After Sutong’s Mika Rottenberg presentation, the idea of art for politics or merely pleasure struck me as interesting, and I decided to do some more research. Apparently, this is a large debate in the art world: where does art fall on the spectrum between pleasure and politics? Do artists and designers have an obligation to be political?

As discussed in multiple class presentations, there are plenty of contemporary art that addressed our political era's most pressing issues; for example, Barbara Kruger’s art that certainly cries for greater awareness of capitalist consumer culture and women’s rights or Banksy’s murals in the Calais refugee camp. However, there are also plenty of contemporary art that is just pleasing to eye: for example, Chris Burden's bright and iconic "Urban Light" sculpture at LACMA, Picasso’s works that expressed the darker sides of human emotion (not so much politics), or Salvador Dali’s surrealist creative pieces. Perhaps, the rise of politics in art is also due to a changing generation; more people not directly working in the political sector are getting involved and speaking up using their platforms.

Although there are differing views, it can be agreed that art is regarded differently to many people. Some may view art as a source of politics and current events, while others simply view art as an escape.

Here are some other readings:

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/intelligence-squared-is-art-for-pleasure-or-politics/index.html

http://www.forefrontfestival.com/all-art-is-not-political/

https://www.claireryanauthor.com/blog/2810/all-art-is-political

http://www.designsponge.com/2017/09/do-artists-and-designers-have-an-obligation-to-be-political.html

- Sheryl