Art and Politics: Part 1
Introduction
Art is constantly changing to accommodate the occurrences of the modern worlds. Even though art is often understood as an apolitical issue, the events of the 1960s compelled artists to take up political concerns in their works.1
Source 1: Art and communism in Romania
Preda, C 2012, âArt and politics in post-communist Romania: changes and continuitiesâ, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 42 no. 1, pp. 116â127.
In this article, Preda posits that the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union was not the end of communism in Europe.2 Artists and their works of art expressed their support or condemnation of this form of leadership throughout the struggle.
One nation that underwent democratic reconstruction is Romania and its journey through communism was expressed in several works of art.3 Preda looks at the post-communist Romania coupled with how art was expressed and it is still being expressed in this part of the world.
In the works of art in Romania during this period, the author expresses tension that existed between nostalgia and legacies. The country was going through democratisation after the end of communism and the use of art was prominent in support and critique of the process and its leaders.
The state of Romania played a central role in politics and art and art discourses of the time questioned the role of the state and art in the years after 1990. Before this period, the country was under dictatorial rule and art was suppressed, and thus it was only being used for its aesthetic value.
The state has continued to fund art in this country and Preda states that politicians fund art to ensure that they facilitate movement from the painful past to a more democratic future.
The artists in Romania demonstrated continued dependence from political leaders in the 90s after the collapse of communism, and Preda states that this assisted mentality made the artists subjective to the political will.
Source 2: Art and politics in New Zealand
Grierson, E 2007, âDifference: A critical investigation of the creative arts with attention to art as a site of knowledgeâ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39 no. 5, pp. 533-542.
Elisabeth Grierson is another author who looks at the relationship between art and politics in her article. She uses New Zealand to investigate the contribution of art to knowledge and political change. In the article, Grierson examines the contemporary use of art in New Zealand to correct the political elite and increase the knowledge of society on its rights.4
New Zealand has experienced several transformations since its independence and authors together with artists were instrumental in driving the masses to ensure that they realise self-governance5. In the article, Grierson explains how the contemporary artists use images, drawings, and music to criticise the authorities and their actions.
The article focuses on the politics of difference in the work of art and it is stated that the project grew since colonialism and gained popularity during the post-colonial era.6 Grierson gives the example of Griselda Pollockâs works, which happened in the years between 1988 and 1999.
Grierson states that the âway Pollock situates art history into a broad field of social, cultural, and political enquiry is pertinent when a postmodern context is sought in art as an educational procedureâ7. The article displays how works of art can be politically influential in the post-modern era.
Source3: Art and Politics in general
Sartwell, C 2010, âArt and Politicsâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 1-4.
Artistic works and politics coupled with their interactions have been the subject of many studies such as those discussed above. Crispin Sartwell is one of the writers who investigate the use of art in politics and how this usage has transformed over the last few decades.
Sartwell states that in the period before 1991, most works of arts and especially dance performances had incorporated the politics of racism or the global HIV/AIDs pandemic.8 This aspect led many researchers to think that all works of art were meant to take political paths and bear political messages.
The use of art for propaganda reasons has been largely applied in many parts of the world. According to Sartwell, this move is a means of shaping the consciousness of the populace.9 Sartwell cites the Shepard Faireyâs Obama-Hope poster as being used to shape peopleâs consciousness as work of art.
The article focuses on the role of art in the determination of political outcomes in his article, After the Gold Rush. Politics and art have become inseparable for a long period and the contemporary artists are increasingly having politics as the main agenda in the works of art.10
The publicity of works of art that have political meanings is also stated to be greater than other forms of art and this assertion means that artists are becoming attracted to the idea of political expressionism.11
The religious works of art are also important to consider and the politics of religion has been a crucial aspect for artists with many of them expressing themselves in ways that have drawn both criticism and praise.
Comparison of main sources
The sources discussed above illustrate the relationship between art and politics over the last few decades. The authors show the different areas in the world where works of art have been used to make political statements and influence the masses.
The first article shows how the use of art can be used for positive change politically in a nation that previously experienced poor leadership. In the article, the author shows the changes that art has been in a position to achieve in Romania after the fall of communism.12
However, one shortcoming for this move is the dependence that art has developed on sate support in the country. In contrast to this article, the second article by Grierson shows how art could be used to criticise the political class and ensure that the masses have their say in the political system.
Griersonâs article displays the use or art to criticise the ruling class and some of the policies that are in place in New Zealand and changes have taken place due to the same. The third article by Sartwell shows how art could be used to influence the masses to vote for particular individuals into political office.
This article contrasts the previous two pieces as the author expresses both sides of the use of art in politics. Art has both positive and negative influence on political stability in a country and the article shows how the modern use of art is to deceive the public into believing the political classes and their strategies.13
Art and Politics: Part 2
Works of art have attracted attention over the centuries due to their aesthetic value. However, art has been used to express a variety of emotions including anger and love.
For a long period, artists managed to stay out of political expressionism, but with the 19th and 20th century wars and major political events, art largely became associated with politics and some works of art were banned in the process. The authorities apprehended and charged artists in courts for incitement.
These events led to a change in understanding of art as being an apolitical issue. The events of the 1960s saw artists take up political concerns in their works. This part is a research on the interaction between art and politics, specifically in the last half of a decade.
The study of the relationship between art and politics shows that artists in the contemporary age are increasingly using their works of art to influence politics or populations into the desired political pathways. Art is an important aspect of any society and pre and post colonisation periods were marked with interactions between politics and art.14
Initially thought as being non-political, art has undergone a transformation over the last century with the political era after the 60s seeing more use of art in expressionism.15
After the end of the Second World War, a number of wars were fought between the many ideologies that developed with the mainstream ones being capitalism and communism. According to Bolognani, both sides of the political divide used art as one of the avenues of outdoing each other and marketing their system as ideal.16
In the communist nations, the use of art was mainly by the state and its operatives to brainwash the people and ensure that they were obedient to the authorities.17
Art was also used to portray the rulers at the time as being more powerful than life.18 The artists at the time were required to immortalise the political figures in leadership at the time and they utilised statues and other monuments that would be hard to demolish or erase from the minds of the people.19
During the period after 1960, the galleries in the most perceived oppressed parts of the world were full of materials that were viewed as being in support of the ruling regimes.20
The materials were symbolic of the current rule and most of them portrayed the dictators and authoritarians as being the peopleâs saviours.21 Works of art that were perceived as being against the established rule of law were highly censured in countries with political instability and authoritarian leadership with most of them being burnt or destroyed.
Art was also used to criticise the leadership of the time and in response to this move, the authorities would arrest, deport, torture, or murder artists that were perceived to be resistant to the government and its rule of law.22 With the fall of communism in the early 90s, the works of art that represented symbols of the communist regime were among the propaganda tools that were destroyed.
The citizens brought down the monuments erected in honour of the leaders as they protested the decades of oppressive rule and many of the images available showing these revolutions show the monuments being brought down.23
The use of art in politics was not restricted to the communist nations and in the Cold War. In the capitalist nations that had been decisive in the war against the German oppression of Europe, art was still used as a political tool.24
The difference was that the artists were in a position to express themselves more freely and museums were full or works of art in praise and criticism of the political class.25 Some of the art works were also censured in these nations to prevent any revolutions from taking place in the region.
The artists used the film industry as one of the avenues of expressing criticism and praise for the ruling class. The industry was turned into a multibillion-dollar propaganda machine, which was used to influence the decisions and the outcomes of any political activities.
The contemporary political environment is marked by a strong desire to influence the ill of people since power is mainly centred on them. Most nations around the world have embraced democracy where the will of the people is respected.
For individuals to attain political office, the people must first accept them and these politicians have devised a variety of ways of winning peopleâs hearts and minds26. Art on the other hand is a strong tool that can be used to express oneself and politicians have realised this aspect.
Most artists have engaged in the production of art to earn a living and politicians pay very well for works of art that are working in their favour.27 Therefore, art is currently inseparable from politics and it is a big influence in politics.
According to Sartwell, politics and art are two inseparable arenas of human endeavour and have since shown important intersections.28 Some cited works of art played a critical role in the influence of political outcomes such as the American elections and Sartwell cites the Obama campaign and the Shepard Faireyâs Obama-Hope poster that played a part in the campaigns.29
Every political regime after the 1960s has used or misused art determination of political survival and authors coupled with artists have been in support and opposition to the use of art in politics. However, artists are divided on the issue of use of art in politics and many have been in support of the use of art to champion the rights and representation of special interest groups in politics.
Over the last fifty years, opposition to political rule in many countries has marked the revolutionary changes in the political fields across the world.30 War has pushed some countries to the brink of collapse with rebels fighting the authorities for political representation.
A befitting example is the Arab Spring, which started in Africa before spreading to the Middle East and Syria is still under ruins courtesy of war. The opposing sides in any war have usually resorted to the use of art as their propaganda machine and in achieving their interests.
In most instances, the government side has been out of favour with people during such instances and the resistance movement has always capitalised on this aspect.31
Artists have been approached by both sides of the political divide and according to Sartwell, the resistance movements have often used art more effectively as compared to their oppressors in the government and he describes the use of art by the government as being âoften gigantical yet excruciatingly dullâ32.
According to Robiglio and Margagliotta, politics has not only been shaped by art, but the reverse can be considered as true.33 One way in which politics has been a major influence on art is through the permission of expression through art.
The political authorities have significantly been responsible for any works of art present in any political system and by allowing some works of art that survived the great wars, the government has controlled what is available for the public to see and hear.
According to Sartwell, âthe art that survives from eras past is whatever the authorities permitted to persist. The history of art is, hence, by and large the history of monuments and of artworks compatible with capitulationâ34.
Works of art have not only been used to critique, question, resist, or approve the political systems, but they have been of significant influence on politics thus leading even to the development of special political systems.
Many of the special political systems that have attracted attention over the last half a decade have had works of art central to their establishment.35 Some of the political documents that could be cited as being special works of art include the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Common Sense of Republic by Plato.
The Declaration of Independence is also considered as a special work of art and has it shaped the political system in the United States. Some regimes have openly been against art and especially those that have their basis on Marxism.
Political leaderships that have engaged art to sell their policies or they that have been elected to power have promoted and popularised the art that they used. Therefore, politics has contributed significantly to spread and international acclaim of works of art.36
Many nations around the world have a special part symbols that are works of art in themselves. Association with the symbols has been a great influence on the popularity of works of art. In New Zealand, the political system borrows form the English system and the ideologies on art have been similar, in a way.
Like any other contemporary democracy, the will of the people is a great influence on the leaders that are elected into office. Legislators have adopted the use of art in their political campaigns, manifestos, and other political machinery to polarise their agendas.37
Politics have also influenced art through the development of special institutions sponsoring art on the political front. In major political parties around the world, there are large departments that are charged with the duty of propaganda and popularity of a party.38
These special departments contract artists who advise them on the appropriate design messages and methods of art that they can use to gain political advantage over their rivals through stronger influence of the people.
The high demand for the works of art to be used in on the political arena has led to the development of special institutions that are dedicated to the teaching art. Universities around the world have also adopted the teaching of art in their institutions and a large number of students are currently undertaking these art related courses.39
The large market for works of art that has resulted from the political exposure has led to the transformation of the art industry as one of the financial sectors in many economies. Currently, artists can use their skills to earn a living and support their families as opposed to other periods in history when art was less financially attractive and productive.40
However, this political-led financial transformation of the art industry has led to the attraction of artists who are more concerned about making money, as opposed to producing masterpieces with deeper meaning, which in most cases may not be popular.
The result of this trend is the development of poor works of art in the place of traditionally rich art works. However, the output has increased over the past century with millions of works of art being produced every single year due to the growth.41
The current trend where technological innovations have contributed to the field of art has also ensured that politicians are ahead of the people via art.
Online campaigns are a present day reality and the creation of masterpieces has shifted from the traditional hardcopy materials to the softcopies that are cheaper to produce and market. Additionally, online campaigns can reach out to many people, and this it is an effective way of promoting art.
Politics exposed art to some of the factors that were not traditionally part of the industry. An example of such assertion is the wide criticism that the industry is associated with in several parts across the world.
Due to the political messages inherent in some artworks, the general population has opted to shun the works of art and even destroy them. Some critics even associate the act of destroying the works of art with freedom, which was traditionally abominable.
Some people also associate works of art with favoured political interests, and in some cases, the acquisition of an artwork is for political reasons as opposed to its aesthetic value.
This aspect undervalues art, as the realised function is inferior to the intended one of representing beauty and ingenuity. The other effect of politics on art in the contemporary times is the application of art in indoctrination of different groups around the world.
Art has been associated with special powers that people use to control some individuals in society. This aspect forms the basis of the association between some forms of art and certain movements associated with Satanism. Therefore, politicians use the perceived special powers of art to influence the thinking of their supporters.
Conclusion
Art is a central part of any culture and it has undergone a transformation since the Middle Ages to the current times. This essay looked into some of the articles showing the relationship between art and politics. It showed the use of art to criticise, support, and to bring down political ideologies in the past half century.
The end of the Second World War and the onset of other wars such as the Cold War led to the high use of art mainly to criticise political systems and authorities with these authorities using art to influence the masses and win their trust.
Politics have also played a role in the shaping of political ideologies as seen in the essay. Art has developed significantly over this period and most efforts can be attributed to the political systems. Therefore, this essay shows that there is a strong relationship between politics and art.
Reference List
Alessi, V 2012, ‘The grey space between art and politics’, Artlink, vol.32 no.3, pp. 32-33.
Bolognani, M 2011, ‘Communities, audiences, and multi-functions: British cultural politics and the showcasing of South Asian art’, South Asian Popular Culture, vol.9 no.1, pp. 71-80.
Christopoulou, M 2013, ‘Exploring the Socio-Politics of the Greek Debt Crisis in a Primary Art Classroom: A Political Cartooning Project’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 32 no. 1, pp. 44-54.
Grierson, E 2007, âDifference: A critical investigation of the creative arts with attention to art as a site of knowledgeâ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39 no. 5, pp. 533-542.
Kardux, J, Fischer-Hornung, D & Davis, R 2011, Aesthetic Practices and Politics in Media, Music, and Art: Performing Migration, Routledge New York.
Kenning, D & Kern, M 2013, ‘Art & Politics’, Art Monthly, vol. 369, pp. 1-4
Mortimer, K & Sathre, C 2007, The art and politics of academic governance: relations among boards, presidents, and faculty, Praeger Publishers, Westport.
Preda, C 2012, âArt and politics in post-communist Romania: changes and continuitiesâ, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 42 no. 1, pp. 116â127.
Robiglio, A & Margagliotta, G 2013, Art, Intellect and Politics: A Diachronic Perspective, Brill, Leiden.
Sartwell, C 2010, âArt and Politicsâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 1-4.
Smith, P 2014, ‘American Politics and the Liberal Arts College’, Polity, vol. 46 no.1, pp. 122-130.
Wang, P 2013, ‘Art Critics as Middlemen: Navigating State and Market in Contemporary Chinese Art, 1980s-1990s’, Art Journal, vol. 72 no.1, pp. 6-19.
Winegar, J 2006, Creative Reckonings: The Politics of Art and Culture in Contemporary Egypt, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Beyme, K 2014, On political culture, cultural policy, art, and politics, Springer, New York.
Bolognani, M 2011, ‘Communities, audiences, and multi-functions: British cultural politics and the showcasing of South Asian art’, South Asian Popular Culture, vol.9 no.1, pp. 71-80.
Chantal, M 1999, âDeliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralismâ, Social Research, vol. 66, no.3, pp. 1-5.
Ernesto, L & Chantal, M 2001, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso, London.
Grierson, E 2007, âDifference: A critical investigation of the creative arts with attention to art as a site of knowledgeâ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39 no. 5, pp. 533-542.
Hite, K 2011, Politics and the Art of Commemoration: Memorials to Struggle in Latin America and Spain, Routledge, New York.
Markussen, T 2013, âThe disruptive aesthetics of design activism: enacting design between art and politicsâ, Design Issues, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 39-50.
Mattick, P 2010, âAfter the Gold Rushâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 4-7.
Preda, C 2012, âArt and politics in post-communist Romania: changes and continuitiesâ, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 42 no. 1, pp. 116â127.
Sartwell, C 2010, âArt and Politicsâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 1-4.
Footnotes
1M Chantal, 1999, âDeliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralismâ, Social Research, vol. 66, no.3, p. 4.
2C Preda, 2012, âArt and politics in post-communist Romania: changes and continuitiesâ, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 42 no. 1, p. 119.
3L Ernesto & M Chantal, 2001, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso, London, p. 82.
4E Grierson, 2007, âDifference: A critical investigation of the creative arts with attention to art as a site of knowledgeâ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39 no. 5, pp. 533-542.
5K Beyme, 2014, On political culture, cultural policy, art and politics, Springer, New York, p. 73.
6K Hite, 2011, Politics and the Art of Commemoration: Memorials to Struggle in Latin America and Spain, Routledge, New York, p.106.
7Grierson, p. 539.
8C Sartwell, 2010, âArt and Politicsâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, p. 1.
9Ibid, p. 2.
10P Mattick, 2010, âAfter the Gold Rushâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, p. 6.
11T Markussen, 2013, âThe disruptive aesthetics of design activism: enacting design between art and politicsâ, Design Issues, vol. 29 no. 1, p. 45.
12Preda, p. 120.
13M Bolognani, 2011, ‘Communities, audiences, and multi-functions: British cultural politics and the showcasing of South Asian art’, South Asian Popular Culture, vol.9 no.1, p.78.
14K Mortimer & C Sathre, 2007, The art and politics of academic governance: relations among boards, presidents, and faculty, Praeger Publishers, Westport, p.86.
15V Alessi, 2012, ‘The grey space between art and politics’, Artlink, vol.32 no.3, p.32.
16M Bolognani, 2011, ‘Communities, audiences, and multi-functions: British cultural politics and the showcasing of South Asian art’, South Asian Popular Culture, vol.9 no.1, p78.
17J Kardux, D Fischer-Hornung & R Davis, 2011, Aesthetic Practices and Politics in Media, Music, and Art: Performing Migration, Routledge New York, p.111.
18 J Winegar, 2006, Creative Reckonings: The Politics of Art and Culture in Contemporary Egypt, Stanford University Press, Stanford, p. 90.
19D Kenning & M Kern 2013, ‘Art & Politics’, Art Monthly, vol. 369, p. 3.
20P Smith, 2014, ‘American Politics and the Liberal Arts College’, Polity, vol. 46 no.1, p. 123.
21M Christopoulou, 2013, ‘Exploring the Socio-Politics of the Greek Debt Crisis in a Primary Art Classroom: A Political Cartooning Project’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 32 no. 1, p. 45.
22P Wang, 2013, ‘Art Critics as Middlemen: Navigating State and Market in Contemporary Chinese Art, 1980s-1990s’, Art Journal, vol. 72 no.1, p. 11.
23A Robiglio& G Margagliotta, 2013, Art, Intellect and Politics: A Diachronic Perspective, Brill, Leiden, p.128.
24Christopoulou, p.49.
25Robiglio and Margagliotta, p. 130.
26Christopoulou, p.50.
27Robiglio and Margagliotta, p. 117.
28C Sartwell, 2010, âArt and Politicsâ, American Society for aesthetics An Association for Aesthetics, Criticism and Theory of the Arts, vol. 30 no.3, p. 2.
29Ibid, p.2.
30Robiglio and Margagliotta, p. 119.
31Winegar, p. 121.
32Sartwell, p. 3.
33Robiglio and Margagliotta, p. 102.
34Sartwell, p.1.
35Winegar, p. 112.
36C Preda, âArt and politics in post-communist Romania: changes and continuitiesâ, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 42 no. 1, p. 124.
37E Grierson, 2007, âDifference: A critical investigation of the creative arts with attention to art as a site of knowledgeâ, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 39 no. 5, p. 533.
38Christopoulou, p.48.
39Sartwell, p.3.
40Christopoulou, p.51.
41Sartwell, p.4.