Art and Politics
As the saying goes, everything is political. In terms of contemporary art, it might be more accurate to say everything is politicized. Visual art and politics intersect at a hazy junction, problematized by culture and its fissuresrace, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, class, nationality and religion. Despite the perpetual conflict caused by these mediators of existence, it seems we human beings would rather wave banners than seek mutual footing. This principle (or fallacy) clearly manifests itself in every aspect of society, our particular subsection included.
Texans are famous for this kind of solipsistic behavior. We believe ourselves to be culturally uniqueat times, even superiorbut the days of navel-picking self-adoration are over. Politically speaking, Texans are today considered the bumpkins of the known universe. Therefore, it might be time to abandon geography, as Dave Hickey suggested last year in the inaugural lecture for ARTLIES' Critic Lecture Series, as our primary method of self-reference.
In order to foster a more universalistic spirit, ARTLIES has temporarily relaxed its philosophical borders, permitting the diverse musings and talents of so-called outsiders to infiltrate the following pages with differing views on the nature of political art. Most of the work discussed avoids the mere depiction of conflict. Such work can be limited in conceptual potency; it oftentimes also reflects a reactionary sensibility that can result in divisiveness and impermanence. Besides, given the daily tally of loss worldwidebe it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Chiapas, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, Haiti, Northern Ireland, Palestine and elsewherethere is really no egalitarian or comprehensive means of communicating the inhumanity of political conflict. I prefer art that infects the status quoincendiary acts and images which harness the very mechanisms that replicate culture in order to distort them. This sort of work is, at its core, political yet nonpartisan; its appeal is cognitive as well as visceral and does not assume a shared ethos on the part of the viewer.
James Bae and Charles Reeve each present a Modest Proposal of sorts: Bae explores the aesthetic of terror, presenting a new breed of cynical realists thinly disguised as conceptual artists. Charles Reeve's curatorial project Clash of Civilizations parodies the unchecked us verses them mentality that currently divides America from the rest of the globe. Danish critic Lars Bang Larsen, though admittedly ambivalent about art that professes to be inherently political, gives praise to artists who massage meaning by investing themselves in processes and structures that question our political reality. The Yes Men's hijacking of BBC airtime in order to bring attention to the legacy of the Bhopal disaster illustrates one aspect of Larsen's sensibility.
spurse, a multinational art and architectural entity with feelers in Houston and Austin, presents an Interventionist Manifestoa call to disrupt the dominant sociopolitical order through harmless acts of cultural resistance. Michelle Gonzales-Valdez explores the legal consequences of political dissent in her rundown of the Steve Kurtz casejust one example of an American visual artist ensnared by the Patriot Act. Cruz Ortiz discusses his interest in the giddy aftermath of political protests, a phenomenon he characterizes as the state of deflation that follows collective action. And finally, Lillian Davis gives us a glimpse at the Shanghai Biennale, contemplating the mechanics of image production and the way such principles shift from culture to culture.
The work compiled in this issue renders the flower-power-infused, artist-as-activist model passé, but the mental image of Abbey Hoffman and company attempting to levitate the Pentagon still makes me chuckle. Within these pages lie a few new and perhaps more realistic possibilitiesin terms of attitude and approachfor those who feel the need to effect change through visual means. This one is for you, Dave. You'll find no stupid fairytale art, Texas-centric self-worship or inane literalism within these pagesat least, I hope not.
Anjali Gupta
Editor