, we need a sharper idea of what it is to be politically effective.

Posted by
Nick Wiltsher
Post #8
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #7
Dammit -- what happened to my paragraphs?

Post #9
Posted on 08 March 2010
Having attended a fair amount of the meetings that have taken place in Goshka Macuga's installation, I would say that the most actively political group was the home schooled kids opposing a specific piece of government legislation that threatens to make their education a bureaucratic nightmare. Probably the least political, and definitely the most empty and self satisfied, was a meeting of the Stop the War coalition Goshka Macuga has sidestepped the aesthetic problem by collecting together a whole load of political propaganda (e.g. the film program full of badly shot, but harrowing documentaries), and then side stepped the propaganda issue by managing to secure (from the U.N., through a powerful international institution funded by many corporate sponsors) an officially approved piece of anti-war art. Doesn't make it bad-makes it honest, and complex. I'm not sure that empowerment can be something art does. Not sure a lot of people feel empowered by politics - or would want to be?

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #10
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #9
Matthew - it's great to have a commenter with some firsthand experience of the participatory angle of Macuga's work. In the text in the newspaper-format document produced with the show, she comments in some depth on the complexities of the situation, which I found refreshing - I agree that the show had a very honest approach. ....However, is the Guernica tapestry totally officially sanctioned? One of the events that Macuga reminds us of (with the blue curtain and documentation) is when the Guernica tapestry was covered up at the UN while media announcements regarding Iraq were taking place. The iconic anti-war image was simply concealed when it became inconvenient. ...On the political empowerment note: I agree that these days people might not even wish to be aligned with politics, but that has not always been the case. What has changed?

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #11
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #9
You've probably seen it already - www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0203-13.htm - but this is a republished article from the Washington Post, 2003, about the covering of the Guernica tapestry.

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #12
Posted on 08 March 2010 as a reply to #7
Nick - The title of this blog was a lighthearted pun on Oscar Wilde's 'All art is quite useless'... but thank you for your philosophical breaking down of the question, v useful, I love orderly categories and problematized titles! How would you define political effectiveness then? Do you think that's something art (or anything/anyone) should/could aspire to? From an art historical point of view, I tend to think about particular examples of artist groups... eg, the 1970s Art Workers Coalition aspired to social change partly through political means, such as lobbying government legislation on free healthcare for artists (!) and improved copyright laws that would benefit the artist rather than the purchaser of the art. They failed on healthcare (and on getting Rockefeller to resign from MoMA's board of trustees) but they did change intellectual property laws in favour of artists. I guess I'm defining political effectiveness as ability to effect legal change within a power structure?

Posted by
Paul Matosic
Paul Matosic's artist profile image

Post #13
Posted on 09 March 2010
Art without content (context and by implication political thought) is mere decoration

Posted by
Paul Matosic
Paul Matosic's artist profile image

Post #14
Posted on 09 March 2010
message without art is mere propaganda

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #15
Posted on 09 March 2010
Simon Critchley (a philosopher from these shores rather than trendy overseas as Artists like these days) has identified an intriguing new 'third' term situated between art and theory which he designates the 'political'. It is to this new 'master' that artists and historians are genuflecting in search of legitimation. Hence both artists and institutions are constantly attending to notions of 'UTOPIA' in a way that smacks of Situationist 'nostalgia'. It is everywhere form the latest Star City show of Communism (sold and packaged by capitalism...free red star anybody?) to the works of Gillick or the curation of Oberst. He, in my view correctly, identifies this theme as being an 'acting out' of redundant metaphors in search of true 'revolution'. It a vacuous yet interesting phenomenon. This rant is of a piece with this naive view of a 'fictional' disembodied body politic.

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #16
Posted on 09 March 2010
The video obscured my reply here what lay beneath. Simon Critchley (a English philosopher rather than trendy overseas as Artists so like these days) has identified an intriguing new 'third' term situated between art and theory which he designates the 'political'. It is to this new 'master' that artists and historians are genuflecting in search of legitimation. Hence both artists and institutions constantly attend to notions of 'UTOPIA' in a way that smacks of Situationist 'nostalgia'. It is everywhere from the latest Nottingham Contemporary Star City show of Communism (sold and packaged by capitalism...free red star anybody?) to the works of Gillick or the curation of Oberst. He, in my view correctly, identifies this theme as being an 'acting out' of redundant metaphors in search of true 'revolution'. It a vacuous yet interesting phenomenon. This vague rant holds no belief of its own but in true 'disco-marxism' style reduces real politics to a dance of discourse..nothing more..

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #17
Posted on 09 March 2010 as a reply to #16
Shaun - that's a good point about nostalgia and 'acting out' redundant metaphors. But I think it's important in such cases to ask why the repetition of something from a few decades ago has become desirable. Is it just meaningless repetition or does the repetition itself teach us something? ...ps - I've always associated Critchley with the continental group of trendy philosophers, hum. I've read him for both a (trendy London) art degree and an empirically-based (Northern) art history one - but then, I enjoy that continental stuff!

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #18
Posted on 09 March 2010 as a reply to #14
Paul - can you give an example of 'message without art' or vice versa? Marshall Macluhan's phrase 'the medium is the message' springs to mind! .......In fact, rather than discussing things abstractly, have any readers seen a piece of work that touches on these issues of politics and art?

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #19
Posted on 09 March 2010 as a reply to #17
He is indeed author of The Oxford Shorter Guide to trendy Continentals although his list of Contintentals isn't quite the same as the art crowd's :-) Janicaud and Levinas anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Critchley good list of links do we learn from re-enactment.......try asking Hornsey 68 veterans that one... my view is it a feeble way of addressing the real past......I remember seeing the actual footage shot during miner's strike at the time..could Deller add to that ..I think not... So is it all just a parade for those too young to remember? Seems to me suspiciously like the pageants of Edwardian England...here some the brave miner boys and three cheers for those marvellous socialists..what ho...

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #20
Posted on 09 March 2010 as a reply to #18
RE: have any readers seen a piece of work that touches on these issues of politics and art? EVERYTHING by Conrad Atkinson for a start.......John A Walker...most neglected and now overseas....that tell you something...we who lived through Thatcherism know it wasn't a game...

Posted by
Paul Matosic
Paul Matosic's artist profile image

Post #21
Posted on 09 March 2010 as a reply to #18
get yourself down to Ikea for examples of art without message. message without art well there are not many politicians who are great orators are there, not when compared to the force, the magnitude of great speakers such as martin Luther King or even Churchill.

Posted by
Amy Halliday
Post #22
Posted on 09 March 2010
One of the most interesting points in this 'rant' is that of the reception of the art itself; whether it provokes thought in the viewer, catalysing change in opinion or action, or whether it indeed merely provides that 'self-satisfied moment of assumed moral superiority'. Surely we are placing too much emphasis on the art doing all the 'work' for us: Part of the effect/meaning/significance/polemic of an artwork lies beyond its material presence and construction, in how viewers – often inured to violent imagery or inundated with political information – actively engage with it rather than passively consume it. If art seems 'politically useless' maybe it's because its viewers are the ones who have become subsumed by commercial imperatives and political apathy.

Post #23
Posted on 10 March 2010
I think another important aspect that we lose sight of is the effect that political art has on the very issues it attempts to represent. What happens when we "aesthecize" the political, both as artists and as viewers? Art that seeks to express a political or social message often, at the same time, totalizes the myriad of social and political factors and nuances into something readily digestible as art. As viewer, we are presented with the objectified political; the political as static object. The question has been asked if art can ever empower viewers. A better question would be what is a viewer to do with a political movement reduced to an object?

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #24
Posted on 10 March 2010 as a reply to #22
Amy - do you think the reception of the art then comes down to individual responsibility and responsiveness? I suppose it might be futile to attempt to educate people in making a 'correct' response (rather like citizenship classes in schools?) as that becomes pretty totalitarian as Bradley has pointed out.

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #25
Posted on 10 March 2010 as a reply to #20
Thanks for those examples Shaun... I've added a couple of links to the artists' work so people can have a look... www.conradatkinson.com/gallery3/index.html www.artreview.com/profile/JOHNAWALKER

Posted by
marti hall
Post #26
Posted on 10 March 2010
An example of a piece of political artwork, Brian O'Doherty - artist and writer- buried his alter ego, Patrck Ireland, in 2008. O'Doherty created Ireland in 1972 as a protest against the events of Bloody Sunday, swearing to sign all his artworks, Patrick Ireland until the removal of the British Military presence and 'all citizens granted their civil rights'. 36 years later to celebrate the signing of the piece treaty, Ireland was finally laid to rest. Not a very subtle gesture and probably only empowering to O'Doherty as it served as a reminder, 'every work I did after that gained a political context for me'. The politics may have been enhanced as he was an Irish artist working in New York at the time.

Posted by
BeckyH
Post #27
Posted on 10 March 2010
I'm doing some research on Jeff Wall for an MA seminar and came across this rather amazing sentence in an article on him... "Utopianism turns from a spur to action into disillusionment, transforming the critical irony of Conceptual art’s critique of commodi?cation into the compulsive irony of neo-conceptualism’s commodity aesthetics" !! It's relevant to our debate as Wall has put his finger on the problem of the repetition of earlier artistic strategies after those strategies have already proved ineffective in the political sphere - they become commodified. I'm going to do a blog post on my website tonight that goes into this issue a bit deeper... beckyhunter.co.uk

Posted by
KezG
Post #28
Posted on 12 March 2010
Is art just purely for entertainment rather than message? For art to really hit home it needs to be very widely accessible rather than just situated within a gallery space or any 'art space'- it needs to transcend boundaries, locate itself beyond what is expected of it, be placed beyond the art locale.I would say that with the increasing space time convergence of the globe through increased communication, we have reached a point where art can indeed offer itself to a much wider audience. Art today has a much greater chance of empowering people than it ever did before.This advantage means art now has the task of proving itself- messages need to be clear, bold&obvious rather than abstract with 'underlying' messages that dilute, &this may perhaps mean we will lose the aesthetic essence, but for a good reason!Politics has never been pretty.I believe rather than 'replacing' action, art needs to aid action and through working together they will get closer to empowering us.

Posted by
Tamzin G
Post #29
Posted on 17 April 2010

I don't know that art can "empower" but it can catch people's attention, promote a cause, illustrate and maybe even explain a view - and also prompt reflection, which has got to be better than diving into a thoughtless activism. (Thoughtful activism, however, must be something to respect).



Axis logo
Copyright Axis 1999-2010 unless stated otherwise. No reproduction of text or media without written permission. For terms and conditions visit www.axisweb.org/copyright.