I had the chance to read an essay by a student who found himself involved in the so-called and well-known "Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution".
Nicholas Gin Foon Cheng, a visual arts student who attended Li Po Chun United World College, Hong Kong in 2016, was and is sensitive to the potential influence of art on the political vision of the individual, and this concept is well represented by the title of the essay.
By researching two of the best-known practitioners in the field of political art, he makes an in-depth study, as the title says, on what are the guidelines (if there are any) to create a work that combines political commitment and art to an extent that influences not only the viewer but entire groups of the population, to the point of constituting the stimulus on which to build a real political poetics and even action.
"I believe that art is an effective medium in illustrating the tribulations and complexities of politics because it can be viewed in its entirety but simultaneously of the individual elements it is composed of allowing the viewer to see both the big picture but also the minute details of politics in parallel. Art should therefore be acknowledged as a crucial element that shapes today’s world of politics and how we perceive and understand it."
essay by Nicholas Gin Foon Cheng, may 2016, Li Po Chun United World College, Hong Kong)
Symbols and Artworks
Given that I have neither the intention nor the preparation to dissertate on symbology, I would just like to reflect on the fact that the political meaning and effect of a symbol is different from that of a political work of art.
In my opinion, a symbol can be the emblem of a political group and connote its main beliefs (the swastika as an ancestral symbol of power, the hammer and sickle as a symbol of power for those who work).
A symbol could be the one to identify with.
A political artwork uses the powerful language of art to denounce, raise awareness or stimulate political thought.
"The renowned artist-sociopolitical commentator, Ai Weiwei asserts that “if somebody questions reality, truth, facts; [it] always becomes political art.” (Ai Weiwei, The European Magazine) Yet, it is in my belief that the indicative quality of political art is in its intent: in this essay political art will be defined purposefully engages the audience in sociopolitical commentary to invoke a critical response in its viewers. Political art possesses a clear political agenda that art, in its broadest terms, does not."
("What are the qualities that make political art effective?", essay by Nicholas Gin Foon Cheng, may 2016, Li Po Chun United World College, Hong Kong)
The political agenda of the Dadaists was clear and explicit, that of Hannah Hoch, John Hartfield as well.
This is all the more true when practitioners led their artistic existence along a historical period characterized by national or even planetary events.
Hannah Hoch had a political agenda for women's social demands, John Hartfield had an anti-Nazi-fascist political agenda.
Peter Kennard's political agenda is pacifist, against armaments and militarism.
Another important feature that can determine the effectiveness of a work of art's political message is what kind of viewer it is aimed at and, ultimately, what commercial channel.
Peter Kennard has certainly focused on the generic consumption of visual art and certainly not on the confinement of his works in exclusive galleries.
An artist like Banksy, like all street artists, allocates part of his works to galleries and auction houses (signing them), but the main channel is that of the street, in which every spectator, even the unattended one, can enjoy a visual art experience without paying for it.
I am reminded of another artist with a political connotation, Jeff Wall, whose works were auctioned for more than a million dollars.
If therefore, in the strictest and most rigorous meaning of the term "political" (from the Greek "pòlis" = "city", "people" and suffix "iko" = "which has to do with"), political work is not only it must deal with a theme that concerns the people, but it must also address the people, here is that the channel of use of an artwork, in my opinion, should connote or not, politically, the work of art itself.
Otherwise, that is, if the artworks were to be reserved for exclusive and selected spectators or by economic criteria or even by belonging to the art market, it would be, in my opinion, the great hypocrisy of a political message derived from, but not designed for, not intended to, people.
