You may not like what I’m going to say. In fact, the Me of 7 or 8 Years Ago would not have agreed with the Me of Today either.1 My views about art in activism has changed significantly, and I’d like to take this opportunity to share them.
In my process of making new art for the Activist Imagination exhibition, I’ve grappled with generating ideas that (1) advance my practice and (2) fits the vision of the show. There’s a risk in making art along a predetermined theme, and the political nature of the show makes me especially wary of being too topical, didactic or predictable.
It would have been more clear-cut to pick a social justice theme and a medium like painting, develop imagery and execute a series of art objects for a conventional exhibition display (and then hope the works educate, inspire, initiate dialogues that lead to change, and so on). But that’s a process for making Activist art — a language I’ve explored in the past. Now, I’m interested in contemporary art.2
In other words, I’ve come to ascribe to Arundhati Roy’s likening of the term “artist-activist” to a sofa-bed – an uncomfortable hybrid, seen as inadequate in either of its functions. Here’s why.
Strategy. One of the main things about Activist art that I struggle with now is the assumption that art should function to educate or inspire, and its underlying implication that the viewer needs to be educated or inspired. As if our fellow citizenry were merely slumbering between work, homelife and BevMo, and a strategically-placed bold graphic would awaken a breakout of revolutionary zeal. I have a problem with the a lack of strategy here. It neither defines attainable outcomes nor improves the well-being of artists.
It’s also idealistic, and if activists assume that artist-activists are paragons of political consciousness, they’ll be disappointed when artists fall short. But “Who put artists on the front lines anyway?”3 This is not to say that artists can’t political leaders, or their art can’t be effective tools. I simply want to take exception to this exception made for artists. Instead, I’d make a case for strategy. How about “The marketer’s role is to serve the People?” “The job of media is to educate and inspire?”
Roles of the Artist and Viewer. The assumption that the viewer needs to be educated or inspired by the artist can imply an unequal relationship. This seems aligned with outmoded Modern and pre-Modern notions of the artist as genius – where an artist’s talent qualifies him to grant a gift of beauty or rare vision to the viewer. But instead of bestowing something upon recipients, I like Lewis Hyde’s idea of a gift: a symbol that forms a social bond. In my recent work, which has become increasingly physical, I’m interested in thinking about how the work of art mediates a relationship between artist and viewer. The assignment of the giver and recipient roles need not follow convention, and could benefit from examination and negotiation.
Limitations. I think the expectation that an artist’s role is to serve the People is similar, ironically, to the way Essentialism yokes artists. The concept of Essentialism is that innate characteristics determine an individual’s choices. For example, the Essentialist expectation of an artist who is Asian American is that she would make “Asian American Art” that confirms the viewer’s ideas of Asian-ness. I see a parallel in Activist Art: if an artist is aligned with activism, she might be expected to make Activist art, confirming activists’ notions of political engagement.
Here’s why this is ironic: many struggles for self-determination are visualized in images foregrounding difference. To challenge representations of Otherness, Activist art could aspire to supplant old paradigms, not just attack them. Granted, using images of difference to form group identities are valuable at specific political moments — but their use-value seems easily exhausted. “Imagining change is the first step in making change.”4
Many artists chafe under the expectation that Activist art looks a certain way. Yet few seem to gain respect in both realms of activism and contemporary art. The Left embraces their Ricardo Levins Moraleses and Rini Templetons, while contemporary artists with active and astute political practices, like Paul Chan, Mark Lombardi, and Andrea Bowers are mostly esteemed by artists, curators and critics. There are instances of crossover — Emory Douglas, the Black Panther Party artist championed by Oakland activists for years is now receiving art world attention with a show at the Los Angeles MOCA. This may be a result of flourishing on-the-ground street-art/screenprint practices advanced by powerhouses like Josh McPhee and Oakland’s own Taller Tupac Amaru. But it seems just as likely it’s a nostalgic expression of aging curators’ search for affirmation of the power of art (and artists and by extension, curators) as the war in Iraq drags on — part of a trend of exhibitions of political posters among ICAs and museums (like those shows recently mounted at the the Luckman Gallery in LA and the Imperial War Museum in London).
—
In the context of a show called Activist Imagination, I have to assume part of the show’s audience expects Activist art. For the best viewing experiences, though, I hope viewers approach Activist art and contemporary art with their respective criteria in mind.
I believe Activist art, above all, values function. It privileges political soundness — what is the message and is it on point? Do you agree or not? Visually, Activist Art tends to embrace beauty, decoration, style, visual incident. Like advertisements, engagement is primarily through the eyes and the heart (the most effective pieces usually convey passion, outrage, empathy, guilt, etc.).
Contemporary art, on the other hand, engages form, as well as the careful consideration of conceptual or art-historical soundness. True to stereotype, this does require some education. But it also requires receptivity to appreciate contemporary arts’ expanded areas of experimentation: assumptions about beauty, value and art itself are up for grabs for artists’ use. Engaging contemporary art is at least as much intellectual as it is visual.
While Activist art challenges political beliefs, contemporary can be a more challenging art experience. I can’t see why those who wish to disrupt the status quo would not appreciate both kinds of challenges.
- (I’d love to see that debate!) I’m happy to come forward with this discontinuity, as it signifies an ongoing investigation. I like how Angela Davis explains the importance of gaining comfort with contradictions; it’s a characteristic of intersectional positions advanced by feminists of color. back
- Given the diverse backgrounds of the artists in the show, I feel that there is room for my contributions to fall in the realm of contemporary art. back
- Emcee M1 (Dead Prez) in response to accusations of Common’s homophobia at the Critical Resistance East Conference in New York, 2000. Take that for activist cred. back
- Angela Davis, MOCA lecture audio podcast, July 9, 2007 back
