Steven Vincent's got an idea in the National Review: All these American artists so engaged with criticize-America-first art? Either they denounce some terrorists in their video installations or they give up the stuff that intersects with political topics. Such as human-to-state relationships, Enlightenment principles, ethnic identities, whatever. You might call that a limitation, but it leaves a lot on the table: dogs playing poker, portraiture of the cast of Seinfeld, Spirit Horse–themed watercolors—all topics just begging to be revisited!
Posted by Kriston at November 21, 2004 5:52 PMI think his main criticism is that there's no diversity of opinion, at least among the artists he's been exposed to.
I linked to this article over at my blog on Tuesday. I think it'll be interesting to see how Iraqi artists portray these same themes.--s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at November 22, 2004 10:25 AMWell, there's not a ton of diversity of opinion in, say, country music either. But that's just the way the cookie crumbles, eh? It might be interesting to look at why that is, why certain modes of expression tend to result in works that trend one way or another politically, but it's not really the ultimate job of artists or musicians to ensure that the broad spectrum of political opinions is represented.
Posted by: susan at November 22, 2004 1:15 PMSusan, I agree with you, especially about looking into the reasons why things trend as they do.--s
Posted by: j.scott barnard at November 22, 2004 1:50 PMI sort of dismissed Vincent out-of-hand, but if he wanted to tackle the subject seriously, he'd go after the curators, not the artists. There are potentially any number of beliefs to be found in the world of art and it's of course not surprising that you can find a dozen artists who are deeply concerned over and dislike the Bush administration. That's a dumb way to manage the question (by addressing the beliefs aspect). If you tackle the presentation aspect, you have a smallish number of people directing the NYC spaces where art is seen, and by organizing shows with political content but no pro-Bush work on display, they might be described as pushing a political agenda.
I don't think this is the case—I have seen zero evidence of NYC-gallery quality art that sympathizes with the President, so I don't think anyone's being excluded. Nor do I think that by curating shows of relevant work (art is, obviously enough, going to get political during times of crisis) the curators is necessarily exhibiting his own biases. But at least that would be a way for Vincent to get his art-world knocks in without resorting to the claim that artists should not depict views with which he disagrees.
Posted by: Kriston at November 22, 2004 2:18 PMSteven Vincent is dead. He was murdered by gunmen working for pro-Iranian Shia mullah Moqtada al Sadr on 2 August. Vincent had been writing about the attempt underway by Sadr's organization to seize control of the government of the southern Iraqi city of Basra. Art and journalism have lost a courageous voice.
Posted by: Tom at August 3, 2005 11:21 AM