

(HTTPS://WWW.FOREFRONTFESTIVAL.CO

 ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ )  B L O G ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ B L O G/ ) 
NO , AL L ART IS NO T PO L ITIC AL ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ AL L- ART- IS- NO T- PO L ITIC AL / )

 ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ PO DC AST- 8 / )  ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ PO DC AST- 7 / )

No, All Art Is Not Political

 NATE MANCINI /  JUNE 17, 2018 /
 FEATURED (HTTPS://WWW.FOREFRONTFESTIVAL.COM/CATEGORY/FEATURED/),
 GENERAL THOUGHTS (HTTPS://WWW.FOREFRONTFESTIVAL.COM/CATEGORY/GENERAL-THOUGHTS/) /
 LEAVE A COMMENT (HTTPS://WWW.FOREFRONTFESTIVAL.COM/ALL-ART-IS-NOT-POLITICAL/#RESPOND)

Forefront 360 
Blog Entry: No, All Art Is Not Political
Every few months, a high-profile artist makes a political
statement of some kind. Immediately there’s a public
outcry from those who disagree: “Artists should stick to
their art. Let’s not mix politics and art!” Then comes the
bold, enlightened response from the artist and his/her
fans:

“All art is political.”

Suddenly, the conversation halts. We all pause to feel the weight of this
statement and consider its implications. Is it true? Is all art fundamentally
political? Were all our favorite fantasy stories, at their core, just an elaborate
critique of fascism? Were all those beautiful paintings in the art gallery ultimately
designed to promote social justice programs? Were those symphonies trying to
tell me something about the hidden abuses of power in modern governmental
structures?

Of course, there is some truth to art and politics being historically intertwined. I
would never deny that some art is fundamentally political, both in its intentions
and in the way people experience it. Take Max Ernst’s painting Europe A er the
Rain (http://www.max-ernst.com/europe-a er-rain.jsp), for example, a bleak
denouncement of Nazism and perhaps warfare in general. Bob Dylan’s hit song
The Times They Are A Changin’ (https://youtu.be/e7qQ6_RV4VQ) and John
Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance (https://youtu.be/0yU0JuE1jTk) had similar political
implications. Or look at Banksy’s series of murals
(https://www.widewalls.ch/banksy-steve-jobs-calais/) in the Calais refugee camp,
which make a strong statement about the treatment of refugees. Or listen to Gil
Scott Heron’s The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
(https://youtu.be/QnJFhuOWgXg), featuring a politically-charged sentiment
revived just this year (https://youtu.be/xjDjIWPwcPU) in Marvel’s Black Panther.
Clearly, art and politics are not entirely separate domains.
And let me be clear on another point: artists are free to make political claims or
talk about political issues, whether in their art itself, on their platform, or in their
everyday life. I think it’s good for all kinds of people, artists included, to be able
to express their beliefs about politics. In some cases (given the myriad of societal
atrocities throughout history) it’s actually a moral imperative for them to do so.
I’m not trying to censor anyone’s speech here.

But the original claim above is that all art is political — that no art is truly free
from the concerns of politics. I find this claim to be absurd; I do not believe it to
be true. If it were true, it would not be something to be proud of. It would be the
admission of a sad state of a airs, a critique of our own shallowness. Here are
five reasons why the statement “all art is fundamentally political” is untrue and
undesirable.

1. It broadens the definition of politics to the point

where the term becomes meaningless.
I believe words, especially words we use on a regular basis, should be both
understandable and useful. If a word has too many definitions, and we always
have to use lots of words to explain what it means, the original word loses its
conversational value. Similarly, if a word’s definition is too broad, it doesn’t have
explanatory power — it says nothing of consequence. (If everything is awesome
(https://youtu.be/9cQgQIMlwWw), nothing really is.) Here, of course, we are
concerned with the meaning of the word “politics.”

When people say that “all art is political,” they have to perform a pretty intricate
language dance to justify their claim. When Mark Vallen argues (http://www.art-
for-a-change.com/content/essays/political.htm) that all art is political, he says:

“It is largely market forces that determine the success or failure of art, and who
among us will declare capitalism's various mechanisms to be free of politics?
Since labor and commerce are realms understood to be political spheres, then
art, which is inextricably bound to those fields, is automatically part of a political
process.”

So from Mark’s perspective, anything created in our modern era is

“automatically” political because it required labor and labor is related to
commerce and commerce is influenced by political processes. It’s as if everything
is a web — A is related to B which is related to C which is related to D, and
therefore A is fundamentally D. If politics influences everything, his argument
goes, then all art must be fundamentally political.

Dickon Stone takes a di erent path (https://www.theeuropean-

magazine.com/dickon-stone/8519-why-art-is-by-definition-political) but casts the
net just as wide:

“We...are social creatures, the concept of sociality running straight to the core of
what being human is all about. Social, by definition, implies society and,
consequently, social politics. The freedom (and equally the prohibition) of
individuals to express themselves through any means by which influence is cast
into the societal cauldron must, then, be political.”

In Dickon’s view, it seems that politics is basically anything that happens in

society, and therefore all art is political.

By these broad definitions of politics and its purview, we could certainly say that
all art is political. But to do so muddies the waters of what “politics” is. Pretty
soon we’d have to say that everything we do is political. Is that really a reasonable
definition of politics? If everything is political, is anything political?

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “politics” as “the activities

associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate
or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.” I
think that’s a reasonable definition, and it puts some clear boundaries on what is
necessarily political. Politics may influence many areas of life, but I think to say
that every work of art is bound up in politics really stretches the definition of
politics to the point where it becomes meaningless.
2. It implies that all art “sends a message.”
When someone claims that “all art is political,” it implies that all art is sending
political messages (whether you notice them or not). The subtle corollary is that
some of the art you think you love actually has a political stance that you
wouldn’t agree with if you realized what it was. It covertly undermines your trust
in art you assumed was simply beautiful and suggests that it may actually be
glorified propaganda.

Of course, there are many things in life that are designed to send a clear
message: marketing copy, blog entries (like this one), news, sermons, political
speeches, and much of our everyday communication. It’s tempting, then, to
project that assumption onto art as well. Christians in particular have always
been wary of the “messages” that art sends. To be sure, some art does send a
clear message, just as some art is clearly political. And some artistic genres and
mediums lend themselves well to messages (hip-hop music, children’s books,
documentaries, etc). But I believe most forms of art ought to rise above the
simple delivery of messages.

The chief function of art is to awaken our awareness of and desire for that which
is transcendent. Art isn’t supposed to simply tell us to “build a wall” or “create a
path to citizenship.” That’s not its job. Art deals with themes, with feeling, with
beauty — things far deeper than politics.
The di erence between art and a sermon or speech is akin to the di erence
between nature (God’s art) and the Bible (God’s word). In Romans 1:20, Paul
claims that God’s “eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived,
ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” — so we
can learn some things from nature, just as we can learn things from art. But later
Paul says, “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And
how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). So it’s not as
if nature is a megaphone proclaiming explicit truths — we need preaching for
that. Nature gives us a sense of reality and draws our eyes to the heavens, but we
need God’s word to tell us what to do about it. Similarly, art isn’t designed to tell
us precisely how to live or how to vote. It’s designed to remind us about the
nature of reality, the beauty of life, the value of our fellow man, and the
existence of something beyond ourselves. These truths may lead us to make
political choices down the road, but that will happen in di erent ways for
di erent people — those connections are rarely explicit, direct, or universal. Art
a ects us at a deep level, more powerful but less specific than a message. To see
art as fundamentally a vehicle for political messages is to turn the grand function
of art into something much more shallow.

3. It implies that all art, properly understood, is

polarizing.
It’s no secret that we live in a deeply polarized political climate in America. A Pew
Research study (http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-
on-political-values-grows-even-wider/) last year found that “Across 10 measures
that Pew Research Center has tracked on the same surveys since 1994
[government aid, racial discrimination, immigration, etc], the average partisan
gap has increased from 15 percentage points to 36 points.” In other words,
disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are increasing in
magnitude.

Pew also found that partisan separation even extends to areas of life that are
ostensibly not political — for example, most Republicans prefer to live in rural,
spread out areas while most Democrats prefer to live in urban, tightly connected
areas. So increasingly, we’re not only mentally divided, we’re physically divided.
In this era of widespread polarization, we’re in desperate need of things that
unite us.

But when we say that “all art is political,” we imply that political divides will
naturally run straight through all the seemingly innocuous movies, music,
performances, and visual art we consume. I believe this assumption leads to
some faulty (and ultimately unhelpful) conclusions.

Let’s take a beloved, family-friendly movie as an example: Pixar’s 2001 film

Monsters, Inc. It’s about a world of monsters who harness children’s screams for
energy. But the monsters believe that humans are deadly to touch, so they’re
careful to never let humans into their world. One day, a human child (later
named “Boo”) finds her way into the monster world, and protagonists Sully and
Mike spend the rest of the film trying to get her out and back to her home. But
along the way, they start to care about her, and in the end, they miss her.
If you’re of the opinion that all art is political, you might see this as
fundamentally a movie about immigration. It’s about how we initially distrust
people from other nations, but if we really got to know them, we’d want them
around. We should have more open borders.

Now, you’re free to believe that, and if watching Monsters, Inc leads you to
change your stance on immigration, I won’t judge you for that. But let’s be clear:
Monsters, Inc is not fundamentally about immigration.* If you read Pixar co-
founder Ed Catmull’s book Creativity, Inc (https://amzn.to/2l67LWh), you’ll find a
passage about director Pete Docter’s inspiration for Monsters, Inc. Docter says it’s
about how when you’re facing a problem, you want to solve it right away — you
can’t wait to be free of the problem. But once you solve it, there’s a part of you
that misses it. There’s something important about trials in our lives, a deep part
of us that yearns to do meaningful work. What if problems weren’t simply
nuisances to be stamped out, but an important part of our personal growth?
That is the question at the heart of Monsters, Inc.

Notice the di erence between these two interpretations. If Monsters, Inc is truly
about immigration, a typical Democrat should be vindicated by the movie while
a typical Republican should be provoked. The movie is fundamentally divisive.
But if the movie is really about how problems can be a blessing and not a curse,
then anyone who sees this movie and understands it can be both challenged
and upli ed. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican — Monsters,
Inc connects you to a God-given truth about humanity. It’s fundamentally
unifying.

Deep down, isn’t that what we want our art to be? When we walk into a cinema
or a concert hall, don’t we want to share a common experience with the diverse
people around us? Don’t we all want to be challenged and upli ed? If all art is
political, it will always be polarizing. But if art connects us with our humanity, it
can be unifying. For a moment we could set aside our politics to laugh and cry
together.

*There’s a larger debate here about how art derives its meaning, whether from the
creator or the observer. I believe there’s a middle ground, but whichever way you fall on
this issue, it still proves my point. If you think the creator’s intention bears the most
weight, my account of Pete Docter’s intentions demonstrates that Monsters, Inc is not
fundamentally political. If you think that beauty is primarily in the eye of the beholder,
then art being political is subjective. How could all art possibly be political if not
everyone perceives it as such? It would only always be political from the perspective of
the most politically-minded people.

4. It’s exhausting.
When America was founded, newspapers ran on a monthly or sometimes weekly
basis. Getting papers printed and distributed daily would have been challenging,
and besides, things that were considered newsworthy simply didn’t happen
every day. Starting in 1784, the first daily newspaper was published, the
Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser. Ever since then, our news cycle has
continued to shorten. Now we expect to hear about things the moment they
happen, regardless of where in the world they’re occurring or whether they have
any relevance to our daily life. News tweets and push notifications give us
“breaking news” multiple times a day if we let them. We’re addicted to knowing
everything, everywhere, all the time.

If this weren’t exhausting enough, much of the “news” we receive is political in

nature: some politician did this or that, the president said this or that, some
other country is considering reacting this way or that way. A partisan slant is
o en embedded in the reporting, and even if it’s not, we apply a partisan slant
ourselves. So our phones, computers, TVs, newspapers and magazines give us a
never-ending stream of “news” about which we are supposed to care and
develop an opinion. I expect we have more opinions about more random things
than anyone in American history ever thought necessary.

All this to say, I have enough politics in my life already. I have politics delivered to
me from all sides all the time. If there’s one thing I’m not seeking when I open a
novel, visit an art gallery, or put on a movie, it’s politics. When I experience art, I
want to be refreshed. I want to gain perspective. I want to connect to my
deepest desires, and share that experience with my fellow man. If you’re telling
me art is just another vehicle for telling me about politics, that’s not
enlightening. Quite frankly, it’s exhausting.

5. It implies that politics is the most foundational aspect

of our lives.
When you read Vallen and Stone’s arguments from point #1, you get the sense
that they see politics as being at the core of everything we do. When you go to
work, you’re living out your politics. When you get married, you’re living out your
politics. When you create art, you’re living out your politics. If true, I believe this
would be tragic. It would mean our political divisions are built into our lives in a
fundamental way. At no point could we really lay aside our policy preferences
and power dynamics to be in deep, loving community with one another. We
couldn’t really go to church or a cinema or a bar together without feeling the
strain of di ering political a iliations.

Senator Ben Sasse is helpful here in his talk titled What Does Washington Have to
Do with Jerusalem? (https://vimeo.com/211517498):

“I think we are having a crisis of people deciding to project grand meaning onto
politics. And politics can’t bear that weight… our entire structure of government was
kind of based on the idea that statism can be dangerous and politics has necessary
purposes but not ultimate purposes. That’s a pretty special gi that we’ve failed to pass
on to the next generation. There’s a ton of data which shows our young people don’t
really understand the American experiment and the American idea… I’m in public life
because I want to recover a sense that politics can only work well if it’s a framework but
not the center. Politics can only work well in America if you’re not trying to find your
greatest hopes and find the greatest enemies that you want to demonize in politics. It’s
not made for that.”
As Ben says (exemplified by the arguments from Vallen, Stone and others),
people are increasingly viewing politics as fundamental to our lives, and
therefore inextricable from everything we do — including our art. To the extent
that this view is adopted, I believe art will become more and more politically
charged, and you may find yourself seeing more politics in the cinema, on the
music stage, and in the bookstore. But it’s not because politics is truly at the core
of our being — it’s because people, including artists, are starting to think it is.

Meanwhile, the truth has been staring at us all along: politics is not the core of
everything we do. Our worldview is! Our beliefs about the world are foundational
to everything we do and say and create. Our politics don’t form our worldview,
our worldview informs our politics. Out of our worldview comes our political
positions, our view of history, our manner of social interactions, and yes, our
artwork.

So politics can influence our art, just as any other areas of life can. But politics is
not necessarily behind artistic decisions — it o en may not (and should not) be.
Worldview, on the other hand, is very much behind our art. Some elements of
our worldview will naturally find their way into our artwork. That’s one reason it’s
vital for us as artists to form a worldview built on truth. As we learn more about
our Creator and develop a mature theology, our art can actually become more
truthful, more meaningful, and more grounded.

And so can our politics.

Forefront is committed to fostering a robust conversation on the intersection of
Christian faith and the arts by publishing a wide range of voices and opinions. The
views expressed here reflect those of the author.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nate Mancini
 Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/natemancini)

 Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/natemancini)

Founder of Forefront. Video Producer at Steven James Media Group. Grove

City College grad. Director of the feature film “Asleep in a Storm” and the
short film “Pastime.”

SHARE THIS POST

 
(mailto:?
subject=No%2C+All+Art+Is+Not+P
thought
you
might
enjoy
this!
Check
it
out
when
you
have
a
chance:
https://www.forefrontfestival.com/
art-
is-
not-
   political/)

Receive notifications about future posts:

 john.smith@example.com

Get notified

2 Comments Sort by Oldest

Add a comment...

Peter Clark
1. Dickon Stone is correct; this is also the interpretation which Hannah Arendt favors. Both define political as a
fundamental aspect of human interaction, so the term is not in fact "meaningless." To favor the restrictive
definition of a dictionary over a common concept in political science, that human social interaction is inherently
political, is quite obtuse.
2. All art does send a message. If you can think back all the way to your high school English class, you might
rememeber an idea in rhetoric called "pathos." This is a part of a textual analysis that examines why a piece of
rhetoric w… See More
Like · Reply · 4 · 1y

Sayan Biswas
You just convinced me that all art is indeed political. And it only SEEMS apolitical because we are not looking
deeply enough. Good argument, over all.
Also, christian, religion is deeply political. So the theological basis of art makes your art politically conservative
and about reinforcing the status quo Your art is thus political as well and your analysis just exposes your

Forefront on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/forefrontfestival/)

 Forefront Festival
310 likes

Like Page Sign Up

Be the first of your friends to like this

Forefront Festival
on Friday

The latest song/video from our friend Melanie Penn!

Her latest album is coming together beautifully, and
this is yet another anthem of hope in shaky times.

159 Views

Melanie Penn
Musician/Band · 1,978 Likes · September 4 at 4:49 AM ·

Avenue of the Americas is from the upcoming album, More

Alive Vol. 1 out September 25! This video was made
during The Great Pause, to remind us that the sun will rise
again over New York - and all of us - after a long night 🌇

3 Comment Share

Forefront on Twitter
Tweets by @forefrontfest
Forefront Festival
@forefrontfest
Thanks @barrygcooper. It's going to be an evening of
special magnificence! twitter.com/barrygcooper/s…
https://twitter.com/barrygcooper/status/129174343205
5173120
 Aug 7, 2020

Forefront Festival Retweeted

joyike
@joyike
RT @forefrontfest: New podcast! The Forefront team
dives into the details of the upcoming Forefront
Festival: Virtual — all the featured artists and
breakouts. You'll hear about @natemorganlocke,
@BenMyersPoet, @sashahallock, @DelvynCase,
@joyike and
more.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for…

Forefront 360 on Apple Podcasts

Arts · 2020
podcasts.apple.com

Aug 6, 2020

Forefront Festival Retweeted

Faith & Work

@RedeemerCFW
Gothamite Melanie Penn is leading a session at the
@forefrontfest tomorrow. Check it out!
https://twitter.com/forefrontfest/status/1284912147013
697538

Aug 6, 2020

Embed View on Twitter

Forefront on Instagram
How do you even begin to adapt a myth or folktale?? Our co-founders are teaching a class on
that subject TODAY at @writersandbooks. Check out the link in our bio for details 👌 // #repost
from @thehnossaproject
(//instagram.com/p/BuPM6_qF5RK/)
 From @jasonbarber82, artist, thinker, cultural historian, Rochesterian, precious podcast guest,
and Forefront 2017 speaker: This, I thought, is what is meant by 'thy will be done' in the Lord's
Prayer, which I had prayed time and again without thinking about it. It means that your will and
God's will may not be the same. It means there's a good possibility that you won't get what you
pray for. It means that in spite of your prayers you are going to su er. Wendell Berry
#kodakportra400 #kodakcameraclub #wendellberry
(//instagram.com/p/BtUj0KIlthW/)

Follow Forefront on Instagram (//instagram.com/forefrontfest/)

H O M E ( H T T P S : / / W W W . F O R E F R O N T F E S T I V A L . C O M / ) A B O U T ( H T T P S : / / W W W . F O R E F R O N T F E S T I V A L . C O M / A B O U T/ )
EV ENTS ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ EV ENTS/ )
NETW O RK ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ NETW O RK / )
B L O G ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ B L O G/ )
C O N T A C T ( H T T P S : / / W W W . F O R E F R O N T F E S T I V A L . C O M / C O N T A C T/ )
G E T I N V O L V E D ( H T T P S : / / W W W . F O R E F R O N T F E S T I V A L . C O M / G E T- I N V O L V E D / )
GET UPDATES ( HTTPS:/ / W W W .F O REF RO NTF ESTIV AL .C O M/ SUB SC RIB E/ )


(https://www.facebook.com/forefrontfestival/)

(https://twitter.com/forefrontfest)

(https://www.instagram.com/forefrontfest/)