Politics of Art
February 6th, 2023
I decided to start another project for this year, something that I wanted to do for a long time but never actually had time for it. This might be not a completely accurate description since there was a time about 20–25 years ago when I was really into it and had a vast and deep knowledge of that subject. This year I want to go back and in a systematic way go through the complete and total topic of art history. That was my main interest when I was in my early twenties and I loved it but for some reason, other interests took over my leisure time and I stopped deepening my knowledge of art history and art criticism. Now I feel the time is right to go back to it, and besides — I want to. There are two ways of doing it — one is just to go from an interesting work of art to exploring more of the oeuvre of the artist then to more of the artist of the same kind and milieu then to the particular art movement that work of art represents. I think that is wrong since art movements follow a well-defined path and are either a development over the previous ones or start as a response and rebellion against the popular movement of the times. The other way of systematic study of the history of art is simply to go by the chronological path from prehistoric art to modernism and that is what intend to do.
To refresh the basics of knowledge of history and criticism of art I decided to read the well-recommended textbook Art History: The Basics by Diana Newall and Grant Pooke. And going by all the textbooks I ever read, I wasn’t excited at all to read it, but felt mostly like something I have to do to get a good primer on the subject. And I was wrong! This is an amazingly wonderful and exhilarating book, even if it is a textbook aimed at undergraduates (besides I wonder why more textbooks cannot be so engaging and interesting and easy to read without being condescending). I am getting the very thorough and accessible information I wanted and needed with point after point presenting the current views and scholarship of art history and especially art criticism. And that was simply a revelation to me, something I wasn’t aware of and wasn’t aware I want to know it. The main point is how over the years art criticism was connected to politics — especially in XIX and XX centuries. Wrong views and political ideas could and did doom some artists to obscurity and some of the talented hacks with the ability for smooth sailing between political fractions were richly rewarded. On occasions, even the lack of political convictions was as bad as having the wrong kind of political views. Politics and nationalism denied the fair chance for success and recognition of countless artists who were born in the wrong country under the wrong government. And I naively thought that art is something that transcendences borders and ideologies and parochialism… and I was wrong, I guess there is nothing that ideology and nationalism and xenophobia will not destroy when applied by those making judgments and whose opinions matter. But it is good to know that so I can look and find the truth and it is good to know that this injustice is slowly being repaired now by dedicated historians and critics.
