...Political Sensitivity in Contemporary
Art:
...Having Your Art in the Right Place
I went to a conservative
art school, RISD, but that was a long time ago. The theory went,
however, that politics and art were not good bedfellows, at least
not when it came to the work of art itself. There were exceptions:
Goya, Manet, Surrealism, the Guernica, Beckman, Munch... and
it wasn't just that political expression in art was a violation
of the modernist dictum: art for art's sake; but that it was
understood that a statement of any kind would make the
work a contrivance, that the expression would be made flat(shallow)
by the external and self-conscious agenda.
Today the opposite
is true. Postmodernism has changed all that. If you do not have
a political agenda you are not politically "sensitized."
If you are not politically sensitized, you are nothing. There
is no "truth" from a humanist perspective, there is
only politics, and which side you are on. Contemporary artists
are compelled to choose; we are in a period of intense polarization,
and finding the truth, thinking for one's self, are ideals that
went out with the individualistic decadence of modernism. But
in fairness to the modernists, what one believes finds its way
into the work, and that was the idea: that an indirect, unconscious
expression was not only more powerful, but legitimate and credible.
Many of the great modernists, after all, were victims of political
turmoil; who more than they were in a position to judge the impact
political agenda would have on a work of art?
The last twenty
years have seen more change in the arts than most care to admit.
It has been considered a time of pluralism, of "anything
goes." Pluralism, however, has changed to multi-culturalism,
to diversity. Anything goes has changed to politically
correct. In reality it has been a revolution. In most regards
these changes have not only been welcome and rewarding, they
have been necessary. They have literally changed the face
of contemporary art. Gone is the white male domination that
informed western art for two thousand years. "Women and
minorities" stormed the barricades.
The results have
been uneven, however. Women have clearly triumphed very quickly
because they have been very much in the ranks all along. The
entry of people of color into the spot light of art, however,
has been painfully slow. Black men in particular have not enjoyed
the rewards of this quiet revolution. With the exception of graffiti
art, we have failed to go outside the ranks to bring black men
in. Success for women is not enough. We are missing a rich and
powerful cultural resource by failing men of African-American,
Hispanic, and Native American heritage, at the same time contributing
to their continued suppression and despair.
So the results
are mixed. Politically sensitized art often fails to acknowledge
the most fundamental truths about both politics and art. Addressing
social issues is nothing less than a noble intention. But the
question is not just how, but why, and for whom? So often the
work can at best hope to preach to the choir. If the issues are
the artist's own than the motives are not noble but self-advancing.
Politics comes down to acquiring and managing power. It is as
natural a function as sweat. Necessary, even essential, but more
natural than noble. If the issue belongs to another group, then
the champion is indeed noble but without direct experience, and
art without experience is again, nothing. Nonetheless it still
remains true that it is better to have your "art in the
right place." This revolution has been well worth the growing
pains, and we wouldn't want to go back.
Kiki Smith is an
artist who has addressed woman issues with considerable success.
She accomplished this because she was well-heeled in modernist
ideals thanks to her art roots. The socio-political content of
her work has a solid formalist backbone: it never parades its
intentions. The work may be confrontational, but that is its
style, not its posture. What we get from it is still the result
of experience; we don't read the work.
Barbara Kruger
on the other hand, because of her very direct use of text, is
more of a read. Smith's use of text is integrated and more lyrical.
With Kruger we get nothing if we don't get the text. The text
makes it possible to advance the socio-political agenda. Inevitably
any agenda with bite is going to have to be threatening, this
is understood. Save The Whales doesn't get the job done. You
have to go after the big boys. Kruger has done that. The result
is that while she has distinguished herself as one of the premier
social critics, along side Jenny Holzer, she has also defined
herself as a malcontent, and redefined the contemporary artist
as malcontent in ways that it never was before due to the more
explicit nature of postmodernism. The problem again with politics
is that along with it has always come the party line. Art has
been the domain of individual expression; politics the domain
of group expression. Art depends on the freedom of individual
expression and politics severely compromises that freedom.
An example would
be to take an artist of Kruger's stature, visual imagination
and savvy with a razor edge, but make the politics Christian
Fundamentalist. Impossible? Exactly! Kruger's political correctness
is part of her success. A different political perspective and
the results are different. Politics and art can't be separated?
Of course they can. I just did it. The fact is that there are
probably artists out there like the one I described, but because
of the politics, we won't see them. Just because I share Kruger's
politics doesn't mean I share her art. And only maybe viceversa.
I do prefer Kruger, for what it's worth, but that doesn't mean
anything. I prefer freedom more, artistic and political, any
day of the week.
What does the artist
do that is driven to take a political stand? Take it, of course.
There are no rules. Conviction is what makes the difference in
art as it does in all things. If you think you can make a difference
by addressing a social ill or injustice through your work you
are duty bound to try. RISD was wrong( Holzer was there with
me, and mad as a hornet most of the time), although the rational
was probably right on: the issues of painting and sculpture are
complicated beyond belief without throwing something as posture-driven
as politics into the mix(it was not so much a question of picture-making
but of the more spiritual alchemy that art is all about). Still,
you do what you have to do. Better to fall down doing something
you believe in than to succeed in doing something you don't,
and you have to believe that! Would you have it any other way?
Furthermore, convictions as a human being are more important
than artistic conviction: and how could they fail to find there
way into the work? I was always disturbed by artists like Morandi
whose work spanned revolutions and world wars with not so much
as a shift in hue. I think we can be glad that the artworld is
in better hands as we approach the new millennium.
Addison Parks,
August 1999
2Sense is a new and on-going outlet for
ideas in Artdeal.
