An Ongoing Conflict
By Beral Madra
Art and politics! These two popular nouns, which are both pivotal in the life of humankind, come together. In what sense should we consider this side-by-side position?
Is it:
An intersection of political history and art history?
An intervention of political power in art?
A political dimension inherent in art?
An existence in post-truth ideology and Artificial Intelligence promises?
A precise answer comes from Hannah Arendt’s essay “The Crisis in Culture” in Between Past and Future, “The conflict between art and politics … cannot and must not be solved.”
However, these questions are very much on the agenda, demanding to be solved, in the region where I live. To live in the non-EU region (the East Mediterranean and the Middle East, the most historically intricate and currently most politically complex region of the world) is to live on the edge of a perpetual crisis that turns life upside down. Restrictions on human rights and freedom of expression, gender discrimination, and economic deadlocks are everyday issues here. At the same time, since 2016, a new socio-political-economic ideology, so-called post-truth, has been darkly overshadowing the truth, which is essential to the mental and spiritual needs of artists, art critics, and others engaged in cultural work. These conflicting realities are the product of Neo-Liberal Capitalism, Erroneous Globalisation, and Techno-Feudalism. A better world currently seems a faraway utopia; yet, despite all adversities and hardships, the concepts, forms, and relational aesthetics of contemporary artworks and activities, and of related creative cultural production, sustain a resistance and vitality.
Under the circumstances of Late Capitalist Fascism, as defined by many scholars and thinkers, humanity lives in an age dominated by visual language, culture, and information. The visual language created as metaphor in the processes of art production suggests to societies multifarious ways of coping with this complexity.
However, where official infrastructures and financial support are inadequate, art-making is mainly backed and sponsored by private companies, which often collaborate with political powers. Yet in non-democratised countries, one fact cannot be denied: even where free expression is more or less restricted, contemporary artworks and contemporary art-making, with their creative, independent, free character protected by metaphoric images, remain the most effective tools of communication, collaboration, and participation. The relational aesthetics of this production empower the theoretical and practical communication and collaboration between all the sciences, humanities, and academic divisions, as well as between all the realities of human life on this planet. This creativity empowers Truth against Post-truth. At the same time, this art-making is, contradictorily, a major component of the global culture industry and Neo-Capitalism, both controlled by political powers.
It is clear that this controversial relationship between art and politics has taken new forms in the 21st century; these often appear as aestheticised crises and scandals amid the complexities of politics, economics, and media relations, owing to the rise of Techno-Feudalism. Vilém Flusser, in Kommunikologie (Fischer, 1998, p. 105), reveals the relationship between art and technology: “…the world of techno pictures fascinate us more and more, because they carry a new message. Almost nobody had gained knowledge of manipulating these new codes in order to articulate the built-in messages. The level of consciousness that relate to these codes has not yet been reached. Therefore, they are extremely dangerous: they program us without allowing us to understand their nature, and instead of connecting us to the reality as visible bridges they threaten us as impenetrable walls. This is our crisis.”
The relationship between politics and art continues to be fraught with tension, disconnection, and opposition. Instead of the indispensable principle of “investing in creative people”, state and local governments are pursuing an “event-oriented” cultural policy. Generational change, new ideas and concepts, and new forms of production are ignored; instead, showpiece performances are staged by artists who once produced interesting work but have now faded. Meanwhile, privatisation policies are also reflected in culture. The state hands arts and culture affairs to foundations or corporations, but at the same time forces them to remain within a specific framework, one structured around the discourses of the past.
While the private sector champions the art and culture profession, it prioritises branding. Keeping the brand on the agenda fuels monopolisation. When we look at the art market, which has not yet escaped localisation, at the museums established, the bank galleries opened, and the events organised, we can observe all the familiar ills: a lack of discourse, concept, foresight, expertise, creativity, and taste, along with localism and introversion.
If contemporary art, and especially critical, politically charged contemporary art production, is accepted into a country’s parliament, that country has a healthy relationship between art and politics. If an artist can freely question, criticise, and comment on a political issue, a social trauma, or a massacre related to their country, either within their own country or internationally, then that artist has a healthy relationship between art and politics in their country.
The change should be as follows. Cultural and art centres owned by state and local governments should be restructured as independent enterprises, managed by experts. All contemporary art production should be expanded to the most remote corners of the country. State and local governments should not be responsible for the meticulous role of commenting on and selecting contemporary artistic aesthetics, forms, and discourses. The work of promoting contemporary artistic and cultural production to international art circles should be free and independent; however, state and local governments should financially support these initiatives. Supportive, rewarding, and encouraging financial resources should be created for creative individuals.
