by At first glance, a work of art might not appear outwardly political. But seeing it for aesthetic purposes alone is not enough. Art requires us to pay attention, to question – and appreciate – what we are looking at, but also to see what is behind it. Take textiles, an art form historically considered “decorative” by the establishment, because of its association with women’s work. But what this category really represents is a deep political subtext – the struggle for women’s rights over the past 500 years.
Directed from the high arts in the Renaissance, the Royal Academy confirmed the low status of textiles in 1769, when the newly founded society banned embroidery from its exhibitions. This influenced women to reject the medium if they wanted to be taken seriously as artists. The Bauhaus school marginalized women in its weaving workshop and, although some female artists of the 1970s used the needle as a form of protest, it is said that, despite this being 2024, a group show dedicated to the art form feels this is still a very good show. rare treatment.
Abstract expressionism is also political – it’s a style that emerged during the cold war
Unravel, which opened at the Barbican last week, is a show that explores how threads are intertwined in a web of “gender labour, marginalisation, colonization and trade”, as curator Wells Fray-Smith tells me. For example, Two-Sided Workwear Quilt: Crops and Blocks, 1960, by the American women’s group of Gee’s Bend quilters, presents a violent history: the enslaved people were expected to work in plantations that provided the indigo dye for denim. seven years.
Landscape painting is also an art form rooted in diverse histories, as shown in Soulscapes – a new exhibition at London’s Dulwich Picture Gallery that brings together art by people from the African diaspora. There is also politics in abstract expressionism – a style that emerged in the climate of cold war politics after the second world war. Ukrainian-born Janet Sobel took up painting in 1938 at the age of 45, and turned to flowing gestures because it was the only way she could make sense of her feelings. , and the horrific actions of the Nazis.
Art is not a one-dimensional entity. It involves different responses, objectives and possibilities. It exists for the power of communication, as a voice for the underrepresented, as a form of resistance and an outlet for both the maker and the viewer.
That is why I was concerned when Arts Council England announced that it had updated its policies, warning that “political statements” made by individuals associated with an organization could lead to ” reputational risk and may breach funding agreements”. Funding for the arts should not be dependent on artists taking a particular political stance. The ACE is supposed to be a non-profit organization that distributes funds, not an organization that seeks to make political interventions on what artists do. In the United Kingdom during the first world war, the Defense of the Realm Act legislated to censor works of art depicting naval or military imagery (in 2014, the Arts Council of England funded a program that responded to this). And, of course, totalitarian governments have always tried to censor artists, one notable example being the Nazis’ seizure of 15,000 works of art by mostly Jewish artists they deemed “degraded”, and putting them on display for the sake of making fun of them.
Related: Unravel review – a wonderful tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure
Recently, artists have been discouraged from making statements about the Israel-Hamas war. In Berlin, culture senator Joe Chialo threatened to adopt a clause that required any recipients of government funding to pledge themselves against “any form of anti-Semitism,” which many artists considered to be denying expressions of support for Palestine. More than 4,000 artists signed an open letter opposing the proposal, which was cancelled.
In times of crisis, sometimes we need to hold up and express. For most, it is the only form of resistance, and a way to highlight injustices and inequality. Artists are not a dangerous species, they do not destroy lives or deny people their rights. Artists hold up a mirror to the world, and, in the words of Emily Dickinson, tell the truth but tell it sideways.
The history of art is the social history of the world, embedded in the context and conditions in which it is made. To deny a person the right to do their work freely – be it in textiles, landscape painting or abstract painting – is to deny the expression, and the act of making, and looking at, the art itself.
