Suggestions from 2nd Dissertation 1:1 tutorial
Limitations of political art in the history, or certain nations do not need to be explained, included in the essay. Finding out/suggesting the exact point/degree of limits in Political art could be achieved by examples of various artists, playing around the ‘limit’ (either struggling or fighting to expand the limit, somehow cleverly avoiding the restrictions)
Even without evidences of limitation in political art or such attempt, listing the suspicions of it, the readers would be able to realise/ understand where about the limits are – as long as each artist’s case supports the theme well.
Dividing paragraphs by nationalities (China, North Korea, South Korea, Western Countries as I did in previous essay) seems unnecessary once introducing the artists. Tip- Just to clarify the limit you are trying to point out in the essay is not only applied to Asian countries, you could have the same numbers from East and West once choosing artists.
Renzo Martens / A film- Episode 3 (Enjoy Poverty)
9 artists / [edited by] Bartholomew Ryan
Believing that art can take a critical position only if it embraces the terms and conditions of its own existence, our contention is that the effects of art on social reality at the sites where critical artistic interventions are staged are dwarfed by those that take place at sites of art’s public reception- in the cities where such artworks are subsequently shown, discussed, and sold.
On the one hand, galleries, museums, and biennials in places such as Berlin and Istanbul have become important centres for the presentation of critical, interventionists art. However, local politicians or businessmen do not finance art venues because they hope this will radicalise local politics but rather because they know art will make their cities more competitive in the battle for attention, high net- worth individuals, and capital investment.
An Interesting article about Art dealing with poverty today.
Poverty lines: where are the poor in art today?
Caravaggio, Bruegel and Van Gogh all made studies of the poor in spite of rich patronage. Why aren’t more artists doing that now?
Art has a long history of entertaining the rich. From ancient artisans who made gold drinking cups for kings, to the artists of today who sell installations to plutocrats, art has been a luxury product, the servant of money. And yet it also has a social conscience. At this consumerist time of year, it is worth looking at some of the ways artists portray poverty.
In Guiseppe Pellizza da Volpedo’s painting The Fourth Estate, the rural poor march towards you, into history. It is the start of the 20th century: the painting dates from about 1901. The forward march of labour has begun.
So here we are in the 21st century. The forward march of labour ended some time ago. How do today’s artists portray poverty? Interesting question – for perhaps wealth has never been more raw and obvious in the art world. This is the age of the diamond skull. Compared with the compassion of a Caravaggio or Van Gogh, contemporary art really does seem to take the rich collector’s view on life. Where’s our Luke Fildes? For images of economic injustice in today’s art you probably have to look outside the gallery world. Banksy’s Maid in London is the definitive image of inequality today. Perhaps it will be remembered when Hirst is forgotten, just as we have forgotten all the stuffy portraits of Victorian capitalists but crowd and queue to see The Potato Eaters.
And I saw some interesting comments going on below the article.