Art and
Politics examines how the combination can be detrimental to the integrity of
the artist and to the quality of art produced by a culture as a whole. Art and
politics in my view are like mixing oil and water. Great ingredients for salad
dressing but lethal for art.
Granted that
many old master paintings would depict political or religious themes. Their
sponsors were either church or state. That was not the painter's primary
objective though, as evidenced by the quality of their works.
If their
objective was only to produce propaganda on behalf of their benefactors, we
would not have the exquisite paintings hanging in the world's museums today
that convey a transcendence over subject matter, suggesting the sublime
universal answers to human existence.
To produce
propaganda the artist must subordinate his personality and artistic theories to
that purpose. The old masters were painting for the purpose of their own
understanding of the world and of art.
Art and
Politics - Totalitarian Propaganda
My first
college level art class was taught by a young professor who distributed to the
class, although not as required reading and distributed innocuously, the
writings of Chairman Mao on Art. Was it a subtle form of indoctrination?
Probably and I am glad to have dumped them in a waste basket where they
belonged.
The point
being is that art is a powerful medium which those with political aspirations
or already in power, want to manipulate toward their own ends.
Totalitarian
regimes will attack art and artist upon their seizing of power and dictate an
aesthetic afterwards that would serve as a propaganda tool to further their
political ends.
The results
are barren cultures such as Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union from which
not one significant work of art was ever created.
Art and
Politics - Art for Art's Sake
Art for
art's sake is an idea I subscribe to. If the purpose of a work of art is
subordinate to an agenda it becomes an illustration. A means to an end such as
a Madison Avenue advertising campaign promoting soap or the next dictator.
Art history
demonstrates how artists, when freed from the sponsorship of church or state,
became more creative than any other time in human history. A free economy and a
free mind are corollaries.
Today art is
becoming more political. Not in the way of promoting political parties but by
promoting social agendas. There is a plethora of niche art promoting everything
from feminism to environmentalism. Some of these artists are supported by
government grants administered by those with an agenda.
Could a
young Vermeer today receive such a grant? Not unless he stopped depicting women
as domestic servants. Could a barbarian who sprays graffiti on private property
get a grant? Absolutely, not only a grant but accolades from the art elites who
will applaud him as a voice attacking the evils of capitalism.
Art and
Politics - The Artist as an Independent Thinker
The lives of
most painters are an economic struggle. Most take jobs unrelated to their
profession, some are fortunate to find employment related to their profession
and then there are those who will take government money.
Those that
take government money should realize that you are not your own master and are
being manipulated. The money you accept came from fellow artist's taxes. Why
should they subsidize you, their competitor? Why not compete in the free
market? It worked for Vermeer.
Once an
artist abandons his integrity for the rewards offered by a benefactor who sets
the terms as to what the purpose and meaning your art is to be, you cease to be
an artist and become a tool.
Art and
politics are a lethal mix for the artist. An artist needs to be an independent
thinker. The politician needs to be a manipulator.
Comments
Post a Comment