This week, I read an article called Talking Politics 2008 about an email roundtable discussion among six artists working in the political realm and Erik’s connection post about Socialist Realism. Both were very insightful about the relationship between art and politics and the intricacies of politics in the art world.
The article could have used some help in the organization and flow of the overall writing, as artists made comments in response to the questions that Eleanor Heartney asked, but were not able to respond to each other to enrich their discussion. However, several insightful comments were made.
Martha Rosler stated, “I don’t think art is particularly ‘suited’ to anything,” in response to a question about art’s place in either bearing witness or fomenting change. She went on to say that art can be tailored to specific circumstances or needs, but cannot be generally classified. Enrique Chagoya also said that his role as an activist is more of a “byproduct” of exercising his own anxieties rather than a steady and outright role. Both these artists believe that art is more abstract and illogical than we perceive it to be and cannot be explained with a simple yes or no.
Another important aspect of art referred to is the difference, or perhaps, the overlap between art and propaganda. In Erik’s connection post, he concluded, “art and propaganda are not subsets of one another, but instead two categories which share certain aspects”. This is especially true with respect to the article in which artists stated that art is not made specifically for politics. Propaganda is not specifically art and art is not specifically propaganda.
The article could have used some help in the organization and flow of the overall writing, as artists made comments in response to the questions that Eleanor Heartney asked, but were not able to respond to each other to enrich their discussion. However, several insightful comments were made.
Martha Rosler stated, “I don’t think art is particularly ‘suited’ to anything,” in response to a question about art’s place in either bearing witness or fomenting change. She went on to say that art can be tailored to specific circumstances or needs, but cannot be generally classified. Enrique Chagoya also said that his role as an activist is more of a “byproduct” of exercising his own anxieties rather than a steady and outright role. Both these artists believe that art is more abstract and illogical than we perceive it to be and cannot be explained with a simple yes or no.
Another important aspect of art referred to is the difference, or perhaps, the overlap between art and propaganda. In Erik’s connection post, he concluded, “art and propaganda are not subsets of one another, but instead two categories which share certain aspects”. This is especially true with respect to the article in which artists stated that art is not made specifically for politics. Propaganda is not specifically art and art is not specifically propaganda.