Many people have heard the phrase ‘all art is political.’ For a long time, I used to resonate with this statement, and was even going to make that the title of this blog post. However, after reading multiple perspectives online about this topic, I have decided to dig a little deeper and ask the question- when does art become political?
When examining art, there are three main spectrums that we can use as a lens: the purpose of the art, the intended audience of the art, and the creator of the art. With regard to purpose, I like to view the spectrum on one end as the creation of art for use in corporate advertising and branding, and the other end being mold-breaking avant garde works that innovate and expand the mind. In between these two poles, you have art created for myriad purposes- for enjoyment, to provoke thought, to evoke emotion, or some combination of these. With regard to audience, the poles of the spectrum are usually- mainstream consumption on one end and ‘the underground’ aka counterculture movement on the other end. In between those poles, we find casual consumers of art, connoisseurs of art, critics of art, and more. With regard to the creator, the poles of the spectrum are often- the casual practitioner of art who creates at home in solitude on one end, and the globally recognized and celebrated artist who sells out giant stadiums on their multi-billion dollar tours on the other end. In between we have every conceivable level of artist imaginable.
I introduce these spectrums because I think they are useful when asking the question- when does art become political? For example, would you say that someone painting at home for their own personal enjoyment is political? I think most people would say no. On the other hand, when you listen to Rage Against the Machine’s ‘Killing in the Name Of’- you very quickly realize that the entire song (and frankly, the entire music project) is making an overt political statement.
So, what is the deciding factor? Is art only political when it is intended to be? Toni Morrison doesn’t seem to think so, as evidenced by her now famous quote- ‘all good art is political.’ I think maybe we can break this down further, to get closer to our answer. To me, it seems that when someone makes art and they have a large following (say, in the thousands), that they are essentially making a statement with their art, whether they intend it or not. What may be a better way to frame this is- art is political when it is intended to be; an artist is political whenever they have influence.
A good example of this is Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift has millions of fans across the globe. Listening to most of Taylor Swift’s music does not (in my opinion) invoke feelings of revolution or locking kids in cages. She mostly sings about falling in love or having a broken heart from what I’ve heard. However, just last year Taylor Swift encouraged her fanbase to register to vote and she got 35,000 people to register within days- that encouragement is clearly a political act. While Taylor Swift did state that she supported the Democratic candidate who was running, she also encouraged folks to use their own voice in the democratic process.
Even artists who don’t encourage fans to vote or revolt or break things are making a political statement, though, because when one doesn’t use influence to oppose the status quo, they are essentially condoning it. I know a lot of people reading this will disagree with this statement, so let’s unpack it. What is the status quo? The status quo is the existing state of things. Even in the definition I provided, it states ‘if you are rich and admired, then you’re probably not interested in disrupting the status quo.’ The status quo in the United States, for instance, is that corporations are people, billionaires don’t have to pay taxes, and women don’t have bodily autonomy. All of these statements seem bizarre and counter-intuitive if taken out of context. The corporate and state propaganda machines have convinced the majority of the population that this existing state is not only OK (normalization), but it is preferred. So, when an artist says nothing about the status quo, what they are saying is ‘this is all fine by me.’
I know that last sentence will ruffle some feathers too, so again, let’s unpack. When talking about the status quo, it is also important to consider privilege. The result of having privilege is that a person is able to remain unaffected by a particular issue, law, rule, or limitation. When people are unaware of their privilege or they choose to ignore it, they are quite often apolitical, or simply vote in alignment with the status quo. These are people who make statements like’ keep politics out of art’ or ‘stick to the music.’
Making statements like this implies that the audience should dictate what the artist creates and how they use their influence- which implies that the artist is somehow employed or contracted by the person making the statement, which is usually not the case. When an artist is hired or commissioned to make a piece, then the person or company hiring them usually does have a say (though not always). Again we come back to the idea that the intended audience of a piece of art can determine whether it is political or not. This also makes me think of the quote ‘Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable’ by Cesar A. Cruz. This presents the notion that disrupting the status quo (the comfortable) is an important facet of art.
I usually stay away from trying to define what art is and isn’t. To me, the way food is cooked can be considered an art just as much as the way someone dresses or dances or sings or paints. I don’t find it useful to try and define art, because almost anything can be done artistically or creatively. This means that the purpose of the art becomes paramount- if the purpose is to entertain or to sell something, then maybe it is less political. If the purpose is to bring people together or to change the way people view something, then it is probably more political.
Considering this, I am reminded of the origins of dance music culture. While at the moment EDM is considered mainstream, it was not always this way. Electronic dance music got its start as a counterculture movement- it was a place for the outcasts of society (queer, trans, people of color, drag queens, sex workers, and poor people) to gather and feel safe and be authentic. These roots of dance music culture often get forgotten or completely overlooked by people who are new to the scene. Some of these people even get mad at artists who use their platform to inspire social change or who speak out against oppressive governments and policies.
No matter the environment one is creating or experiencing art in, that act of creating or experiencing art could be considered political. This comes back to privilege. Often in our society and across the world, people are prohibited from having art as part of their lives. This could be due to factors related to poverty, an oppressive government, incarceration, or even abuse. So, when we are able to create or experience art, we are allowed to do so because of our privilege to not be limited by the factors I just mentioned. Again, when we remain unaware of our privilege or we ignore it, then we are actually complicit in the oppressive forces that limit others from having that same privilege. In being complicit, we are making the political statement that we are fine with the status quo and don’t feel compelled to oppose or disrupt it.
This brings me back to the original question- when does art become political? I think that the answer isn’t something that is cut and dry. Rather, it requires examining the context of the art- why was this art created, who is the art meant for, and who created it? The answers to these questions will reveal the political nature of the art, and may tell you something about the art that you enjoy.
Whether or not you consider yourself to be a political person, I assure you- politics have an influence on your life. The outcomes of elections and the policies of our elected officials will determine how we are able to interact with our world and to meet our most basic needs. So the next time you are creating or experiencing art, I encourage you to consider- Why was this art created? Who is the art meant for? Who created it? Maybe thinking about those questions will help you see the connection between art and politics.