The contemporary ”political arts” and ”the ideological works of art” that may be gathered under the same title are becoming a highly controversial concept. Both the groups that analyze art as a description of an ideology and the other groups argue against them are being polarized.
Thus it leads to solution of problem of the art itself and also defines what is called art as well. This comment demonstrates the eristic ‘politic art’ which is shaping contemporary art practice in public art. In my opinion, art is an adequately politic act in itself and it doesn’t comprise of any other concept except itself. Nevertheless we cannot ignore the rest of the all images. For instance, Marc Quinn’s artwork at Trafalgar Square was a specific example for this situation. There was a disabled pregnant woman sculpture which did not have legs and arms and it could be seen on every side of the square. Here, Quinn aimed to examines the aesthetic value of audience. His goal was to make visible things that nobody wants to see but cannot ignore regardless. Marc Quinn was successful. People had written so many petitions to revoke.
Carrie Mae Weems, The Best Political Art At The 2017 Armory Show
His artworks are also the biggest sign that artworks may go out of the sterile art spaces which we call ‘white cube’. Rather than museums and galleries, artworks are not hidden into buildings. They are public, discernible and they consist politic contexts enough. His artworks contact with intimate relation of their environment and the audiences. So, he draws attention to the viewers who aren’t emphasized in a triangle of artworks, artists and audiences. There are more examples like photographer J.R who takes many great photos in one of his project that are consistent of the Palestine and Israeli people. Afterwards, he sticks them on the roofs and walls, briefly in public space. Therefore, he interferences at political problematics and he also discusses artworks and audience in the same context. In most of the public art, we came across with the stuations as the audience is at the same level with the artworks and this kind of artworks breaks the informal art rules. The audience also digest the meaning of the objects through her/his knowledge about that very political issue, thus audience not only percept but absorb the art work. But this result brings us to the another questions. If one never know about the political issue, cannot perceive the art works? What if ”discrimination” would never be a political problem, what we would do with the art works that focus on it? More clearly, could you explain your ”political art” work to someone who lived two centriues ago?
Merve Deniz, 2013 July