There is a familiar
rhetorical trap that occurs around the subject of political art. Artists who's
work is too imaginative, reckless, wild, and beautifully useless are accused of
being complicit within the structure of the status quo. Their own imagination
ends up at war with the demands of their social conscience. On the flipside,
artists whose work is straightforward and political are generally accused of being
too didactic and lacking critical complexity. Their critic's arguments tend to
quickly show themselves as protectors of the art world and capitalist status
quo. In the end, it appears to be a lose/lose situation and as such, it has
turned off many an artist to the demands of being political.
What is to be done? Anything
looked at in and of itself will eventually resolve itself in failure. One
object/practice/person/idea can not encompass all the elements which comprise a
socially conscious revolutionary movement. Quite clearly, the modernist
conception of art as a separate aspect from daily life fails miserably and
contemporary art has yet to take this lesson to heart. In isolation all things
stand alone and are mute. It is through the rich diverse fabric of collective
action that private expression gains meaning.