One of the questions asked was whether political art was better at giving evidence and proof of political issues or at actually fomenting change. Enrique Chagoya says he’s not sure how much art can really foment change, and that it’s more change in society (political, technological, economic, etc) that influences the art. It is hard to measure how much art does foment change, but he imagines the effect is very little. In accordance with Chagoya’s claim, my classmate, Maria, said in her essay on art inspired by the pain and suffering of war, “art is often used as a release mechanism for pain, for suffering, or for anger towards a subject” and that “war often inspires art which is thus made as a reaction to it, whether the art comes from someone immediately affected by the war or by someone who is watching the effects of the war from the outside.” She says these artists “add to the ongoing conversations worldwide and to help heal the wounds created by war.” I agree with this analysis of art as more of the “reaction.” People turn towards art as an outlet when they are having grievances or frustrations with political events or society. These creations help to carry on a conversation and raise a voice.
When the artists were asked how they conceive their role in relationship to politics, Layla Ali said she is opinionated in person, but art is where her questions go. Her art doesn’t produce answers or directives. I like this idea of political art as a means of exploring politics without necessarily advocating one way or another. It can be a way for artists to explore what they want to be clear about. Also, political art can be more or less intentional. Chagoya says his art is a way of exercising his own anxieties and that the activist role is a natural byproduct of that. His work changes with changing realities and he needs to keep renovating work due to his own inner needs. This makes a lot of sense to me, because it reflects the adaptive nature of art and art as a natural way of expressing oneself. I think the “message” of a piece of work should be more innate and intrinsic than thought out.
The article also asked the question of whether there is a conflict between esthetics and art of social change. Most of the artists believe that the relationship is generally unproblematic, and Martha Rosler believes that visual art’s esthetic dimension even helps clarify its meaning. Adel Abidin believes that the problem is when esthetics are neglected. He believes that art is based on esthetics that cannot be ignored. He says all too frequently you encounter works that are political but neglect esthetic considerations. He says politics are like the water you boil the work in, and that politics shape every aspect of the work. However, work that neglects esthetics in favor of sheer politics often drives viewers away. Chagoya has a similar opinion, saying strong esthetics make stronger political content and make the work more engaging. I agree with this, that a message will be received more openly if the artist can first move the viewer visually.