This morning's Literary Saloon points out that two Jonathan Franzen interviews discussing the recent Downtown for Democracy readings are available only from German newspapers. The posting prompts me to blog about something I've been thinking about since my NY visit with Terry Teachout, and that's political art.
Terry and I talked about this subject over lunch and we both agreed that politics generally doesn't make for great art. There are exceptions of course but I do think that art that's pressed into the service of the purely political tends to be didactic and formulaic. (I haven't seen Tim Robbins Embedded, and even though I am completely sympathetic to its - and his - politics, it isn't hard for me to imagine it's probably not a very good play.) On the other hand, art with political underpinnings but a broader vocabulary tends to sustain - think Guernica - even if one can question its efficacy.
I've also mentioned previously that when I told Terry I was off to see an exhibit of German Expressionism, he responded with some disdain. I can understand why one might not warm to such art, but as I visited the exhibit what struck me most was the visceral chronicle of the decaying moments before Europe committed suicide. It's an art that was deeply engaged in its time - without being didactic or reductive.
And it set me wondering about where are today's equivalents to be found among American artists? Who are the chroniclers of this time which, in many ways, is as divisive and radicalized as any period in American history? Perhaps this is just another backwater of the literary/genre high/low serious/entertainment argument but I am hard pressed to think of artists - obviously, novelists in my case - who are responding to these times with more than the superficially didactic (although John Barth's new collection of short stories, The Book of 10 Nights and A Night, has caught my attention). Now there are obvious problems in terms of timing - how long it takes to write and publish a novel - and I suppose that some issues can pass their "sell by" date by the time a book gets out there.
One thinks of The Grapes of Wrath. Whatever your opinion of Steinbeck, he managed to build a literary take on a political agenda. Perhaps that role has been ceded by novelists to other forms and media - hell, rap music presently engages the vagaries of the political situation more directly - but if you accept the notion of the artist as engage (as I do), you can't help but notice something missing out there today. It may be that the European tradition has always been more political than the American, which has tended to tilt toward entertainment. Or it may be that the academic directions in which serious fiction have moved in this country have removed it from engagement with the merely day-to-day.
Discuss.
Politics DO make for good art, but only when the politics are so hidden beneath the structure that you don't notice it.
Posted by: Ed | April 14, 2004 at 08:12 AM
And I'd say that Elizabeth Gaskell or Arthur Miller come immediately to mind.
Posted by: Ed | April 14, 2004 at 08:12 AM
One other thing: It's "Barth." :)
Posted by: Ed | April 14, 2004 at 09:42 AM
Jeez, I'm a fucking name disaster today ... Laila already called me on "Natalie" Gordimer.
It's the drugs. Definitely the drugs.
Posted by: TEV | April 14, 2004 at 11:12 AM
It is an interesting issue. You seem to think that my rant about the philosophical underpinnings of culture was an attempt to force "littary criticism through a narrow political agenda." But isn't a search for relevance and a connection with the big issues of our time the same thing? Why is a discussion of egalitarianism's impact on culture different from an artist's attempt to capture and express a political worldview via literature?
Posted by: Kevin Holtsberry | April 14, 2004 at 01:40 PM
I think you're right (and Terry's wrong) about German Expressionism. That kind of "engagement" with social currents can produce worthwhile art. But those artists weren't really trying consciously to be political or to engage in cultural commentary. They just couldn't help it.
Posted by: Dan Green | April 14, 2004 at 02:54 PM
I'd like to second Arthur Miller (Focus) and certainly Tim O'Brien as work that stands up politically and as excellent prose. Same with Lionel Shriver (We Need to Talk About Kevin)
Posted by: Dave Worsley | April 15, 2004 at 05:54 AM
"Terry and I talked about this subject over lunch and we both agreed that politics generally doesn't make for great art. There are exceptions of course but I do think that art that's pressed into the service of the purely political tends to be didactic and formulaic."
Hello Mark, interesting site. The position above seems to me to be wholly unsupportable by taking a glance at history: "Antigone," the purposive political comedies of Aristophanes, Erasmus' didactic comedy The Praise of Folly, Gulliver's Travels, the dialogues of Plato, Michael Moore, all the brilliant political cartoons and graphics today, etc...
In 1939 in Forces in Literary Criticism, Bernard Smith noted: “ ‘Propaganda’ is not used here as an invidious term. It is used to describe works consciously written to have an immediate and direct effect upon their readers’ opinions and actions, as distinguished from works that are not consciously written for that purpose or which are written to have a remote and indirect effect. It is possible that conventional critics have learned by now that to call a literary work ‘propaganda’ is to say nothing about its quality as literature. By now enough critics have pointed out that some of the world’s classics were originally ‘propaganda’ for something”) (289-292).
I've recently put together the site "Literature and Social Change" that grew out of my interest in reading, writing and teaching political novels, and propaganda and literature. Lots of excerpts there that comment on the existence and value of political literature.
best regards, Tony Christini
Posted by: Tony Christini | August 14, 2004 at 06:27 PM
I know this is an old post, but i came across it while doing research for an article on a similar topic for a college journalism piece.
You are deeply in error to think that there are no great, well known pieced today that are political, artistic and American. One author since thats what you seemed most interested in is Alice Walker. Then of course there is the recent creation of the movie 'Crash'. Political art can also be seen in cartoons. Today there are numerous cartoons making fun of Bush, or protesting the Iraqi war.
Posted by: melissa | February 25, 2007 at 09:26 AM
March 14, 6 PM - Politically-Charged Art Event at Pace University, NYC
MEDIA ALERT
Pace University/University of Technology, Sydney
Global Art Collaboration
MacDonald’s & Subritzky’s Politically-Charged “Lobby, Fold and Spin” Installations Debut in New York City;
Opening Reception: Wednesday, March 14 at 6 PM at Pace University with the Hon. Robert Hill, Australian Ambassador to the United Nations
OVERVIEW From March 14 to May 5, two Australians, artist Fiona MacDonald and curator Ricky Subritzky, will collaborate on a series of three installations in New York City. Entitled “LOBBY, FOLD and SPIN,” the provocative installations are part of an international project that The Washington Post has called “charged” and “striking” and The Sydney Morning Herald has described as “subtle and beautiful.” The New York showing is a result of a collaboration between Pace and The University of Technology, Sydney, and the Daneyal Mahmood Gallery in Chelsea.
LOBBY (March 14-May 5) – installed in the lobby of the Michael Schimmel Center for the Arts at Pace University, America’s last Liberty Tree forms an immense mandala-like canopy circled by doves and hawks, while the surrounding space is completely wrapped with 900 yards of silk drapery depicting a kaleidoscopic crowd scene. In this installation, MacDonald and Subritzky contemplate relationships between citizens and governments, and the influential sway of lobby groups in the struggle between liberty and authority.
FOLD (March 14 - April 14) – installed at the Peter Fingestin Gallery at Pace University, MacDonald and Subritzky bring home the implications of the accumulation of property. This second installation immerses observers in intricate, insidious and repetitive patterns enfolding the heady mix of capitalism and militarism into domestic flows and architectures. In a disquieting tableau, a rocking chair and light shade merge in a wallpapered flurry of falling leaves and ascending warplanes. A drape repeats a “geophysical survey of lurid magnetic intensity data” overlaid with a crystalline motif of B-1B bombers. A grid of 50 paper shopping bags, a “bag-flag,” is silhouetted with birds of prey. And the last Liberty Tree flutters on a wall covered with US one dollar bills, and looks on a shadowy rug below.
SPIN (March 22 - April 21) – at the Daneyal Mahmood Gallery, a series of lamps are transformed into zoetropes; precursors to cinema, zoetropes use cylinders set in motion to animate still images. Riffing on the mendacity of political “spin,” and satirizing mass media’s problematic predilection for simplification, MacDonald & Subritzky animate imagery drawn from current affairs. As each trope spins erratically – a hand passes a buck; someone does a back flip; somebody else fans the flames; and the canopy of American’s last Liberty Tree spins in perpetuity.
LOBBY & FOLD OPENING RECEPTION – WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007, 6 - 8pm
Pace University
1 Pace Plaza (across from City Hall)
Lower Manhattan
Enter at Spruce Street (between Gold Street and Park Row)
EXHIBIT HOURS: Tuesday - Saturday, 12 - 6 PM (except during theater events at Pace, call 212-346-1715 to confirm weekly schedule).
FREE ADMISSION
ABOUT FIONA MACDONALD & RICKY SUBRITZKY: MacDonald & Subritzky first collaborated in 1995 at the Museum of Sydney, where they developed work now in public and private collections including the National Gallery of Australia. More recently, they worked together in 2005 on the Strangely Familiar exhibition in Sydney (http://oj.hss.uts.edu.au/strangelyfamiliar/strangelyfamiliar), and in 2006 on the Dream Home exhibition in Washington DC (http://www.hss.uts.edu.au/dreamhome). MacDonald's visual art practice often explores entangled personal, aesthetic and historical storylines. She says she frequently uses modest materials and artisan techniques, including collage, weaving and silhouette, to create visual paradoxes that challenge essentialising narratives and imperialisms. Subritzky's academic and curatorial practice deploys what he calls a 'radical empiricism,’ bridging critical distance to engage with contemporary problems. Beyond ideology critique, he is interested in an actively experimental approach that creates new and productive associations between ideas, materials and texts.
ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTS, PACE UNIVERSITY: http://appserv.pace.edu/execute/page.cfm?doc_id=6928
ABOUT PACE UNIVERSITY: One hundred years old in 2006, Pace University is known for an outcome-oriented environment that prepares students to succeed in a wide-range of professions. Pace has facilities in downtown and midtown New York City and in Westchester County at Pleasantville, Briarcliff, and White Plains (a graduate center and law school). A private metropolitan university, Pace enrolls approximately 13,500 students in undergraduate, masters, and doctoral programs in the Dyson College of Arts and Sciences, Ivan G. Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Law School, Lienhard School of Nursing, Lubin School of Business, and School of Education. www.pace.edu
DIRECTIONS TO PACE’S DOWNTOWN CAMPUS: http://appserv.pace.edu/execute/page.cfm?doc_id=16157
Posted by: Sammie | March 09, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Tour de France? are you kidding? A cyclist link?
http://www.light-to-dark.com/ocean_park.html
and so, all art, based on intent and conveyance of it, supplants politics. Especially, where only elements are considered.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/Stephen_Pitt_Cartoons.html
I see you are fresh. Happy days for you.
sp
Posted by: Stephen Pitt | May 08, 2007 at 06:07 PM
"politics generally doesn't make for great art."
I respectfully disagree.
Quite to the contrary I'd say that political art is some of the only interesting or pertinent work being made today. Making purely aesthetic based work in a post modern world is a lost cause. All you are doing is supporting the commodification and degradation of the artwork and artists -- and all just to make a quick buck. Nowadays it's all about the prestige and money that can be conveyed by the artwork. The actual artistic merits of the piece are completely irrelevant.
Political artwork, on the other hand, maintains at least some validity. Now I agree that over the top/heavy handed pieces won't accomplish anything -- they are merely preaching to the choir. But there are so many subtle, well thought out, and powerful political works. Check out artists like Nikki S. Lee, Sophie Calle, and Banksy (to a lesser extent) just to name a few.
--Paolo
Posted by: Political Art | June 25, 2008 at 05:02 PM