<rant>
At the New York times, an article on a show exhibiting modern interpretations of Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms.”
These are posters depicting subjects such as bird pooping “democracy” onto the earth and an obese person with the caption “this is abuse of the freedom from want.”
I hate this kind of pseudo-ironic, self-absorbed, visual bloviation. Because the academic art establishment is just about entirely leftist, this kind of art almost always presents ideas of the political left. I’m very very independent politically, but I hate this kind of stuff regardless of whether I am in agreement with (or indifferent to) the ideas being expressed.1
Elliott Earls’s reinterpretation of Norman Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms” practically screams. A little girl seems to be crying, her eye bruised, with an American flag in the background and two words framing her figure: “Liberty Weeps.” The color scheme is red, white and blue, but patriotic pride has been supplanted by sadness.
How tiresome.
My reaction to anything like this is one of visceral contempt. Art like this likes to pretend that it is “dangerous.” Yet none of the “artists” participating have any fear of having the government take any interest in this work. They aren’t going to be carried away in the night and never seen again, as an artist expressing “inappropriate” ideas might have been in Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or nowadays in a place like North Korea. (This is particularly well illustrated by the picture by Chip Kidd, depicting a burnt U.S. flag and the caption, “Freedom of Speech”—made with the full understanding that no one will ever consider censoring it.) No one who might affect their careers is going to refuse to hire them, because anyone who might hire a political artist is going to at least pretend to like this kind of crap. Instead of having their careers destroyed by bravely “speaking truth to power,” these mediocre hacks get written up in the New York Times. They are expressing entirely mainstream ideas, better expressed in other ways. This work adds nothing to discourse on freedom in modern society. Yet these artists, and the writer of the article, indicate surprise and disappointment that the show doesn’t garner much attention. People just walk by and ignore it. They are demonstrating not a dislike of art, but a disinterest in vapid garbage. Good for them.
I would hate any picture that depicts George Bush looking into a mirror and seeing Adolph Hitler. I would hate any picture that depicts Barak Obama as a hand puppet of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It doesn’t matter what the politics are. Such pictures are banal, idiotic rubbish. They require no thought or creativity. If you seen one, you can think of all possible variations on the theme in about five minutes. They are political cartoons—bad political cartoons. They are not art.2 They are not even interesting.
</rant>
Do you agree? Disagree? Are there kinds of political art that are good? If so, what distinguishes good from bad? Feel free to comment.
Note: there’s not going to be any discussion of politics here; just the badness (or not, if you want to disagree with me) of this clumsy approach to political art. Any explicitly political comments will be deleted. If you want to discuss politics, you won’t have any trouble finding places on the web for that.
1 I might respect an artist slightly more if he or she were demonstrating a little bit of chutzpah by making non-leftist art and presenting it to the leftist art establishment. But not much.
2 I don’t mean to imply that a cartoon or illustration cannot be art. It is only to say that this specific kind of cartoon, by and large, is nowhere near to being art.
-“They are expressing entirely mainstream ideas, better expressed in other ways. This work adds nothing to discourse on freedom in modern society. Yet these artists, and the writer of the article, indicate surprise and disappointment that the show doesn’t garner much attention.”
There is a mistake in the thinking of many contemporary ‘conceptual’ artists that being an artist gives you some improved, heightened understanding of all areas of life. It often happens that art that crosses boundaries into other fields ends up being neither good art, nor in this case insightful political commentary; it becomes weaker rather than stronger for taking on an area that the artist shows limited understanding of.
-“the academic art establishment is just about entirely leftist,”
Leftists who worry about the morgage!!! ;-)
@Andrea Kobayashi -
Andrea,
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
Art is art, i reckon its up to the person who likes it..
@Buy Fantasy Art -
Vapid, inbred art may be art, but it’s still bad. It brings us all down. No one likes this stuff for its value as art, but because it safely fits their preconceptions.
I won’t comment on this rant against political art when it is based on an article where the ‘art’ shown is incredibly bad in so many ways. If you wanted to peruse political art that is actually good and indeed illegal to the government in question, there is much brilliant and insightful political commentary around in the world of graffiti and the artists who do it. Blek Le Rat and Banksy being the best of the bunch. http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/media.html.
Any thoughts?
@Greg -
Greg,
The examples on the site you link to are certainly a better example of the genre. Except for those that are actually funny, however, I don’t personally get much out of them.
Since the site is a “.uk” URL, I am wondering what you mean by illegal. Certainly free speech laws are different in the United Kingdom, but I didn’t see anything that seems likely to get anyone arrested.
@David — If you click on the ‘outdoors’ tab, all the Graffiti there is illegal. Technically Banksy is a serial vandalist. Although to be honest if he was caught he would more likely be given an award than a prison sentence.
Just as a side note, on the notion of the threat of repercussions to political art. It is worth noting Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered after creating a 10 minute movie, criticising Islam’s treatment of women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
I haven’t been reading your blog very long (I read it when I’m at work), but I clicked the link and read the article, then came back and read your post. Do you know what I found? A guilty pleasure in liking and even agreeing with some of the artwork mentioned. I didn’t get to see it, mind, but the just reading the descriptions…
It doesn’t occur to us plain, boring Americans that this sort of stuff is rehashed, regurgitated, boring, predictable garbage (isn’t everything in our culture just this? Sitcoms, pop music, shopping malls full of the same stores over and over again?). In fact, it wasn’t until I came back and read your comments on it that I nodded and said ‘he’s right, you know’.
The author of the article says something about Americans being complacent — and isn’t that just what’s happening? This sort of ‘America is screwing up’ art is so common place, so marketable and easy to digest — it’s complacency that has people loving this stuff. It’s just ironic that he describes this art as being a shout in the face of complacency, when that’s what really lends us to liking it so much.
Thanks for sharing.
@Greg -
Theo Van Gogh is an interesting exception to the general rule regarding dangerous art. He didn’t transgress against the Western right, but against extremist Islam. That group includes people who are quite willing to respond to perceived slights with violence.
I have seen leftist artists satirize how women are treated in the United States. I would be interested to see a leftist artist brave enough to satirize how women are treated in the Muslim world.
@JillBoBill -
It seems interesting to see how Americans love to criticize their own culture. For example, many Americans make a fetish of making fun of how uneducated we are in comparison to Europeans. Then I saw a video clip from a French game show. In it, neither the players, nor the vast majority of the audience, were aware that the moon orbits the Earth. The same thing might happen anywhere, yet Americans are narcissistic enough to believe that they have a monopoly on ignorance.
Agree with you completely! It always feels like childish, give-me-attention, gotta-shock-to-be-noticed, foolishness to me — and I don’t have interest or time for any of it. I want to spend time either enjoying or thinking about art that is beautiful, sad, expressive, happy, joyful, mournful, etc. I want to see something of the artist (and I don’t mean bitter, country-hating, self-absorption!) that is worth sharing with others. What was this artist thinking about, and how was it expressed with brushstrokes, palette knife, chisel, metal, paper, or other medium? Is there something that moved this artist to share something with me? Is it worth my time to view or money to purchase? Mostly what I find offensive is not the content but that much of it is just bad art, poorly executed, and receiving attention that its amateur skill level doesn’t warrant!
I also think it is in bizarre to suggest that someone should have to live under a dictatorship to express meaningful political points of view especially when it comes to criticizing the government.
Does an artist only gain credibility or authenticity to make political art by having to suffer extreme forms of violence in your eyes?
The website tvtropes.org has a great word for this kind of art — Anvilicious — the message is so obvious and unsubtle that they might as well scribble it on anvil and drop it on your head. (Hold on — I think I’ve just figured out my next art opening.)
@Gerald -
Gerald,
My reference is to the implication by some “transgressive” artists that they are doing something daring by making this kind of art. That’s demonstrably not the case in the United States. If everyone you know except your sister’s father in law agrees with your “dangerous” politics, then expressing those politics is not daring. If you know that the “fascist” government you are criticizing doesn’t care about your entirely ordinary Marxist/Green/anti-Globalization ideas, then your art is not dangerous and it’s not interesting. If anyone who might ever hire you either agrees with those politics or doesn’t care about them, you are not taking any risks by displaying it. You have every right to do so, and I have every right to criticize it.
I made no suggestion that living under a dictatorship was a requirement to make good political art, merely that doing so here and now does not require bravery. Good political art, however, is very difficult and very rare. Bad political art is all over the place.
Personally, I am a big proponent of artists not having to suffer for their art, here or anywhere. That doesn’t mean I support hacks who create vapid, irritating crap.
@Destry -
Destry,
“Anvillicious” is a great word.
I pretty much agree with your post David. I’ve never been attracted to “political” art because the real world, and consequently, real politics is complicated. I’ve never found political work very convincing. Banksy is quite funny but I dont’ think it would influence me politically.I think some artists like to delude themselves that their work has a degree of dangerousness about it because it challenges the establishment. For example, the liberal élite will defend such works as “Piss Christ” or the Jerry Springer Opera suggesting that it is brave and “pushes the envelope”. But of course it isn’t and it doesn’t , and they know damn well nobody is going to attack them for their art. In fact , as you point out, the contrary happens and they are rewarded by that establishment . Of course if they were to be truly brave they might do something similar such as a lampoon of the more controversial aspects of the Koran…but then they might really fear for their lives..like Salmon Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh. If I were to live in a totalitarian society I might find political art as useful device, but I don’t feel that I do. I have to say that I really like those communist posters that Russia and China produced, usually exhorting the workers to produce more steel or wheat etc, …although I think I might have a very different attitude to them if I’d had to live in those societies!
Almost all art nowadays is garbage anyways :(
Just came from watching some Frank Mason & is just as insulting as that political art. Really cheap & bad copy of the old masters.
I think it all boils down to the fact that there are too many crayons out there. One should need a license to use them.
@dennis -
Dennis,
That whole freedom thing is a bad idea. People use that freedom to do things that good people like us don’t approve of, and that just isn’t right. It’ll be much nicer when we’re in charge and only artists with the right ideas will be allowed to express themselves. All the others can spend their time in nice, comfortable work camps until they realize how truly wrong they are.
I could not agree more. And there is plenty of work needing doing too. Hopefully these camps will get right to the task of melting down the pernicious 64 crayon sets. People like us know 8 is enough and just who deserves to use them.
I was surprised by how the NYT article treated that exhibit. Those were obviously not very thoughtful or particularly compelling pieces in any sense.
But how discouraging! This says more to me about our current landscape than it does about art’s inability to make meaningful political statements. I think in some ways this type of expression results as a response to a stultifying climate. How does really revolutionary art contend in an environment in which a team of ad execs will immediately scoop it up out of context and use it to sell sneakers or soft drinks? The easy answer is to make it so shocking it can’t be appropriated. I find it truly unfortunate that art is not now functioning as the incendiary wake up call that is so desperately needed. I think about the work of Diego Rivera, or pieces like Guernica or the Third of May, art that was able to rile and inspire, but am pressed to find comparable contemporary works. I actually do think Banksy is an exception. His work is clever, well executed, and thought-provoking, especially the pieces on the Israel/Palestine security barrier.
Judy Stines noted that she wanted to see something of the artist worth sharing. I’m not sure there is anything more inspiring or moving than expressions of individuals transcending political or social barriers. That’s the kind of political art that I’d like to see more of.
I think Judy hit the nail on the head with her comment…to me, it’s not the political content (strident, smug, obvious or irritating as it may be) of the art that offends me so much as the lack of craft. In the local art crawl events in my town I see lots of non-politically-oriented art which is every bit as unsatisfying and clumsy. Unfortunately, I tend to associate this with both American culture (the land of instant gratification: fast food, high-speed internet, Learn to Paint Like Rembrant in 10 days — and I’m American) and modern art. Why modern art in particular? Because it seems that a certain aura surrounds artists today — there is this feeling that simply because a person believes him/herself to be an artist, he or she is a higher being with deeper depths than the average Joe and a serious spiritual purpose in the world…ergo, whatever he or she makes (submerging a crucifix in urine, for example) is ‘art’. Maybe this has always been the case to some extent, but it seems that somewhere along the line artists stopped feeling the need to pay their dues (i.e. to learn their craft, a labor of both love and frustration for many.) The words ‘art’ and ‘artisan’ became completely disconnected. Unfortunately, many modern artists seem to learn to take themselves very seriously as ‘tortured artists’ with lots of ‘soul’ purely on the basis of ego…in my opinion, that is a house constructed on sand, since any work of visual art which really packs a punch seems to be about 90% technique (effective use of color and composition, polished draftsmanship, knowledge of and experience with materials, etc.) and 10% soul, and the two work effectively together to create the emotional and sensual impact. Where did the technique go??
Sorry, meant Rembrandt! Ouch! Unintentionally funny, considering the context!
“…Are there kinds of political art that are good? If so, what distinguishes good from bad?…”
Yes, certainly. Art history is loaded with examples of political artworks (almost all of them, in fact) that are quite lovely to see. Religious art is political too, from my point of view. However, most art that has blatant political content soon loses much of it’s original impact as time passes, depending on whether or not the affairs are still current.
How do we evaluate good or bad art in ANY format? The art may fail if the artists did not accurately or clearly represent themselves. Even if I disagree with their point of view, that doesn’t make the work a failure. I will evaluate their work on how well it is presented and if their point of view even matters to me. Explaining David’s “Oath of the Horatii” doesn’t affect me, but I can still enjoy the painting itself.
Being an artist myself, I have my own standards for what qualifies as being well made. A pile of junk is still a pile of junk. It doesn’t become something more just because it was rearranged and placed in a gallery. I also don’t separate content from technique. They are equally significant. The real shame with passing such material off as valuable lies with those who celebrate it at the expense of others who do better work.
I guess I’ve got a silly definition of art… for example take any painting. Does it look like something? Does it in any way actually resemble something real that can be represented visually?
Given that definition, a large portion of things I see called paintings only qualify for the term because somebody used paint as the medium. They don’t look like anything except perhaps the result of an explosion or a violent fight in the studio.
not silly