attacked the Whitney for it's inclusion of politically-charged art in it's upcoming Biennial. Kriston Capps
agrees. Surprise, surprise. Capps writes, "First, OK, he's right. Politically oriented art—the political art I've seen over the last few years, almost without exception—has been snide, sneering, didactic, transparent, self congratulatory, self satisfied, at times bathetic, more often punny, almost always formulaic. Political art has never really shaken the design roots of its cast and bears, if not a similar appearance to propaganda, at least the same byte-sized message format."
I'm in the middle of my last term paper as a college student, so I can't write the full diatribe I'd like to. Nonetheless, here are two brief comments which, for the time being, will serve the same purpose.
1. You may not like policial art, but art history, cultural evolution, and society would not be where it is today without it. Yes, it's self-serving, but so is blogging, and your pissy post is a fantastic example of that. Besides, who said art needed to serve anyone other than the artist? Political art, or any art that pushes buttons, exemplifies freedom of expression. Political art can let someone speak their mind, and encourage others to do so. We need it. But more importantly, political art gets people to think, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the marking of good art. Art is one of the only boundry-less mediums in existence, and to promote this idea that art cannot or should not reflect polticial ideas or ideals systematically dismantles art--you're detroying it.
2. Uh, "Guernica"? Ring any bells?