395
edits
Changes
From TheBookbag
Jump to navigationJump to searchArtivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism by Alexander Adams (view source)
Revision as of 16:19, 25 July 2022
, 16:19, 25 July 2022Created page with "{{infobox |title=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism |sort=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism |author=Alexander Adams |revie..."
{{infobox
|title=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism
|sort=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism
|author=Alexander Adams
|reviewer=Alex Merrick
|genre=Politics and Society
|summary=Art has always been about pushing boundaries and Alexander Adams explains how the new “artivism” of left-wing artists is creating an artistic culture of progressivism and potentially radicalism. Adams wonders at what cost and who is paying for this new breed of activism?
|rating=2
|buy=No
|borrow=Yes
|pages=264
|publisher=Imprint Academic
|date=August 2022
|isbn=978-1788360739
|website=https://www.alexanderadams.art/
|cover=1788360737
|aznuk=1788360737
|aznus=1788360737
}}
Can art ever be apolitical? All art is political because art is not made in a vacuum. It is made by people. Antonio Gramsci stated that ‘’Every man… contributes to modifying the social environment in which he develops’’. Therefore, all art must be political, even implicitly. Alexander Adams in his new book ‘Artivism: The Battle for Museum in the Era of Postmodernism’ is adamant that art is freer when it is art for art’s sake. The recent trend of so-called artivism has caused artists to become more overtly political (read: left wing). Their seemingly grass roots movements have been astroturfed by large “left-wing” donors and media elites hoping to create a more globalist and progressive regime. Or at least that’s what Alexander Adams believes.
Adams is a conservative and thus believes in conserving traditions and in only small incremental changes. Therefore, it is clear to see where his animosity for this new breed of artivism comes from as they believe in direct action and fast progression.
His book aims to highlight where artivists’ money comes from, who is involved and why artivism has become so popular. The popularity of left wing artivism being used in publicly funded galleries is contentious and Adams makes a valid point that ‘’taxpayers will support apolitical art venues (even if they visit irregularly); they will not support political-campaign centres.’’ The hyperbolic use of political-campaign centres when he is talking about events that show such “left wing causes” as gender inequality, wealth inequality and racism says more about his conservative mindset than it does about these museums. However, he is correct. A political viewpoint made in a public forum is likely to be anathema to a certain percentage of the population. They will be less likely to visit and thus less funding will be given.
Adams not only highlights the political nature of public art galleries but also the recent performativity of art awards such as the Turner Prize. The shortlist in 2021 included only art collectives such as B.O.S.S. B.O.S.S. were ‘’quick to criticize this appropriation of their work by the British arts establishment… overwhelmingly white… who use minorities as political tokens and shields.’ This point is valid as the awards become a form of performativity by middle-class white people who can pat themselves on the back for being so self-righteous instead of actually addressing the problems.
However, as Adams points out in a different section, there are many charities addressing the problems and providing artivists with the tools they need. He lists a variety of charities and grants that provide funds for ‘’people to overcome disadvantage and lack of opportunity’’ and ‘’artists and collectives, working at the intersection of art, spatial politics and community practise’’. A lot of what Adams seems to be horrified by are in actual fact just ways to readdress the balance of power within the art world.
The term artivism for Adams seems vague and loose. He provides a brief run through of the history of artivism and yet only when we arrive at the late 20th and early 21st century does he specifically mention ‘’self-identified artivism.’’ However, before that, he describes the works of the Victorians as ‘’performing moral instruction and social consciousness-raising.’’ In essence, just another way to describe a more passive form of artivism. In the guise of “art”, the Victorians were attempting to highlight moral and social issues.
Through the course of the book, it becomes clear that what Adams takes issue with is not artivism in itself but the politics being expressed. He bemoans that ‘’we should offer conservatives a chance to counter-programme.’’ As Adams himself notes ‘’most artivism champions the minority and sets up the majority as agents of oppression.’’ Admittedly, he is stating this as a negative outcome. However, it highlights why there is no conservative artivism and thus why he is against it. Conservatism aims to preserve the current systems of power. Artivism is pointless if it is created to celebrate the current form of oppression. It is not activism but sycophantism.
Adams work, although he argues for a position that does not align with a forward-thinking populace, is still argued well with an abundance of examples and references. It is invigorating to read points of view that are unlike your own. An understanding of all arguments and all positions allows us to better navigate a world increasingly more polarised.
Adams argues that galleries today are filled with exhibitions on the ideals of the liberal elite and progressive politics. Perhaps Adams needs to spend time outside his own echo chamber and actually visit these galleries he is so ardently against. As of the Summer of 2022, there are exhibitions on specific artists (e.g. Cornelia Parker, Edvard Munch, Raphael and Kawanabe Kyosai), three on flowers, one on Surrealism and a handful on what Adams would insist were ‘’leftist political exhibitions’’ including one on the climate crisis and one on Black artists.
Although Adams may believe the arts industry is becoming increasingly influenced by “lefties”, this is not true. The industry can be both forward thinking and with one foot in the traditionalist views. Hopefully, the artivism of today will bring the conservatives who dream of yesterday kicking and screaming into a better, more equitable future.
{{amazontext|amazon=1788360739}}
{{amazonUStext|amazon=1788360739}}
{{waterstones|url=https://tidd.ly/3PvTJZZ}}
{{foyles|url=https://tidd.ly/3PyHbBi}}
{{commenthead}}
|title=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism
|sort=Artivism: The Battle for Museums in the Era of Postmodernism
|author=Alexander Adams
|reviewer=Alex Merrick
|genre=Politics and Society
|summary=Art has always been about pushing boundaries and Alexander Adams explains how the new “artivism” of left-wing artists is creating an artistic culture of progressivism and potentially radicalism. Adams wonders at what cost and who is paying for this new breed of activism?
|rating=2
|buy=No
|borrow=Yes
|pages=264
|publisher=Imprint Academic
|date=August 2022
|isbn=978-1788360739
|website=https://www.alexanderadams.art/
|cover=1788360737
|aznuk=1788360737
|aznus=1788360737
}}
Can art ever be apolitical? All art is political because art is not made in a vacuum. It is made by people. Antonio Gramsci stated that ‘’Every man… contributes to modifying the social environment in which he develops’’. Therefore, all art must be political, even implicitly. Alexander Adams in his new book ‘Artivism: The Battle for Museum in the Era of Postmodernism’ is adamant that art is freer when it is art for art’s sake. The recent trend of so-called artivism has caused artists to become more overtly political (read: left wing). Their seemingly grass roots movements have been astroturfed by large “left-wing” donors and media elites hoping to create a more globalist and progressive regime. Or at least that’s what Alexander Adams believes.
Adams is a conservative and thus believes in conserving traditions and in only small incremental changes. Therefore, it is clear to see where his animosity for this new breed of artivism comes from as they believe in direct action and fast progression.
His book aims to highlight where artivists’ money comes from, who is involved and why artivism has become so popular. The popularity of left wing artivism being used in publicly funded galleries is contentious and Adams makes a valid point that ‘’taxpayers will support apolitical art venues (even if they visit irregularly); they will not support political-campaign centres.’’ The hyperbolic use of political-campaign centres when he is talking about events that show such “left wing causes” as gender inequality, wealth inequality and racism says more about his conservative mindset than it does about these museums. However, he is correct. A political viewpoint made in a public forum is likely to be anathema to a certain percentage of the population. They will be less likely to visit and thus less funding will be given.
Adams not only highlights the political nature of public art galleries but also the recent performativity of art awards such as the Turner Prize. The shortlist in 2021 included only art collectives such as B.O.S.S. B.O.S.S. were ‘’quick to criticize this appropriation of their work by the British arts establishment… overwhelmingly white… who use minorities as political tokens and shields.’ This point is valid as the awards become a form of performativity by middle-class white people who can pat themselves on the back for being so self-righteous instead of actually addressing the problems.
However, as Adams points out in a different section, there are many charities addressing the problems and providing artivists with the tools they need. He lists a variety of charities and grants that provide funds for ‘’people to overcome disadvantage and lack of opportunity’’ and ‘’artists and collectives, working at the intersection of art, spatial politics and community practise’’. A lot of what Adams seems to be horrified by are in actual fact just ways to readdress the balance of power within the art world.
The term artivism for Adams seems vague and loose. He provides a brief run through of the history of artivism and yet only when we arrive at the late 20th and early 21st century does he specifically mention ‘’self-identified artivism.’’ However, before that, he describes the works of the Victorians as ‘’performing moral instruction and social consciousness-raising.’’ In essence, just another way to describe a more passive form of artivism. In the guise of “art”, the Victorians were attempting to highlight moral and social issues.
Through the course of the book, it becomes clear that what Adams takes issue with is not artivism in itself but the politics being expressed. He bemoans that ‘’we should offer conservatives a chance to counter-programme.’’ As Adams himself notes ‘’most artivism champions the minority and sets up the majority as agents of oppression.’’ Admittedly, he is stating this as a negative outcome. However, it highlights why there is no conservative artivism and thus why he is against it. Conservatism aims to preserve the current systems of power. Artivism is pointless if it is created to celebrate the current form of oppression. It is not activism but sycophantism.
Adams work, although he argues for a position that does not align with a forward-thinking populace, is still argued well with an abundance of examples and references. It is invigorating to read points of view that are unlike your own. An understanding of all arguments and all positions allows us to better navigate a world increasingly more polarised.
Adams argues that galleries today are filled with exhibitions on the ideals of the liberal elite and progressive politics. Perhaps Adams needs to spend time outside his own echo chamber and actually visit these galleries he is so ardently against. As of the Summer of 2022, there are exhibitions on specific artists (e.g. Cornelia Parker, Edvard Munch, Raphael and Kawanabe Kyosai), three on flowers, one on Surrealism and a handful on what Adams would insist were ‘’leftist political exhibitions’’ including one on the climate crisis and one on Black artists.
Although Adams may believe the arts industry is becoming increasingly influenced by “lefties”, this is not true. The industry can be both forward thinking and with one foot in the traditionalist views. Hopefully, the artivism of today will bring the conservatives who dream of yesterday kicking and screaming into a better, more equitable future.
{{amazontext|amazon=1788360739}}
{{amazonUStext|amazon=1788360739}}
{{waterstones|url=https://tidd.ly/3PvTJZZ}}
{{foyles|url=https://tidd.ly/3PyHbBi}}
{{commenthead}}
