The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
“All art is political” is a statement I often see recycled in internet discourse and infographics every few months. The saying isn’t entirely false. However, it doesn’t paint a full picture. Art is political to the extent that both art and politics are about the same thing: both are primarily concerned with life, with all its pains and pleasures. Both also attempt to answer the crucial question of how we should lead our lives and where we should place our values.
This idea echoes the first book of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics,” which argues that politics is the science most concerned with human good. Over 2,000 years later, that argument remains relevant. Art, being another science primarily concerned with human good, has a lot in common with politics. It is a common pitfall to view politics as an isolated subject. Whether it’s taxes or environmental policy, politics certainly play an active role in our lives.
It can be easy to see whatever politics affects, including art, as being political in nature. However, it is often the other way around. Since art impacts and is impacted by politics, people sometimes view it as valuable only because of its political connection, rather than any of the more inherent factors contributing to its importance.
Consider a landscape painting. It is not unreasonable to say that the landscape painting is political because it can further environmental causes by showing the viewer the limitless beauty nature offers, pressing the importance of preserving the environment onto the viewer.
However, this is a flawed way of looking at art because it can lead people to consider art valuable only so long as it furthers whatever cause they see it as supporting. This mindset diminishes the possibility that the painting can be beautiful because of its artistic qualities and instead focuses on its impact on the world.
Judging art based on its political qualities also means it’s subject to the political meat grinder. Politics is so core to our identities that we have come to view attacks on our politics as attacks on ourselves. If we view some statement or talking point as coded with the “other side,” we tend to shut ourselves down to it. When art becomes a political tool, it gets treated in much the same way. This view shuts out the truly artistic qualities of art and reduces it to being yet another party platform rather than a method for genuine human expression.
Art that is strictly political becomes propaganda. The danger is stripping art of its emotional and technical qualities that give it value in the first place. Whenever we consider art, we should be wary of stripping it of its nuance. Art — like people, life and politics — is complicated. We should celebrate this complexity and constantly be vigilant for anything that tries to strip it away.
Art often has a message that can be applied to a political cause, but this isn’t necessarily because the art itself is political. Rather, this is more because art is often another way of answering the same question of how we should lead our lives that politics also seeks to solve. If you view everything through a political lens, you can lose sight of what you’re fighting for in the first place. When art is viewed as being exclusively political, it is no longer concerned with the nature of our lives and becomes a tool for political power. When art becomes strictly political, it can become nearly impossible to enjoy it independently of its political implications.
Deniz Kurdi is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and a columnist for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Quinn Volpe, Alana Parker and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella, Emma Brown and Nicole Kariuki.
