Arts - Scotsman.com: THE nation’s cultural life is now asked to tackle everything from ill health and crime to economic recovery. Trouble is, that ignores what art really is, writes Tiffany Jenkins
In 1902, at the opening of the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, the city’s Lord Provost justified the founding and opening of the gallery because “art was in itself a refining and improving and ennobling thing”. Can you image anyone saying something similar today?
7 comments:
I couldn't agree more with the points made in this article about the mistreatment of art. People manipulate art and contaminate it with the greed of their own needs and intentions, taking away the purity of the creations that artists put so much of themselves into. Just as the separation of church and state is more of a concept than a reality, so is the separation of art and politics quickly becoming a fantasy as well. Why is art important? Because it sends a message and makes money, right? According to most people, that is absolutely correct. But art is so much more than messages and money. Art is meant to make people think, to remove them from their surroundings and give them a different view of life, maybe even make them change a decision because enjoying art gave them reason to ponder. Art is pure, expressive, beautiful. And it needs to stop being manipulated by people who don't appreciate it.
I speak the same language as the author of this article. I believe that the arts A) should not be for economic gain and B) should not cost anything to be viewed. Arts value lies in the artists intentions. If the artist is trying to say something political then that is their right as an artist and the value of the art should be quantified by how well they tell the story or expose the truth. But if an artist just wants to make something that is beautiful then I think that that is their prerogative. With theater more than with visual art there is an impulse to have a finished piece that allows us to comment on something in the world but that does not mean that the art should be responsible for actually changing that thing. It is just a comment. Like a news paper article just in a different more accessible form. Art is about enjoyment, and thought and beauty and reflecting and morphing the world we see around us.
We need to separate, or at least understand that there is a difference between, art that reflects society and the power and ability to change society. I agree with the author when she states that healthcare and justice are topics suited for the politicians but they are politics should not be the exclusive platform for communicating these needs and issues. The author is confusing arts that reflect political, social, and economic trends with art that changes society. Her mistake is easily made by many because there is rarely art that changes society. How often have you went to a Brechtian play and then written a letter to your politician? How many of Shaw's audiences understood that the drive behind his characters was rooted in his trust and hope in Fabian socialism? Let's go even further, how many people attending plays by Bread and Puppet theatre digest and incorporate their anti-capitalistic message? I think it's safe to say not a lot. Or at least not as many as those artists reach or could reach. The problem lies in what Jenkins cites to be the true motivation for art: the introduction of truth and beauty into people's dismal and mundance existences. For Jenkins art is about the form and because oftentimes its subject is political impotent it should only be about form. This is not so. If this were the case there would be one play, one song, one picture, one photograph, and one museum to house them all. Without politics and social influence art would be boring stale a reflection or restatement our everyday waking reality. Yes, introducing new forms and styles into humanity's artistic repertoire doesn't change peoples lives it doesn't mean it should just be left to political office. Politics are crippled by their own performance problems - humanity can't depend on political figures solving all of society's woes and problems. This may be why we see politics reflected in art - not because the artist is trying to stimulate or accomplish change but because it is still an issue. The everyday waking reality is dismal and bleak without art how do we express that?
I loved this article, but I'm not sure that I'm completely in agreement with its author. I do agree that the Scottish politician who said that the arts can bring about positive effects "for education, justice, and health” is missing the point of the arts. Art itself is not meant to change anything; it's meant to inspire people to change things. And yes, I understand that sometimes selling the arts to the public as a worthwhile financial investment sometimes requires politicizing the arts, and that's sad because why can't we all love art for art's sake?
BUT, that being said, art is political. Art has been politicized for thousands of years; this isn't a new, 21st century development. Ancient Greece used the arts to glorify their democracy. Ancient Rome's arts scene was used to show the power of the emperors. Byzantine art depicts saints right next to all sorts of political figures of the time. The Renaissance was all about the power and wealth of certain families. The fact that art is political is what the study of Art History is based on. You can't look at the Colosseum without relating it to the politics of the Romans. You can't read a transcript of a medieval play without seeing the Church's manipulation behind it. And in 1900, the time this article references as a time when art was just art for art's sake, it wasn't. Painters had patrons, playwrights read the newspaper, and musicians walked down the street. You can't separate art from its surroundings, which this article seems to suggest is a bad thing.
I think that maybe what the author was trying to get at was the point that now, in the 21st century, art is still expected to have the same political power, but it is expected to be able to do that on its own. It's expected to be self-sustaining, while also being asked to sustain what it's commenting on. I'm not at all suggesting that as long as the arts are given money, they should be at the beck and call of the politicians paying for them, but politician's financial attitudes towards the arts has changed, while their rhetoric about them hasn't.
I would argue that politics and art go hand in hand. I agree with Cat, art has been political for thousands of years, so much so that we sometimes can't tell the difference between Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc as a politician or an artist. It is true that the point of art does not always need to be political and maybe that does put too much pressure on the culture of art, but that is a decision that each artist has to make. I believe this article was more about how the politician missed the boat, rather than how Government and art work together. It is clear that this speech was inappropriate. The speaker should have been praising the art, calling out individual pieces, explaining the importance of those pieces to the culture of people that will experience them, instead she was stating facts about how art is good for her...as a politician. That is unfortunate.
I don't think we can divorce the two worlds. It would be easier to educate speech writers on how to write a more appropriate speech.
Art should certainly not be created solely for a particular political agenda, indeed that will likely guarantee its failure. As others have said one does not leave a theatrical production, no matter how moving, and decide to march on Washington later that night. But art is still deeply entwined with the politics present in the age of its creation. Art provides a truthful representation of political and social climates, and more importantly the general public’s reaction to them. Art also has the power to influence politics in a very sneaky subversive way. Art gives oppressed people a picture (sometimes literally) of what life can be like. It gives them a reason to question their own existence. There is a reason that communist regimes banned Western literature and art as well as images of incarcerated dissenters, albeit with varying effectiveness. The themes found in classic Western literature are incompatible with oppression, giving the oppressed ideas that might be dangerous to their oppressors. Art accomplishes a similar goal, pointing out the flaws in present circumstances (Banksy anyone?) and portraying a better life that is worth fighting for. Whether we like it or not art is intrinsically entwined in politics, though perhaps not by relating directly to healthcare and sustainability. Art is certainly a means and reflection of change, but only when used elegantly and not as a propaganda infused bludgeon.
Post a Comment