Patrick Courrielche on the Riefenstahlization of the Art Community

Pikkumatti sent me this link which links to this Reason piece by the same author which I read first because it's shorter. Excerpt:

Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power. Freedom of the Press comes into play in both cases, but in very different ways. In the first case, it protects political commentary by artists. This freedom is not a garnish. It is a necessary weapon, enshrined in the Constitution for the purpose of countering contradictions, hypocrisies, and distortions made by politicians and others in power. Yet the art community has responded to the Obama administration's contradictions, hypocrisies, and distortions with near total silence.

Consider the recent flurry of debate over the Obama "Joker" posters that have been appearing in Los Angeles. This image represents the only substantial counterpoint to Obama's current agenda from the art community. What's been the response?

One writer from the LA Weekly declared of the image, "The only thing missing is a noose." Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post stated, "So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image." Bedlam magazine, the first to comment on the poster back in April, argued, "The Joker white-face imposed on Obama's visage has a sort of malicious, racist, Jim Crow quality to it." Why would any artist who hopes to have (or keep) a career create images that criticize the president when both journalists and art reviewers make such irrational comments? To give some perspective, remember that the "noose" comment came from a publication that once presented a cover image of George W. Bush as a bloodthirsty vampire.

I can give Mr. Courrielche an answer, but he won't like it. Artists nowadays aren't very good, and they put ideology much higher than actually creating anything beautiful, good or true. If all the examples in these two pieces don't just about prove that to you, I don't know what to tell you except maybe go lick Obama's shoes; you'll enjoy it.

Here's a good example of how I interpret a piece of pro-Obama "art". Notice that this is not really art, but what marketing people call a "mashup" which can be whipped out in a matter of several hours.


Here we see the Theological Virtue of "Hope" scripted in an elegant font, yet entirely lowercase, descending into CHANGE which charges forward from the left in bold, capital letters. Notice also how "hope" fades into the background which is the same color of red whereas CHANGE is a contrasting blue. Then we have a profiled bust of smiling Obama, squinting leftward as if into the bright daybreak. The subjects are all presented on the background of a "floppy flag" with scribbled stars and cloudy stripes. I like American flags a little less... deconstructed?

So it looks like propaganda to me, but admitted I'm not a fan of Obama. If it is art at all, it's modern art. An artist friend of mine summed up the problem with modern art: "It lacks virtue." There you go. But this image certainly doesn't lack power which, as we know, is something entirely different. Or the ability to communicate a message.