opportunities abound

Eric,

Interesting concept … any suggestions? Besides maybe Picasso's "Guernica", I cannot think of examples of fine art that accomplish much of anything when it comes to inspiring political change. Graphic art yes, but fine art?

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

Please define the difference that you are speaking of.
Are constructivist murals graphic art or are they paintings?

Are the paintings of Goya just pretty and historical?

What about the paintings of Delacroix.

Lets see,
Diego Rivera


Then there is groups like Refuse and Resist.

Al Kasaba

Anti-Flag

Artists Support
for Mumia

ArtSpeaks Concerts

John Adams

Tariq Ali

Robert Altman

Margaret Atwood

Alec Baldwin

Subhankar Banerjee

Kathryn Blume

Beastie Boys

Sandra Bernhard

Stephanie Black

Jessica Blank

Bertolt Brecht

Oscar Brown, Jr.


Kathleen Chalfant

David Chase

Culture Clash

Bruce Cockburn

Robbie Conal

Kia Corthron

The Coup

Renee Cox

Chuck D

Sheryl Crow

Edwidge Danticat

Ozzie Davis

Zach De la Rocha

Ani DiFranco

Dixie Chicks

Dread Scott

Steve Earle

Nora Eisenberg

Eve Ensler

Martin Espada

Fionulla Flanagan

Michael Franti

Glen E. Friedman

reg E. gaines

Lauren Gill

On 6 Nov 2004, at 16:33, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Interesting concept … any suggestions? Besides maybe Picasso's
> "Guernica", I cannot think of examples of fine art that accomplish
> much of anything when it comes to inspiring political change.
> Graphic art yes, but fine art?

IMHO:

Art is inspiration for change, a provider of new ways of seeing and
visions to follow. Or it is at least a map of what's wrong. It's unfair
to require that art on its own effect change; I wouldn't try to stop a
riot with a De Kooning. Indeed I don't know what immediate change
"Guernica" effected. "The Raft Of The Medusa" is probably a better
example of a work that swung public opinion.

Political art that doesn't just illustrate Oscar Wilde's dictum can be
found throughout history. Sticking to ~modernity, we have work by
David, Manet, Millet , we have Futurism and Constructivism, Dada and
post-Great War German expressionism, Warhol's Death & Disaster series,
much conceptualism, happenings, land art and process art, the feminist
art of the 1970s and 80s and I don't know what else.

It is only really the last two decades that have seen any kind of
eclipse of effective political art at all. Even Jeff Koons had a
coherent and biting social critique at the heart of his work.

- Rob.

Lee,

Many of my personal favorites.

To me, this list demonstrates that frustration from the political climate an artist lives in can serve as an awesome muse. Unfortunately, more often than not, the product of politically motivated fine art serves as a historical artifact of the time the artist lived in, rather than fuel for change.

I do not mean to dismiss the efforts of artists who express their feelings by making art about the times they live in. I was very touched by your drawings of every single soldier killed in combat in Iraq, as I am when I see Joy's paintings of people struggling and fighting in the world. Someday, if this country gets back on track, these works will resonate with an audience who will reflect about how far we have come since. At this moment in time though, I believe they preach to the choir. As noble an endeavor as it may be to make fine art to inspire change, more often than not I do not think it is the best suited activity to accomplish that goal.

I am not suggesting people stop making art that expresses angst about the world they live in. I just think that artists shouldn't fool themselves into believing that just because we are good at making imagery, that this is the best way we can invest our time to cause change.
Unless you are able to make art that clearly communicates a message that will compel those you are trying to convince to consider a different way, and present it somewhere they will see it (ie: Michael Moore, Deigo Rivera), we are working in a vacuum. Better to volunteer for an organization doing whatever takes (licking stamps, answering the phone, canvassing neighborhoods) and then go home and vent with your muse to help win the peace after we win the ground war.

I was suprised that you left John Lennon out of your list. A very popular artist who mostly wrote love songs, and then leveraged his celebrity into truly effective activism.

Give Peace a Chance!

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

Consider this: "Art" is not about directly activating political
change. Sorry, but that's a head-in-the-clouds notion. Enacting political
change requires far simpler instruments. Art is not simple; it
is not a good way to communicate a "simple message" to a vast number of
people in record time. No matter how rad or avante-whatever or rhizomatic
and networky artists may think they are, they–we–are elitists. Yes YOU. Me.
And that's okay. Relax over that *e* word, because the alternative is
Britney. Your choice.

Art is slow, often obtuse, has been known to–when it's truly complex and
resonant–muddy the waters in ways that cannot perhaps be immediately
understood. But as Ezra Pound pointed out in the ABC of Reading, being
capable of making artwork that is accessible on more than one level is
something we should aspire to… Note: this forms the POLAR OPPOSITE
strategy to the political activist modus operandi. (ie: ABC of Reading is
a really good book to argue with).

That's not to say that there isn't good or great political art; but
political art is not about preaching some side of something. I always
hoped it was about exploding the limiting thought frameworks we've become
inured to, or something crazy and impossible like that. "Bad" political
art is bad because it becomes propaganda all too readily. Even angry and
in-your-face art (David Wojnarowicz; Leon Golub) doesn't have to be a
one-liner. Art is slow (a cool medium, in McLuhan terms), is not a crowd
pusher, may not even be a crowd-pleaser (often it isn't) and is OPEN TO
MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. Once again: not a great activist strategy. But
it is essential that it be so; complexity and open-endedness is what's
lacking in our mainstream culture. The America of Disney and Dubya is
not big on complexity; (this complexity is why we lost the election this
time).

So what does that mean? We should give up on open-ended complexity? Uh,
no, sorry. And I forgive you for missing the point and thinking my
paintings are like some sentimental expressionist Family of Man thing. I
forgive you because Ezra Pound says it's really important that our stuff is
accessible and multivalent, and he's right.

This does not mean I think artists aren't capable of making good art that
reflects their convictions; only that I think most people think in black
and white and that art is one of the few places where all the shades of
grey live. Art both as a practice and as a consumer experience is something
subtler and stranger and more open-ended than agitprop or mere expression
of angst. Any toddler can effectively express angst. So let's not be
toddlers.

best,
J


On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Lee,
>
> Many of my personal favorites.
>
> To me, this list demonstrates that frustration from the political climate an artist lives in can serve as an awesome muse. Unfortunately, more often than not, the product of politically motivated fine art serves as a historical artifact of the time the artist lived in, rather than fuel for change.
>
> I do not mean to dismiss the efforts of artists who express their feelings by making art about the times they live in. I was very touched by your drawings of every single soldier killed in combat in Iraq, as I am when I see Joy's paintings of people struggling and fighting in the world. Someday, if this country gets back on track, these works will resonate with an audience who will reflect about how far we have come since. At this moment in time though, I believe they preach to the choir. As noble an endeavor as it may be to make fine art to inspire change, more often than not I do not think it is the best suited activity to accomplish that goal.
>
> I am not suggesting people stop making art that expresses angst about the world they live in. I just think that artists shouldn't fool themselves into believing that just because we are good at making imagery, that this is the best way we can invest our time to cause change.
> Unless you are able to make art that clearly communicates a message that will compel those you are trying to convince to consider a different way, and present it somewhere they will see it (ie: Michael Moore, Deigo Rivera), we are working in a vacuum. Better to volunteer for an organization doing whatever takes (licking stamps, answering the phone, canvassing neighborhoods) and then go home and vent with your muse to help win the peace after we win the ground war.
>
> I was suprised that you left John Lennon out of your list. A very popular artist who mostly wrote love songs, and then leveraged his celebrity into truly effective activism.
>
> Give Peace a Chance!
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Joy

Very beautifully stated.

Cheers,
Lee


On 11/7/04 11:04 AM, "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Consider this: "Art" is not about directly activating political
> change. Sorry, but that's a head-in-the-clouds notion. Enacting political
> change requires far simpler instruments. Art is not simple; it
> is not a good way to communicate a "simple message" to a vast number of
> people in record time. No matter how rad or avante-whatever or rhizomatic
> and networky artists may think they are, they–we–are elitists. Yes YOU. Me.
> And that's okay. Relax over that *e* word, because the alternative is
> Britney. Your choice.
>
> Art is slow, often obtuse, has been known to–when it's truly complex and
> resonant–muddy the waters in ways that cannot perhaps be immediately
> understood. But as Ezra Pound pointed out in the ABC of Reading, being
> capable of making artwork that is accessible on more than one level is
> something we should aspire to… Note: this forms the POLAR OPPOSITE
> strategy to the political activist modus operandi. (ie: ABC of Reading is
> a really good book to argue with).
>
> That's not to say that there isn't good or great political art; but
> political art is not about preaching some side of something. I always
> hoped it was about exploding the limiting thought frameworks we've become
> inured to, or something crazy and impossible like that. "Bad" political
> art is bad because it becomes propaganda all too readily. Even angry and
> in-your-face art (David Wojnarowicz; Leon Golub) doesn't have to be a
> one-liner. Art is slow (a cool medium, in McLuhan terms), is not a crowd
> pusher, may not even be a crowd-pleaser (often it isn't) and is OPEN TO
> MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. Once again: not a great activist strategy. But
> it is essential that it be so; complexity and open-endedness is what's
> lacking in our mainstream culture. The America of Disney and Dubya is
> not big on complexity; (this complexity is why we lost the election this
> time).
>
> So what does that mean? We should give up on open-ended complexity? Uh,
> no, sorry. And I forgive you for missing the point and thinking my
> paintings are like some sentimental expressionist Family of Man thing. I
> forgive you because Ezra Pound says it's really important that our stuff is
> accessible and multivalent, and he's right.
>
> This does not mean I think artists aren't capable of making good art that
> reflects their convictions; only that I think most people think in black
> and white and that art is one of the few places where all the shades of
> grey live. Art both as a practice and as a consumer experience is something
> subtler and stranger and more open-ended than agitprop or mere expression
> of angst. Any toddler can effectively express angst. So let's not be
> toddlers.
>
> best,
> J
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jason Van Anden wrote:
>
>> Lee,
>>
>> Many of my personal favorites.
>>
>> To me, this list demonstrates that frustration from the political climate an
>> artist lives in can serve as an awesome muse. Unfortunately, more often than
>> not, the product of politically motivated fine art serves as a historical
>> artifact of the time the artist lived in, rather than fuel for change.
>>
>> I do not mean to dismiss the efforts of artists who express their feelings by
>> making art about the times they live in. I was very touched by your drawings
>> of every single soldier killed in combat in Iraq, as I am when I see Joy's
>> paintings of people struggling and fighting in the world. Someday, if this
>> country gets back on track, these works will resonate with an audience who
>> will reflect about how far we have come since. At this moment in time
>> though, I believe they preach to the choir. As noble an endeavor as it may
>> be to make fine art to inspire change, more often than not I do not think it
>> is the best suited activity to accomplish that goal.
>>
>> I am not suggesting people stop making art that expresses angst about the
>> world they live in. I just think that artists shouldn't fool themselves into
>> believing that just because we are good at making imagery, that this is the
>> best way we can invest our time to cause change.
>> Unless you are able to make art that clearly communicates a message that will
>> compel those you are trying to convince to consider a different way, and
>> present it somewhere they will see it (ie: Michael Moore, Deigo Rivera), we
>> are working in a vacuum. Better to volunteer for an organization doing
>> whatever takes (licking stamps, answering the phone, canvassing
>> neighborhoods) and then go home and vent with your muse to help win the peace
>> after we win the ground war.
>>
>> I was suprised that you left John Lennon out of your list. A very popular
>> artist who mostly wrote love songs, and then leveraged his celebrity into
>> truly effective activism.
>>
>> Give Peace a Chance!
>>
>> Jason Van Anden
>> www.smileproject.com
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

hey Lee –

there goes my once-a-year rant on art. back to the salt mines now.

best,
J



On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Lee Wells wrote:

> Joy
>
> Very beautifully stated.
>
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
>
> On 11/7/04 11:04 AM, "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Consider this: "Art" is not about directly activating political
>> change. Sorry, but that's a head-in-the-clouds notion. Enacting political
>> change requires far simpler instruments. Art is not simple; it
>> is not a good way to communicate a "simple message" to a vast number of
>> people in record time. No matter how rad or avante-whatever or rhizomatic
>> and networky artists may think they are, they–we–are elitists. Yes YOU. Me.
>> And that's okay. Relax over that *e* word, because the alternative is
>> Britney. Your choice.
>>
>> Art is slow, often obtuse, has been known to–when it's truly complex and
>> resonant–muddy the waters in ways that cannot perhaps be immediately
>> understood. But as Ezra Pound pointed out in the ABC of Reading, being
>> capable of making artwork that is accessible on more than one level is
>> something we should aspire to… Note: this forms the POLAR OPPOSITE
>> strategy to the political activist modus operandi. (ie: ABC of Reading is
>> a really good book to argue with).
>>
>> That's not to say that there isn't good or great political art; but
>> political art is not about preaching some side of something. I always
>> hoped it was about exploding the limiting thought frameworks we've become
>> inured to, or something crazy and impossible like that. "Bad" political
>> art is bad because it becomes propaganda all too readily. Even angry and
>> in-your-face art (David Wojnarowicz; Leon Golub) doesn't have to be a
>> one-liner. Art is slow (a cool medium, in McLuhan terms), is not a crowd
>> pusher, may not even be a crowd-pleaser (often it isn't) and is OPEN TO
>> MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. Once again: not a great activist strategy. But
>> it is essential that it be so; complexity and open-endedness is what's
>> lacking in our mainstream culture. The America of Disney and Dubya is
>> not big on complexity; (this complexity is why we lost the election this
>> time).
>>
>> So what does that mean? We should give up on open-ended complexity? Uh,
>> no, sorry. And I forgive you for missing the point and thinking my
>> paintings are like some sentimental expressionist Family of Man thing. I
>> forgive you because Ezra Pound says it's really important that our stuff is
>> accessible and multivalent, and he's right.
>>
>> This does not mean I think artists aren't capable of making good art that
>> reflects their convictions; only that I think most people think in black
>> and white and that art is one of the few places where all the shades of
>> grey live. Art both as a practice and as a consumer experience is something
>> subtler and stranger and more open-ended than agitprop or mere expression
>> of angst. Any toddler can effectively express angst. So let's not be
>> toddlers.
>>
>> best,
>> J
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jason Van Anden wrote:
>>
>>> Lee,
>>>
>>> Many of my personal favorites.
>>>
>>> To me, this list demonstrates that frustration from the political climate an
>>> artist lives in can serve as an awesome muse. Unfortunately, more often than
>>> not, the product of politically motivated fine art serves as a historical
>>> artifact of the time the artist lived in, rather than fuel for change.
>>>
>>> I do not mean to dismiss the efforts of artists who express their feelings by
>>> making art about the times they live in. I was very touched by your drawings
>>> of every single soldier killed in combat in Iraq, as I am when I see Joy's
>>> paintings of people struggling and fighting in the world. Someday, if this
>>> country gets back on track, these works will resonate with an audience who
>>> will reflect about how far we have come since. At this moment in time
>>> though, I believe they preach to the choir. As noble an endeavor as it may
>>> be to make fine art to inspire change, more often than not I do not think it
>>> is the best suited activity to accomplish that goal.
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting people stop making art that expresses angst about the
>>> world they live in. I just think that artists shouldn't fool themselves into
>>> believing that just because we are good at making imagery, that this is the
>>> best way we can invest our time to cause change.
>>> Unless you are able to make art that clearly communicates a message that will
>>> compel those you are trying to convince to consider a different way, and
>>> present it somewhere they will see it (ie: Michael Moore, Deigo Rivera), we
>>> are working in a vacuum. Better to volunteer for an organization doing
>>> whatever takes (licking stamps, answering the phone, canvassing
>>> neighborhoods) and then go home and vent with your muse to help win the peace
>>> after we win the ground war.
>>>
>>> I was suprised that you left John Lennon out of your list. A very popular
>>> artist who mostly wrote love songs, and then leveraged his celebrity into
>>> truly effective activism.
>>>
>>> Give Peace a Chance!
>>>
>>> Jason Van Anden
>>> www.smileproject.com
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>

Joy,

Your post is worded as if we are polar opposites, or that I am dense. Maybe I am taking it too personally (The "Uh sorry" comments make me recoil a bit). I don't disagree with most of your response, in fact, I think we are saying essentially the same thing, albeit in an argumentative tone.

joy> And I forgive you for missing the point and thinking my paintings are like some sentimental expressionist Family of Man thing…

From what I know of you, we seem to have a similar worldview politically. We are pretty smart and sensitive people. We have art degrees. Even so, I apparently I missed the point of your paintings. Can you explain what should have happened that didn't? You apparently feel that this is a my fault or I would not deserve your forgiveness. How is this my fault?

If this is too personal, then let's use Leon Golub instead. Love the paintings, liked the man, but what do his paintings do besides document his anger about the injustices he so intensly portrays?

My first post here was an attempt to question Eric's rallying the art troops to stop licking their wounds, and start attacking. Bottom line - is art really the best weapon for the job?

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

Dear Jason,

sorry you took my post as an agressive response to yours–it was not
intended as such. I sent it to the list in general in response to this
thread as a whole and it wasn't meant personally; my "sorry's"
are pointed to projected general audience objections as well as to
your misconstruing (and others') of what I'm trying to do. But I forgive
you (just kidding!)


> joy> And I forgive you for missing the point and thinking my paintings are
> like some sentimental expressionist Family of Man thing…
>
>> I apparently I missed the point of your
>> paintings. Can you explain what should have happened that didn't?


The short answer is that they are paintings about the mediation of images.
That's why they are reworked from media images–found photographs of real
events that are represented in the mass media (and elsewhere).

The long answer can be had in streaming vid with all the gory details
here, if you can bear it:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/dmc/docs/lectureseries.html


> If this is too personal, then let's use Leon Golub instead.
> Love the paintings, liked the man, but what do his paintings do besides
> document his anger about the injustices he so intensly portrays?


That is an important question, let's re-phrase it: is that how painting
functions? as a way to document emotion? Is that what he was doing?
Leon was more sophisticated than that, and in a way, until his old
age, his method and intentions pointed to something else entirely; that
doesn't mean the paintings weren't informed by his emotions as well as
the injustices. But to reduce them to embodying only that would be
inaccurate.

check out this essay:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_4_90/ai_84669341/pg_2
and this interview:
http://www.jca-online.com/golub.html

I want to add something: just because a medium is physical, like painting,
doesn't mean it's not conceptually rigorous.


> My first post here was an attempt to question Eric's rallying the art
> troops to stop licking their wounds, and start attacking. Bottom line -
> is art really the best weapon for the job?


I think it depends on what one sees to be "the job". I think there are
certain jobs that need to be done that may in fact have no immediately
discernable political effect. By saying that we're not doing our job,
maybe Eric reveals his assumptions about what that job should be. Maybe
some of us don't share those assumptions, and maybe some of us do.

I guess all I'm trying to say is art is an important job.

But I have to go now–do not be offended if I don't respond to whatever
happens next because I can't.

best,
Joy

Hi Joy,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply – especially for better tuning me into what your work is about. I plan to continue this discussion after reviewing some of your links.

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

Hi Jason:

Sorry to just be getting back to you but I have been thinking about what you
said. You are right to a certain degree. The Art World for the most part is
very insular and for the most part just talks to itself. What little that
does leak out into the real world is very filtered. Most regular folks look
at abstract and conceptual art as a real waste of time and say I could do
that. Issue at hand: What type of artwork can resonate in the heart of the
people? Is it sometimes necessary to dumb down an idea to make it more user
friendly?

I am a believer that artwork can inspire immediate change.
To a certain degree I experienced it while I was making those drawing at the
Lab Gallery. Over 10,000 people a day walk past the intersection at 47th and
Lexington where the gallery is located. The cross section of people that
were drawn in was amazing and for the most part everyone was supportive.

I've also seen it happen in neighborhoods in Chicago. Community
collaborative public murals can make a difference. The Chicago Public Art
Group is probably the best example of that.

Think Globally Act Locally

How does one really participate in their community. Not just the art
community of say Chelsea or Williamsburg, but do you know your local
councilman or congressman.
If you really want to talk politics in your art, Praxis is the best form of
theory.

Now the other side of the coin I like to say a political artist can enter
the belly of the beast. The high art world possesses individuals and groups
that can sway political opinion. For the most part not the dealers, they are
just glorified retailers of luxury items. The art world is in a strange way
a path through the Achilles heal of the world of the ruling elite.
Maybe I am giving them too much credit.

With the Basel/Miami Art fair coming up in a few weeks I have been think
about what needs to be said while such a gathering is occurring. The art
fair phenomena and the commerce of the art market is very real. The emerging
and contemporary galleries did very well last year. But its still the
commercialization of contemporary art. Commodity Culture, are you a Citizen
or just a lowly Consumer.
Havn't come up with the solution yet. If anyone has any good and practical
ideas please let me know.

Infiltrate and Take Over or Die Trying.


On 11/7/04 8:54 AM, "Jason Van Anden" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lee,
>
> Many of my personal favorites.
>
> To me, this list demonstrates that frustration from the political climate an
> artist lives in can serve as an awesome muse. Unfortunately, more often than
> not, the product of politically motivated fine art serves as a historical
> artifact of the time the artist lived in, rather than fuel for change.
>
> I do not mean to dismiss the efforts of artists who express their feelings by
> making art about the times they live in. I was very touched by your drawings
> of every single soldier killed in combat in Iraq, as I am when I see Joy's
> paintings of people struggling and fighting in the world. Someday, if this
> country gets back on track, these works will resonate with an audience who
> will reflect about how far we have come since. At this moment in time though,
> I believe they preach to the choir. As noble an endeavor as it may be to make
> fine art to inspire change, more often than not I do not think it is the best
> suited activity to accomplish that goal.
>
> I am not suggesting people stop making art that expresses angst about the
> world they live in. I just think that artists shouldn't fool themselves into
> believing that just because we are good at making imagery, that this is the
> best way we can invest our time to cause change.
> Unless you are able to make art that clearly communicates a message that will
> compel those you are trying to convince to consider a different way, and
> present it somewhere they will see it (ie: Michael Moore, Deigo Rivera), we
> are working in a vacuum. Better to volunteer for an organization doing
> whatever takes (licking stamps, answering the phone, canvassing neighborhoods)
> and then go home and vent with your muse to help win the peace after we win
> the ground war.
>
> I was suprised that you left John Lennon out of your list. A very popular
> artist who mostly wrote love songs, and then leveraged his celebrity into
> truly effective activism.
>
> Give Peace a Chance!
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>