Condi plays for the Queen

Who wants to be the meditator
in times of black and white?

I have never really cared much for politics in art, Why? its mostly those who profess political art are typically more interested in the message over the medium and it suffers. The majority of my political art experiences in Texas , that being local shows , write ups and conversations. always seems to gravitate towards cliche' of social justices or fuck corporate America for ruining the world or placing guilt on those who victimized XYZ to the decadence of the rich suburban America. Its a crowd that's comfortable in a rambling outrage about something that Bush did and rarely ever converses but is more inclined to broadcast. Most of the art endeavors had a proclamation to educate to all the ignorant masses of consumer yahoos and idiots in our society. Their targets are the kind of people that would shop at Walmart or you would see driving an F-350 or suspect for voting Republican or maybe its just the artist's parents.

Over the years i have been drawn into reading and watching politics like a soap opera. But when i read Paul Valadez article (Where are the right wing political artist?) and Freeman's editorial outcry as to why artist aren't marching in the streets and making art about this urgent time of crisis .I get this feeling that like a lot radicals befuddled by their certianity that this is the end of the world and why arn't you, the morally superior disenfranchised youthful budding artists doing anything about it, that something is a bit off here. This frustration about the lack of interests about whats really going on here in America. its a motivational problem I might shed some light on who is a play and who isn't.

So lets start with something that the readers of this magazine know about that's is the business of art or its culture. Back when I was in gradschool over at UTSA one of my proff was going off about Bush and the Republican agenda, etc., I told this proff, "did you know, about a third of grads (studio) are conservative Christian types,", at that particular time. The proff was about to bust out laughing like,"no way could somebody get this far and be so #@#%$#@", . In Valadaz's article,in the wisdom of his investigative mindset he might have fail to realize that if you consider yourself a "conservative /right wing " artist you have no place in the contemporary setting, (ei this whole magazine or showing spaces), your message is not welcome here. Thus Paul has deduced there are no right wing artists out there that are original enough to show or be seen, or he would have known about them by now.. So lets talk about the art culture for a sec, if you even think your a conservative/right wing person or God forbid a Tea party person, you basically shut the fuck up, cause you don't want your "art career" being tanked by these loud mouths spreading rumors about how bigoted, hateful and stupid you are. And they are out there picking fights they would love to pen you as a symbol of oppression, and your art as evil! hisss! hissss! Evil! believe me, i know, try just it for fun, hell even as entertainment some people never shut up and you get this feeling you have been outed as the witch in the holy monastery of art.

Paul needs to understand without creating a mental pathology as to why right wing have few original ideas or artists, that most of the world views art as decoration that's it,. Contemporary art is about itself, its a society that talks about society, but is also a society that is removed from society but feels it understands society, sorta. If anything i would say conservative art is akin to posters or nostalgia of the past. Political cartoons aren't art in their books. Art is a Remmington or a Kinkade something they might see in a coffee table art book about the old masters. The magazine "Southwest art " has conservatives in it i bet, as does the magazine "American Artist,". Do you think anybody in the "real " world of populas America gives a fuck about what goes on inside this magazine, or any random party art space spread around Texas. "Left wing" political art made by artists aimed at artists for their crowd seems opportunistic because its like singing to the choir ,its easy and who would want to disagree. There is the thrill that it might be shocking to some but how far does that go? when the exhibit is down in 30 days. So for me political art made here in this zone has to do more with reaffirmations to the readers, mainly the fifty plus top art professors/ intellectuals / artists who would read this magazine, about the current fashionability of any of these hot topics in politics that might trigger an commentary or art exhibit as to why America is going down the toilet and who are the good guys and bad mainly the bad.
Which draws me back to what is political art to a crowd who agrees with you already. if anything politics are very complicated unless you want to make propaganda to clear it up.
Ambiguity especially in politics , starts with understanding the legal matters at hand ,(that's my outlook). events that trigger political positioning, why they happen and how we come to understand them. My outlook has become more like a lawyer as i get older in this less of a rebel rouser idealist. i don't see why people don't raise more question like this instead of exhausting themselves over the same issues again and again.

Contemporary art in a political scene should be less about advocating a side and more about creating problems in my books. Politics of "the Daily Show" strive at a satire that would shy away from being labeled strictly liberal or leftwing, because they do not want to be tight casted to restrict the flow of their message. The ambiguity in a political art piece or a political statement with out being so obvious should provoke both left and right somehow, and quit possibly evolve the issues and discourse beyond that of the exchange of routine speaking point. lets face if i was to make political art here in this zone (ei showing spaces/art crowds) who would i want question or inform, the conservative Republican readers and viewers?LOL ,

Maybe i can feel it or resolve it here in Freeman's angst to motive the youth, who might already know, that the lines have been drawn for quit some time to a strict picture of black and white,. Call it complacent, or cowardice to not rise to the calling , but my father's devils are not my own. A tradition of iconography has been established here that has lost its meaning beyond that of a good t shirt design, and a movie stereotype. Maybe that's where political art should belong, but i would suggest that , mix messages are more interesting and might inspire somebody to say to hell with both sides of the debate, i can't tell the difference any more and evolve a new sceniblity in politics and art.