Art & Politics?

[Annie]

A lot of great art came out of just that, among my favourites is the work done during the Weimar Republic. For those who may not be familiar, there’s some here:

SPLENDOR AND MISERY IN THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC

The SCHIRN KUNSTHALLE FRANKFURT is one of Europe’s most renowned exhibition institutions. Here you can find information about exhibitions and events featured by SCHIRN.

www.schirn.de

Thanks for that link...I've spent the last half hour or so exploring there. Such a wealth of art!

 

[Annie]

I'm posting a couple of images of the "make people think" type of political art and asking, "don't you think this is valid and worthwhile"? After all, just as a poem can express things that prose cannot, a painting can cause us to reflect on the experience of another.
Max Ginsburg, Foreclosure, 2013

New Yorker Cover, artist unknown, 2020

I see both of these as expressing ideas/feelings/stories/histories that cannot be fully communicated with words. If you read an essay on the experience of a family experiencing foreclosure or the black experience of slavery, it wouldn't have the impact that these images have. And that ability to communicate - to me - is a useful, meaningful goal in art, although certainly not the only, nor necessarily the best, useful/meaningful way to create art.

That isn't to say that all political art is successful!

 

[xie-kitchin]

Yes, there isn't a debate category here on purpose. We wanted this forum to be about art and not politics and not religious propaganda, nor a bunch of heavy personal disagreements where we'd have to make a lot of judgment calls in order to moderate threads and posts, and thus become the bad guys, or whatever else.

That being said, art and politics as a subject matter is a completely valid topic for discussion, so long as it doesn't become a romper room of people throwing poop all over the walls. Everyone is entitled to their views though. No one wants to censor anyone here. It's supposed to be a safe place to discuss ART.

However, if something starts to get out of hand, and that is at the call of the owners of this site, then it's going to get moderated. That's just the nature of the beast I guess. So far, that has been pretty minimal.

I just wanted to post this friendly reminder. That's all.

As you were.

Thanks, I was cautiously trying to make a point about the meaning of a particular act of vandalism, while trying to sidestep getting embroiled in a political debate on whether the vandalism was justified... Which is an incredibly difficult thing to do! I don't want to cross any lines.

The main thought I wanted to come back to on politics and art is that we're often locked into thinking of political art as propaganda or having an overt message that it's getting across. But lots of art has been political without being quite so overt, related to what's been mentioned about more reacting to political ideas/events. I also think a lot about the politics underlying a lot of Dada and Surrealism and art coming out of this tradition, which has the goal of liberation, getting the viewer to rethink consensus reality and see in new and different ways. There's probably some crossover between that goal and the goal of more politically persuasive art, but it's a very different tact. Kinda brings to mind Sontag's essay comparing Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty to Brecht's epic theatre and analysis of Weiss' Marat/Sade as attempting to unify the theories.

Anyway, Sue Coe is an artist I've liked in the past who's known for making very political work. Here's a recent print, seems very timely:

 

[JohnEmmett]

 

[brianvds]

Daumier and the German Expressionist print-makers sought to rebel against this through the creation of a mass-produced art that might be sold more cheaply... but you are correct.

And Rivera's solution was that artists should focus on public murals, so that everyone could enjoy original art instead of just the small elite who can afford it.

Ultimately, it takes a good period of time to master the skills needed to paint or sculpt, and most paintings or sculpture (or other art forms) are time intensive. If I spend a month and 100 hours on a painting I can't afford to sell it for $100. Of course, I've long joked that I can't afford my own paintings.

Yes, indeed. Of course, here and there an individual artist makes it big and then becomes very wealthy, and frequently that is also unfair, because while his work is frequently better than that of his completely unsuccessful competitor, you have to wonder whether it is really a million times better.

That's the so-called Pareto distribution, and you see it everywhere. Unfair, perhaps, and indeed, there is even something to be said for government to try taking the edge off it, but we must be very careful about extensively interfering in the natural processes. Particularly when our interference takes the form of vandalism.

I've long thought that we are unique in being the first neurotic (self-loathing?) Superpower.

I read somewhere that self-loathing is in fact a stage through which all great powers go, usually just before they collapse (partly because of their self-loathing). But I am wary about theories of history that thinks it all works in as straightforward and predictable a way as physics.

The problem hits home, however, when these various stupid political decisions impact us directly.

I'm enough of a stoic Buddhist to accept that there is not much I can do about it.

 

[brianvds]

It isn't stoicism. It's just being realistic. Nature operates on time scales that are almost incomprehensible to humans. We take ourselves very seriously, but all our doings occupy no more than a fingernail clipping off the length of an entire arm in terms of deep time.

That is indeed a powerful image: if we represent time as a person standing with his arms outstretched, and the beginning of time is at the tip of his left hand with the present moment at the tip of his right, then we can remove all of human history with a single swipe of a nail file.

Now it is of course true that however trivial our entire history might be on cosmic scales, it is still important to us, who have to live through it. I am by no means advocating that we just give up on everything and not care at all anymore. But I think a sense of proper perspective, instead of making us care less, is actually a useful first step towards genuinely improving the world.

 

[musket]

I entirely agree that it would be useful if more people understood just how meager is the length of time we've been here. I've said so for many years in Debates in the old forum.

 

[stlukesguild]

I entirely agree that it would be useful if more people understood just how meager is the length of time we've been here. I've said so for many years in Debates in the old forum.

How is our grasp of just how meager our lives are in comparison to the universe at all relevant to our human experiences? Are we to somehow ignore our experiences... our joys and our tragedies... personal and otherwise... because these experiences are but nothing in the scope of universal time?

 

[stlukesguild]

Rivera's solution was that artists should focus on public murals, so that everyone could enjoy original art instead of just the small elite who can afford it.

But who owns the wall? And who pays for the paint and for the artist to paint the mural? There's the famous incident of Rivera's mural for the Rockefellers being demolished after the artist insisted on including Marx and Trotsky.

Of course, here and there an individual artist makes it big and then becomes very wealthy, and frequently that is also unfair, because while his work is frequently better than that of his completely unsuccessful competitor, you have to wonder whether it is really a million times better.

I'm not certain that the contemporary "art stars" are even better than a lot of other artists. I've long wondered what one might get if instead of shelling out $120 Million for the latest work by Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst, the wealthy patrons instead funded 120 talented artists to the tune of $1 Million each?

That's the so-called Pareto distribution, and you see it everywhere. Unfair, perhaps, and indeed, there is even something to be said for government to try taking the edge off it, but we must be very careful about extensively interfering in the natural processes. Particularly when our interference takes the form of vandalism.

The problem there is just like that within economics. They argue that the government's job isn't to aid the poor through the redistribution of wealth... and yet they see no problem with assisting the wealthy through tax breaks, etc... I'm not certain that we are seeing the finest art championed by museums and the art media when they are all pandering to the taste of the very wealthy.

I'm enough of a stoic Buddhist to accept that there is not much I can do about it.

You then need to ask yourself how well such a mindset worked out under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc...

 

[musket]

I entirely agree that it would be useful if more people understood just how meager is the length of time we've been here. I've said so for many years in Debates in the old forum.

How is our grasp of just how meager our lives are in comparison to the universe at all relevant to our human experiences? Are we to somehow ignore our experiences... our joys and our tragedies... personal and otherwise... because these experiences are but nothing in the scope of universal time?

It might help in the hubris department, don't you think? Better a little more humility before nature than our continued delusion that we somehow stand outside it, that we've been granted some special dispensation to do whatever the hell we please just because we have a particular kind of intelligence which has yet to prove it has any long term survival advantage.

 

[Trier]

xie-kitchin

In my humble opinion the image you posted is of the type that will destroy the good will and cameraderie which I believe is sought to be fostered on this site.

I don't think you are being malicious or being an agitatator, but whether well intended or from just fuzzy thinking, it should be apparent that such a piece could easily be viewed as blatent false propaganda by others who have an opposite view of the situation; further, that the very subtle message "he incites facist violence" might provoke equally subtle disagreement.

Just to reinforce the probable perception that I am a 'dinosaur', I will say that the old rule used to be that "politics and religion are not discussed at the dinner table" due to their inherently disruptive nature and that, in spirit, would be a good rule here.

Again, just my opinion, and to paraphrase ," I totally disagee with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

No personal offense intended.

Regards,
Trier

 

[stlukesguild]

Trier; Sue Coe has been a brutal political artist for as long as I can recall. Her idols are German Expressionists such as Otto Dix, George Grosz, and Kathe Kollwitz. Many moons ago I saw an exhibition of her works in New York. On the wall she had posted a placard... more like a banner... in which she proclaimed something to the effect of: "People ask why I make such ugly images. My answer is 'Until rape, and murder, and war, and inequality, and oppression are a thing of the past, I will continue to paint the ugly truth.' I looked at the friend I was with at the time and I said, 'Well, I guess she's gonna be doing this stuff for a looooooooong time.' " You ought to see Coe's paintings and the meat industry.

I do think WetCanvas had a good idea in placing controversial... especially political issues... within the Debates Forum. Only members with 100+ posts could post in the Debates and members who were unable to engage in debating controversial issues appropriately would be rapidly banned from that forum.

I wouldn't want to see discussions of controversial issues banned from the site as a whole because I believe Art and Artists have long tackled such issues:

I respect all of these artists... and even love some of the works... but I'll freely admit that works such as these are not my passion... and I doubt I'd have the ability to create such an art well.

 

[xie-kitchin]

xie-kitchin

In my humble opinion the image you posted is of the type that will destroy the good will and cameraderie which I believe is sought to be fostered on this site.

I don't think you are being malicious or being an agitatator, but whether well intended or from just fuzzy thinking, it should be apparent that such a piece could easily be viewed as blatent false propaganda by others who have an opposite view of the situation; further, that the very subtle message "he incites facist violence" might provoke equally subtle disagreement.

Just to reinforce the probable perception that I am a 'dinosaur', I will say that the old rule used to be that "politics and religion are not discussed at the dinner table" due to their inherently disruptive nature and that, in spirit, would be a good rule here.

Again, just my opinion, and to paraphrase ," I totally disagee with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

No personal offense intended.

Regards,
Trier

I posted the print from Sue Coe because the discussion touched on recent political art, and it's recent with very timely content. But I was actually worried it might be problematic to post and like I said, I don't want to cross any lines. My apologies if I'm doing that! Really wasn't my intent to provoke.

I'd like to edit the image out, but I don't seem to have the ability anymore. @Artyczar??

@stlukesguild - Coe's "Dead Meat" was recommended to me in college. I never got a hold of the whole book, but did see a number of the prints and thought they were very arresting. She doesn't pull any punches. Her work reminds me a bit of Kollwitz, who I am big fan of (visited her museum when we were in Berlin in 2008, def worth it).

 

[Trier]

I posted the print from Sue Coe because the discussion touched on recent political art, and it's recent with very timely content. But I was actually worried it might be problematic to post and like I said, I don't want to cross any lines. My apologies if I'm doing that! Really wasn't my intent to provoke.

I'd like to edit the image out, but I don't seem to have the ability anymore. @Artyczar??

@stlukesguild - Coe's "Dead Meat" was recommended to me in college. I never got a hold of the whole book, but did see a number of the prints and thought they were very arresting. She doesn't pull any punches. Her work reminds me a bit of Kollwitz, who I am big fan of (visited her museum when we were in Berlin in 2008, def worth it).

Thank you for such a considerate reply! I am greatly relieved to know now for sure that you had no ill intents.
It is a pleasure to find that we can have a mutually respectful discussion here and no apologies needed as far as I'm concerned. G-- knows I have made enough misjudgements myself as to how people would take things for me to not to understand that it happens to all of us.

Kind Regards,
Trier

 

[Trier]

St. Luke

Thanks to you for images and thoughtful response. Much of what I said to xie-kitchin is applicable here as to having decent, intelligent, discussions.

I tend to agree with you about the wisdom of having a Debate forum (or garbage can) where people can have at it without polluting the appreciation of, and interest in, art, which binds us together.

I admire the colors and energy of the German Expressionists you posted and to make a try at emulating them, but the works of Goya,Turner, Daumier, Gericault, etc are far beyond anything I could aspire to.

I might say that if Sue Coe wants to paint the Ugly Truth of human nature, that is her problem; I for one want to find and paint the Beautiful Truth in the whole of nature if I can.

Here's to intelligent discourse from Cleveland!

Kind Regards,
Trier

 

[xie-kitchin]

I think there's a way to discuss controversial art without provoking a political debate. But it's difficult when you have something like the Coe print puts the politics front and center, and there's very little distance between us and the political message or historic context. So then we're reacting to the message itself vs how she's communicating it. Our reaction to the "Raft of the Medusa," which was controversial at the time, is probably going to be different, because a lot of us aren't acquainted with the specific incident it depicts and the political implications of that.

Surprised no one has mentioned "Guernica"...

 

[stlukesguild]

Too obvious. Although I do think I mentioned it... and the Charnel House... in an earlier post. I just didn't actually post an image of the painting.

 

[Artyczar]

So far I don't think anything should be edited out of this thread. Members have a couple of hours after they post to make edits. It might be a shorter time frame, but it's something like that. As long as this thread doesn't disintegrate into personal attacks or something we see as too incredibly emotional, I don't see any big moderation needed, but I do personally do not enjoy huge debates about politics or religion, nor propaganda/promotional content on what people should or shouldn't do in their lives. That's all I worry about.

There was a time I left WC (for years) because of people promoting and straight out telling mentally ill people to stop taking their medication and propagating "mind-over-matter," cult-like alternatives, which I personally find to be a dangerous road. I couldn't believe it was allowed on the forum (not the debate forum mind you), yet other things were not allowed and people were banned for I-don't-know-what.

That's really all I have to say at this time. It's been a healthy discourse so far, so I'm not too worried really.

 

[xie-kitchin]

@Artyczar - As long as it's cool with you! I have pretty strong political opinions and don't mind a bit of debate, but there's a time and place for that and I'm totally fine with setting boundaries like that in forums. Since you brought me over from deviantArt, I'm sure you're at least vaguely aware of the moderation issues on that site's forums.

@stlukesguild - You very well might have mentioned it and I skimmed right past. You're right, "Guernica" is indeed obvious. "Charnel House" less so, I had to jog my memory on that one.

 

[musket]

Yeesh, you guys... there's nothing here in the way of personal attacks and I should know, having once had the thankless task of being a guide in the true wild west days of Debates at WC.