Can There Be Good Political Art?

This is not meant to be a provocative question. Instead, this is a question I ask myself all the time. Political art is usually terrible. I pretty much agree with Edward Winkleman when he wrote "most political art not only sucks, it can barely aspire to sucking." One thing about it is that I think because artists feel righteous about whatever political cause they are dealing with, they don't realize that they also have to be good. Another problem with political art is that it is very possible to do really fantastic art for some pretty horrible politics. Think of the great Soviet posters and paintings, Red Chinese and Cuban posters, Nazi propaganda art--some of that stuff is amazing, and all the more sinister because of it.

This is a lead in to a piece of political art that quite appeals to me. One where I have to eat my above words. I think there can be good political art, and I think The House that Herman Built is a good example.

Herman Joshua Wallace has spent the past 38 years in Solitary Confinement (or closed cell restriction) in Louisiana's State Prison System. For a minimum of 23 hours a day, he is shut up in a six-foot-by-nine-foot (2m x 3m) cell. It is very likely that Wallace didn't commit the crime he has been sentenced for.

 In 2003 artist Jackie Sumell contacted Herman Wallace and asked him: "What kind of house does a man who has lived in a 6' X 9' box for over 30 years dream of?" [...] Through exchanges of hundreds of letters, phone calls, and numerous visits to the prison, Wallace and Sumell have been sketching and designing the dream house together.

The construction of the house is currently being funded by a network of activists, artists, architects and other concerned individuals. Hopefully, the House will one day be a place for Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox to comfortably retire. But until Herman is able to win his legal battle, the house will be maintained by a network of volunteers. ("The House That Herman Built" by Regine at We Make Money Not Art)

What I like about this as political art is that it is engaged with the affected party. Herman Wallace is not an abstraction or a symbol or a rallying cry. He is a real person who has participated in making this piece of art happen. Second, no matter what happens in the Wallace case, this house--if it is completed--will have an actual, measurable positive effect, above and beyond its value as propaganda. Finally, it just seems like such a humane project.

Here's a trailer for a documentary made about this project.



This would be a good one for the Cinema Arts Festival next year.

Cool Globes

A couple of weeks ago I was riding my bike downtown on a very pleasant Sunday. I swung by Discovery Park where this art was on display:



This is a display called "Cool Globes." The globe in the foreground is "One Man's Trash...Don't Waste--Instead Create!" [sic] by Mitch Levin.

This is one of those civic art projects like the CowParade. On one hand, these kind of things are kind of fun, and as art, they are accessible--even kids can get them. On the other hand, they are contrived and shallow. (Not to mention the fact that the organizers are willing to censor artists who produce overly controversial objects--for example, David Lynch.)


Kim C. Massey, Tree of Life, 2009

This show adds another level of irritation to the basic CowParade idea by adding a kind of scolding political correctness to the mix. As propaganda, this stuff is fairly weak tea. And as art, it is generally really bad. That globe above looks like a bowling ball that a cow shat upon. (The painting is pretty skilled, though.)


Cathi Schwalbe-Bouzide and Paul Bouzide, Tread Lightly for a Livable Earth, 2009

This globe looks really cool. The two sets of stripes going in angles to each other are strong graphicly, especially as the stripes wrap around the spherical surface. But when you walk up to it and read the title, you kind of deflate.



Nicholas Kashian, We Are What We Eat, 2009

This Archimboldo pastiche is a completely charming piece that manages to avoid coming off as a lecture (at least until you read the fine print on the plaque).

I don't know if there is a "right" way to do political art. Art in general reaches such small audiences, the idea of using art as to change peoples' minds is usually a futile and vainglorious enterprise. On the other hand, Cool Globes as it tours the world will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Some of these globes look really cool--but often the beautiful or the visually striking are separate from the message. For example, look at many of the striking posters and graphics from the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, Communist Cuba--they often look absolutely fantastic! Obviously I am not suggesting that Cool Globes is anything like those regimes, but by this time in my life, I tend to separate visual interest (or beauty) from meaning (particularly political meaning). Maybe some people can be seduced by beauty into taking a political stance. I'm pretty sure I can't.

In any case, I hate art that lectures at me. As benign as these pieces are, they still come across as teachers or parents telling me the "right way to live." Boy, I just don't want that from art.