So Stupid Even the Liberals Won't Go Along With ItI noticed this post over at HuffPo, where, believe it or not, Larry Beinhart goes to an art exhibit (in Woodstock, New York), and is offended that there
was no antiwar art.
152 artists were given an opportunity to show a small piece of work. Each and every one of them, individually, made a decision not to be political, social, religions (sic) or scientific.
This is not to say the art must be “relevant.” This is not to say we should return to Soviet realism and show Heroic Workers planting new flowers on the village green.
It is to note that is this case, the artists abdicated. Universally.
No czar or commissar told them to, no corporate sponsor paid them to, nobody from Homeland Security came around and hinted that they would be taking names, no influential critic said the age of relevance is dead, no greedy gallery owner said I can’t sell anything with a political or social theme.Surprisingly, perhaps, the response of many of the commentators was negative:
I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous article. You cannot dictate art. Creativity is ruled by no one, not even the artist. If this is what is coming out, then so be it. And:
I wouldn't vote Republican at gunpoint. As an artist, I've lived through more than 30 years of an art world dominated by political 'art' dictated by the academy, and as a white male have been and continue to be ostracized. Art doesn't exist to serve to a liberal or conservative agenda, but a human one. Get over it.And:
Well, the line-between art and agitprop is a fine one. Also, consider the artists KNOW their clients/patrons well. I'm not advocating no-response in-art, but one has to be cautious. It's tough being an artist in America.Another person point out that political cartoonists do most of our political artwork, for the simple reason that it's immediate and ephemeral.
