I'm an artist. A painter, to be specific.
I know that DKos is primarily a political blog (especially so at this highly-charged political time) and I am about as partisan as you can get, when it comes to the political direction, the trajectory of the USA. That is why I am here.
But politics (of whatever stripe) is enlivened and deepened by a consideration of art, and the role that art has always played in progressive politics. I might even go so far as to say that progressive ideas would not even exist, were it not for the artists who first postulated and expressed them.
Contemporary art is a mixed bag, at best. In fact it is so mixed, that it seems to be heading off in all directions at once. It seems to be exploding, or imploding. At the Tate in London for example, Damien Hirst exhibits a dead shark floating in a tank of formaldehyde, and this rather hideous display is considered to be.... art. But is it, really? According to highly respected contemporary theorists it most certainly is, and thus millions of dollars are exchanged and accorded to Mr. Hirst, as being the originator of this fabulous work of art. Or rather perhaps, this fabulous new way of looking at what art IS, or is supposed to be. Meanwhile, those of us who still paint on canvas, and maintain a tie to the past, we starve in obscurity.
Nobody seems to know exactly, the role that art should play in our increasingly complex, and digitalized society. Ordinary old-fashioned painters such as myself, no matter how innovative and/or traditional we may be, are relegated to second-rank status...as a kind of rear-garde protection for more "adventurous" explorers -- of the shark-in-the-tank variety. Which, it seems to me, is decidedly morbid, and not at all to my taste.
How does all this relate to Democratic politics? I'm not sure exactly. But I'm hoping for some comments that might enlighten me.