We discussed this ad nauseum in Miami this year, with my business partner skewering the headline about Hirschhorn's anti-war piece ("Gee, being against the war...now that's a novel political statement...who would have thunk to do something on that?")

But what formed the foundation for his ridicule was what I think is actually part of the problem you're exploring Kriston. I think I was the only one in the room at the time who even had the thought cross my mind that it wasn't as obvious as my partner thought it was...that indeed there remain many people for whom being against the war seems unpatriotic, and others still who passionately believe in the war. No one who'd attend an emerging gallery art fair would likely fall into that category (which is why my partner's joke went over so well), but if he had made the joke in a fundamentalist church, he'd have had a very different response.

Which, of course, goes back to what I think it all boils down to...the art world is overwhemlingly left and far too many artists assume that if someone is not also liberal, there's little point to trying to reach them...in other words, they make their work as if their worldview were the only one that mattered.

As you note, that doesn't "encapsulate the new political reality" and makes work produced in that way increasingly irrelevant.

I thought Emily Jacir's piece in the last Biennial was very effective -- thought-provoking and persuasive, without crossing the line into smugness.

God, I can't believe I'm writing this, but... um, but Dartmouth insists on calling itself a "College," not a "University." What would normally be written as "Dartmouth University" instead gets written as "Dartmouth College and Medical School and Business School and ... etc."

At the larger level, I'm not sure I really see how your "art operating in an environment of 'facts without authority'" and Edward_'s "artists without nuance" explanations are really that different (and really, I find both explanations mutually reinforcing, and compelling).

I mean, why is the typical political artist without nuance? What should someone do, when they find themselves in the possession of facts, but do not have an anchoring authority in common with their audience?

I guess I see your explanation as a good candidate for the lack-of-nuance that E.W. notes... but I don't know where to go from there.

Anyway, back to the Review thing... why do you think that book title is in jest? The Review writers were often impugned, and rightly so! It's just that often "The Review" is a stand-in for "the fraternity system," and the writers were threatened and insulted in that context. Then the standard move was to take up the persona of a journalist, shoulder the mantle of "free speech," and fight "the campus liberals" with their own weapons.

Hilarious, if you didn't have a horse in that race. Sigh.

I guess the big question for me is whether "political" art actually has any effect on people's political opinions. There's probably not that big a gap between the political views of artists and their audiences in major cities. Seems like political views are much more influenced by mass media and word of mouth (both online and off) than by anything shown in a gallery or museum.

I hope my take compliments Edward's and doesn't confuse the issue too much. Here's where I think we differ, and it's a fine-grain point: Edward argues that artists lack the proper inputs. He calls for a "purple" art that tries to anticipate the conservative counterargument. Sounds good to me.

I'm focusing on the "outputs" and saying that art doesn't do a good job of explaining the unique qualities that make (for example) the Bush administration so fucking sinister. Rirkrit Tiravanija and Mark di Suvero's 1966 Peace Tower just can't be dropped into our context and have any sort of resonance. Seems naive.
Hell, Peace Tower in the 2006 biennial proves what's lacking in political art today—why look backward?

Then again, while I think it both the points Edward and I are trying to make apply to this work, I still like Serra's Stop Bush, with its nod to Goya (and feel-good imagery!).

You know, for days like this.

High-fives and clinked wine glasses, in these sorry times?

Aux armes, citoyens! A few scattered thoughts, sorry if I'm repeating what others have said. First, I'd emphasize what you allude to, that a fair amount of what James writes comparing Dartmouth hijinks is probably not entirely serious, at least not in a straightforward fashion. I'm not saying he's insincere in his larger points, but there's a fair amount of leg-pulling going on, as well as positioning. Which is fine, just wanted to say.

I'm not very good on the topic of art and politics, so I'm scrapping a longer, half-written comment full of on the other hand crap and just leaving this famous remark from Philip Guston as food for thought:

The war, what was happening to America, the brutality of the world. What kind of man am I, sitting at home, reading magazines, going into a frustrated fury about everything - and then going into my studio to adjust a red to a blue

Thinking about how Guston dealt with that question might be useful when considering the state of political art today.

Maybe I'm dense, but the points you're making aren't clear to me. Is it that political art (a) too often makes its point in a hamfisted, superficial way, without ever addressing the merits of opposing viewpoints, (b) doesn't do a good job of skewering its intended target? Kriston's post in the comment section seems to say it's both, but I think the points are -- to some extent, at least -- mutually exclusive. Considering counterarguments makes an issue more complicated, and savagely skewering your intended target sounds like it requires you to make issues less complicated.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I like art, and I wish I understood more about it. But art writing, which I read to better understand and appreciate art, sometimes just confuses me. Kriston's writing is pretty straightforward (when I don't understand it, it's mostly because I lack context and background, not because of his writing style, which is good, IMHO), but many times I feel lost. Like I said at the top of this comment, maybe I'm just a knucklehead.

Daniel, Esq.: Thanks for the bright comment. Let me think about it and come back to it.

Becks: That's a really sweet work you've got there, I'd forgotten about it. It's like . . . NGO art.

This sounded fairly strikingly political.

Dan, esq.: Your (a) is Edward's point; your (b) is what I'm trying to get at. That in postmodern politics truth statements have a greatly deflated value, whereas a great deal of political art is about, well, speak truth to power.

That makes sense. So, for example, thousands of news columns, blog posts and pundints make a powerful case against torturing suspects, but the conservative "noise machine" -- e.g., an interlocking cyclone of words, opinions, appeals to baser instincts, some intentional obfuscation and distortion of truth,all of which collectively makes the "counter-argument" -- wears people out, and makes them cynically believe that all statements and opinions are equal (or equally suspect). Art can cut through that cynicism with a sharp image, e.g., Serra's "Stop Bush."

That's true at one level. But in some ways, Serra's piece is terribly blunt and oversimplified, isn't it? I mean, few public officials or pundints openly admit it, but there is an argument for torture: If refraining from torture means a terrorist detainee with crucial information stays quiet, allowing a terrorist disaster to occur in a major U.S. city, it is not unreasonable to ask ourselves, in retrospect, whether it was wise to refrain from torturing the suspect to obtain this crucial information.

Please don't misunderstand. I think torture is a bad idea morally (we run too much risk of becoming no better than our enemies) and pratically (the information you obtain via torture is, I've read, often untrue (tortured suspects tell their tormentors what they want to hear) and torturing suspects causes many Islamic people to hate America, which leads to more terrorism down the road). Maybe a good hypothetical counterexample is where a tortured suspect who has crucial information gives his tormentors false information -- because the torture hardens his hatred for his captors -- which keeps us from stopping a terrorist plot, when tough but humane interrogation techniques would have caused the suspect to disclose the real information he had, allowing us to thwart the terrorist plot.

My point is that the issue is more complicated than Serra's piece makes it seem. Or maybe, for me, "Stop Bush" is too content to take an easy and blunt shot at the administration, where a piece that seriously considers the opposing viewpoint -- or is at least more detailed and nuanced -- would have been more powerful. Anyway, that's my thought, for what little it's worth.

Boy, in just two posts I've probably already outlasted my welcome. Sorry for the longwinded comments.

JAJA, UPYACHKA! UG NE PROIDET, BLYA!

Good post, thanks for sharing, I enjoy it very much!

Thanks for sharing the useful information with me.