Re: Talk of interest to visual studies folks

From: Swagato Chakravorty <[email protected]>

While this ongoing conversation is an excellent case study for the
interchange between art and politics (and indeed I am of the view that
art is intrinsically political, though not in the partisan sense that
the word is commonly used), I'd like to make the following
observations in response to Paul Schulte's remarks.

1. Is a work about history not inherently historical? Or if you'd
prefer in this instance, a mode of visual historiography?
2. Expressly political entities have long been involved, often in
complicated fashion, with art in all forms: see Dziga Vertov's work,
for example. In America, the impact of the Code on American cinema can
hardly be overstated. Mere involvement of a political organ such as a
labor union does not appear to me a reason to overlook the work of art
involved.
3. The artist's choice of pro-union work is worth discussing...why? Is
an artist/artistic entity not free to choose their subject?
4. Even if the Dept. of Labor ought to represent 'labor' per se, I
still don't see the problem with hosting a work of art that shows
solidarity with unions. Are unions not a part of labor?
5. Arguing that a pro-union mural violates "neutrality" seems a bit
vague. See my previous point. If unions were not an intrinsic part of
labor as a concept, then yes, it would have no place on the premises.
Since it is, I don't see how it favors one sub-set over another. Would
you argue that a school where social diversity as a concept is
emphasized in a mural is enacting some form of reverse-racism?
6. The governor, in removing it, performed an explicit act
intersecting political power versus the work of art. The issues are
very much inter-related, as one becomes a response to the other.
7. Yes, the dismissive word "bonehead" should not have been used.
However, academics are human beings, and as such, they have opinions
just like other people do. It is surely inappropriate to leak such
personal opinions into a professional exchange, but I do not think the
author should be condemned for the mere fact of having an opinion in
the first place.
8. I think that's a fairly large stretch. I don't think the naming of
an organization in and of itself constitutes a political act. I could
point out that your own broad-brush statement, "majority of academics
are liberal" similarly constitutes a pejorative/political voice.
9-10. Valid.
11. As far as I'm aware, nobody affiliated with the Obama
administration went out of their way to exert their political
apparatus onto a work of art. However, your point seems to suggest
that the fact that the campaign invited artistic submissions is itself
an issue worth discussion. This seems somewhat pointless, as we
already are aware that political organs and art have always coexisted.
Therefore, a particular political faction requesting support from
artists seems hardly a novel concept.

-Swagato.

Swagato Chakravorty
AM, Cinema and Media Studies
The University of Chicago.