Art and Politics

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.  

•  Life is art is politics...

  ...is art is life.  Art comes from the soul and the personal is political.

  Art illustrates my poetry with elucidate my art...which gets people to read some of my prose.  They all work together with the life I've lived to weave political action, which hopefully will continue after I die.

  Robyn

  by rserven on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM PDT

  •  Art is not illustration.

    Illustration is illustration, and thus its purpose is narrower and clearer...maybe even more useful.  What makes art interesting and EXCITING even is the fact that art might not be obviously useful, and points to ideas that might be unclear.

    by Dopusopus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM PDT

    •  Pardon me if I disagree.

      by rserven on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:29:56 PM PDT

      •  Disagreeing in art is healthy. n/t

        by Dopusopus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM PDT

        •  Extremely healthy, yes.

          Disagreement about art is best expressed fully and without reservation.

          by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:11:00 PM PDT

•  Art Insurgency

  I am also an artist and have written about the nexus of art and politics.

  Join the Art Insurgency

  Every great social movement was fueled in part by the arts - from the Napoleonic era Disasters of War by Goya, to the guerilla postering of Robbie Conal.

  The Art Insurgency is latent now, but it is strong and committed. The tools of the artist are truly the weapons that slay tyrants. Read more....

  I have views about contemporary art that vary depending on the art. I hate abstract art. But I do like conceptual art (if I like the concept). I regard Hirst as conceptual and I have no problem with him. Except that after you do dead animal it is redundant to do any more.

  by KingOneEye on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:19:06 PM PDT

  •  Interesting.

    I shall check out your site.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:14:54 PM PDT

•  Painter also. Also many questions....

  But I do think that artists have an important function in our society...even if they starve.

  I do wonder quite a lot about installation art, *concepual art vs. painting...
  sometimes I am incredibly moved by conceptual pieces, or at least moved to think...but not all that often.
  Sometimes I think that I am looking at clever verbiage with little actual content.

  Your thought, native?

  * no matter how I refresh, cannot change "conceptual"

  by la urracca on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM PDT

  •  My thought is

    that "conceptual" art is better defined as a kind of theater. Requiring very specific settings in order to be effective.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:18:31 PM PDT

•  As a painter, I disagree...

  Yeah, about 5 years ago I went through the pity party that maybe the art world is moving away from painting and towards installation, etc.  But then I realized painting has had an advantage for thousands of years.  Even today, you actually go to common or rich art galleries any where in the world, and the majority of the art is still painting.  It makes me feel bad for even traditional sculpture how much painting steals the headlines.  This other stuff is todays avant-garde and it needs support so that it can grow.  It is an important part of art.  We might not always like it, we may not always understand it.  But it deserves our support not fear.  Painting may be traditional, but it does not have to be.  Painting is only as dead as the cliches and rehashed kitch that falls off the paint brush.  Be part of the solution with your paintings then you won't have to worry that you did not do enough for art.

  by Dopusopus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM PDT

  •  I don't know what you are disagreeing with..?

    I always support other artists...whatever their medium. It is critical.

    But I do see quite a bit of 'kitch' in conceptual art, too....
    perhaps that is my point.

    I do not fear it...I am interested by it, and happy when I see something that is really exciting/interesting.

    by la urracca on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM PDT

    •  I disagreed with the diarist assertion that...

      painters "are relegated to second-rank status."

      Painters have it so good that anytime anyone else gets attention, it hurts.  Just my opinion as a painter.

      by Dopusopus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

      •  But then dopusopus,

        how do you account for the fact that most of the prestige exhibits at international art fairs, like the Venice Biennial et al, feature displays that have very little to do with the actual art of painting?

        How do you account for the fact that nearly all contemporary art criticism ignores painting, in favor of wordy analyses of "installations" and/or video presentations and/or "new media" aka computer games?

        Where and how does painting fit into this overtly electronic matrix? Painting is an ancient, even a TIMELESS art.

        by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:08:31 PM PDT

        •  I account for it this way.

          I subscribe to Art in America.

          Out of the last 8 issues, painting graced the cover 50% of the time.

          With Painting, Printmaking, Photography, Installation Art, Sculpture, Video Art, Digital Art, Performance Art, Digital Arts to choose from, this would be called a bias.

          Last year I still lived in Brooklyn, NY.  I worked in Chelsea so I got to see the shows every month on a strip containing hundreds of galleries and probably the hottest spot for contemporary art in the world.  The majority is painting.

          At more humble galleries, you will find Photography, and Ceramics.  Sculpture?  If there is sculpture in an art gallery that exists in a small town, it is very uncommon.  My family runs a small time gallery.  We have little choice but to discriminate against the newer arts because it is hard to see installation, video art, sculpture.  

          Technology has dictated how we've painted since its creation.  From the creation of a medium to bind pigment to the tool that applies the colors to the creation of tubes that contain paint.  Oil painting itself was invented during the Early Renaissance. Every hundred years or so the painting palette expanded, thus changing a painter's options.  Perspective was discovered and changed the way artists could see, camera obscura's added greater realism and led the way to the camera.  Some where afraid of the camera and its displacement of painting.  It HELPED painting.

          The camera as technology freed artists from having to make realistic images.  Likewise, some artists embraced it as a tool to study light...TRADITIONAL geniuses like Thomas Eakins.  Today it is not uncommon that some wonderful original paintings derive from digital pictures that are collaged through Photoshop and then painted from.  The printing press allowed us to study the effects of color mixing in ways that led to paintings by the likes of Chuck Close, and Robert Rauschenburg.  

          Change poses only a threat to the things that people can do without.  Painting is entrenched in art.  Change will inspire and enliven painting.  Painting is also very marketable.  Shows like the Bienalle do not need to show art that is easy to sale which allows the show to take advantage of different things.  Some years painting has a greater influence than others.  This is because the curators who choose the shows differ each year.

          My question is...can  you name more CONTEMPORARY installation artists than you can painters?  I know I can't.

          by Dopusopus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:26:52 AM PDT

  •  I agree with all that.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:21:07 PM PDT

•  Sensationalism

  I think that a few hundred years from now art historians will look at our culture and realize how much human sensationalistic appetites were utilized to make humanity more fearful and perhaps more violent.  I'm not saying we should sensor anything or walk around with socks over our eyes but I wish more people would realize that they are being manipulated by such strong sensational tendencies by the media, advertisement and yes...art.

  by siamesewonka on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:33:20 PM PDT

  •  Interesting that you group

    advertising, mass media, and art together. Are you really sure they all belong in the same category?

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

    •  no native I'm not.

      Sometimes the greatest thing about art is the fact that it invades your comfort and forces you to feel and think about certain things that you might never have thought before.

      I'm not a huge fan of excessive blood and killing in movies for the sake of excessive blood and killing but hey I still watch those movies.  I think if you look at alot of our favorite pasttimes you will see a strong undercurrent of violence...not that they necessarily are inciting it I think americans still have some of that gladiator spirit left from the Roman empire to the extent that we don't mind watching people beat each other almost to the death via the Ultimate Fighting Championships and etc.  To some degree I kind of think Alex Grey uses this for his artwork using human cadavers, but his other artwork...like the Tool booklets I find amazing.

      by siamesewonka on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM PDT

•  Everything is political.

  I'm a painter using the classical techniques in my own way. I just quit teaching which reduces my income but I felt as though it was an uphill grind, first you have to teach them to SEE.

  I'm also geographically challenged living in an extremely remote area but it's cheaper. I live simply and well. I'm versatile: lots of eggs in lots of baskets following the advice an art teacher gave me long ago. I had some tough years but now I get by on Social Security and supplement with infrequent sales of my work. (especially in winter)

  I've just copied and pasted Snowbelt's diary from my stacks which I found very interesting and you may as well.

  Paint on.

  USA -The 'A' is not for Arts...
  by snowbelt [Subscribe]
  Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 12:16:37 PM PST
  A recent piece I listened to on CBC radio spurred me into action... The brief discussion was on the Canadian government extending funding for its "Tomorrow Starts Today" program for the Arts for another five years. Also mentioned was the Canadian spending on the Arts - the Canada Council for the Arts would get $150 Million (Canadian) per year. Upon hearing that I thought that US funding was not much more than that, but I wasn't sure...Could it be? Off to the web...
  snowbelt's diary :: ::
  It turns out that I was correct, which is bad. The annual funding for the National Endowment for the Arts in the US is $121M (US). Clearly this is more than the Canadian amount, but in per capita and per GDP, this amount is pathetic. The more I dug, the more I found was available on this topic. For the year 2004, France spends 2.6 BILLION Euros on arts through its Ministère de la culture et de la communication. Great Britain budgeted this year 412 Million GBP (790 Million USD) on its Arts programs through Arts Council England. There is a report that uses numbers from the mid 1990s to compare the funding from different countries. A look at numbers from this report:  Per Capita Arts Spending

  (U.S. Dollars)
  Total Government Arts Spending

  (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

  Australia  $25  $438
  Canada $46 $1,272
  Finland  $91  $460  
  France $57 $3,275
  Germany  $85  $6,886
  Ireland $9  $33
  Netherlands  $46  $714
  Sweden $57 $496
  United Kingdom  $26 $1,150
  United States  $6 $1,530  
  Source: National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division, Note #74, January 2000 INTERNATIONAL DATA ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON THE ARTS
  Note that the US numbers include funding from states and local governments, and funding for the Smithsonian Institute ($358M USD).

  I am not a recipient of Arts funding, nor do I work for any Arts agencies. I do attend concerts, plays, visit museums, etc. And I do see funding for these drying up as budgets are under attack.

  But, so what? Well, it seems that we have no money for the Arts, no money for the poor, no money for health insurance, no money for Social Security (you know what I mean), no money for schools, no money for parks. We have money for rich people, for prisons and war. So plop down in front of your TV and switch between fake reality shows and fake footage of real wars and forget about it.

  Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

  by Little Red Hen on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:37:40 PM PDT

  •  I do not believe

    That government funding for the arts relates automatically to the quality of the arts, in any given country. Very often, government-funded art turns out to be shoddy and uninspired. "Socialist Realism" in the Soviet Union is a prime example.

    Usually when beaurocracies are given control of what constitutes "art", they choose to promote politics, of one sort or another. This is as true of contemporary art beaurocracies as it was of Chinese or Soviet beaurocracies.

    Art does not depend on politics, it DEFINES politics.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:03:19 PM PDT

    •  In Sweden I visited

      a beautiful community where only artists were allowed to live. Free. There are many ways a government can support the arts. Education of it's peoples that art is important would be a good place to begin. I didn't have a point, (I was just sharing info) but I think you missed it.

      I am waiting to hear from my State about a purchase of five of my paintings through the % for the arts program which will if purchased, purchase a good used vehicle for this artist who is driving a deathtrap on dirt roads.

      by Little Red Hen on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

      •  This was Snowbelt's diary.

        I'm not savvy enough on my clunker computer to do anything but cut and paste. My comment ended with "Paint on."

        by Little Red Hen on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM PDT

•  Beauty and truth

  This may sound daft, but whenever I draw or paint a sitting portrait model, it forces me to yield to the present and begin seeing this person the way he or she truly is.  And at some point, the nondescript person I'd seen getting up on the model's stand reveals a world of information.  Usually he or she grows to be quite beautiful just while sitting in front of me.  Curves of eyelids, nostrils that show crimson inside, ears that make a body want to sigh for their perfect shapes and scrolls.  But it's only because I'm paying attention.  And getting a really good take on this human's character through his or her expression.

  What on this good Earth can surpass that sort of power, to unlock one's vision and behold the world around one's self in beauty--where even mud is beauty for all its textures, value shifts and color?  No one starves where it's possible to really see. Be glad you can do this, and enjoy passing this wonderful secret along to others.

  by arlam on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:38:50 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't sound

    at all daft to me.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM PDT

•  Kossacks...

  ...are still quite interested in such art, as evidenced by my regular Saturday painting series, and I'm sure that this is representative of the general population.  Art will always have a role in society.  How it fits into Democratic politics remains a mystery to me.  But it does provide a nice Saturday respite.

  by boran2 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

  •  Indeed,

    Art can provide a nice Saturday morning respite. But it can, and SHOULD be able to provide considerably more than that.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM PDT

•  The Democratic Party offers a big tent

  for artists- rather they be post modern artists or classical artists. The important thing is most artists will support the left-leaning political party. The left should generally support the arts and freedom of expression as major guiding principals.
   
  We live in a world economically dominated by corporate entities? Culturally do we really live in an age of pluralistic post modernism? Possibly art needs to offer a critique of the two. To me a main  function of art is to remind us of the variations of meaning and absurdity that constantly surround us living in this corporate post modern world.

  Art is something more than just a commodity! And art is something more than the analysis of theorists. And so I for one try to appreciate both the absurd and classical forms of beauty and expression.  Art can perhaps remind us of a 'transcendent principal' that exists in life and beyond our present situation. I can laugh at the absurd mocking of the world we live in. But I also need art to remind of the beauty and mystery which is also a part of the world we live in.

  "Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time." Thomas Merton

  Some floating thoughts

  by AbsurdEyes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM PDT

  •  Nice words, AbsurdEyes.

    by Dopusopus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:01:16 PM PDT

  •  Modern artists have USUALLY supported

    left-leaning political parties. Not always though. Notable exceptions have been Ezra Pound and Salvador Dali. To equate art with leftist politics is a mistake. Essentially, art has nothing to do with politics. It has always been rather, intimately involved with power, and the intersection of religion with power.

    by native on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM PDT