Doing Art Politically (A Summary)

In 2008, in a talk at the Royal Academy of Arts (London), Thomas Hirschhorn outlined a thesis for "Doing Art Politically". In it, he distinguishes between making political art (in terms of subject matter, or having a political effect) and doing art politically. For Hirschhorn where you stand, what your position is and how this relates to others is central to making art and for Hirschhorn this is making art politically - it is the political. This position is compatible with Ranciere's "aesthetic regime" of art, where "aesthetic art" has a politics of its own (politics of aesthetics) and although it might look similar to everyday objects (indeed, it might be appropriated objects from everyday life) the fact that it is art separates it from everyday life (and materials). Aesthetic art does not need to adopt political themes, because it is already political. It is political because it questions and alters what can be seen and said (and who can see or say what). So, while art and non-art overlap, they retain their essential differences. At the same time, because aesthetic art is innately political, it is impossible to separate the political from the aesthetic.

Hirschhorn divides his thesis into ten points, which I will now summarise in turn.

Doing art politically means giving form

This is very confusing. He is clear that this is distinct from making a form, but what “giving form” actually means is unclear, and yet he declares that the question of form is the most important question for an artist. If it is intelligible at all, perhaps it is really simple: Hirschhorn is talking about making art, and by making he includes art practices that do not “make” anything… hence “giving form”.

Doing art politically means creating something

Art is always an action, never a reaction.  Making art (politically?) means taking a position, beyond mere criticism… staking a claim. Therefore, to create something is to take a risk. This does not mean that art is uncritical – it can be critical, but must not become neutralised by being critical.

Doing art politically means deciding in favour of something

Hirschhorn believes that an artist has to make decisions.  Not choices like 'A' or 'B', 'Left' or 'Right' but "decisions".  Hirschhorn has decided that his work should 'touch' the four following areas at the same time:

1.       Love

2.       Esthetics

3.       Philosophy

4.       Politics

Note the similarity to Badiou’s four truth procedures… and that Hirschhorn often speaks of creating an “event” (small e though). He claims that while Love and Philosophy are positive, Aesthetics and Politics could be negative.  He talks about "touching the negative" (subject matter) and how, therefore it is important for an artist to remain positive: there's no point an artist complaining when they can "make a creation" (why contribute negativity?). It is unlikely that any one work of art will touch all four with the same intensity, but all four fields should be touched. Hirschhorn hints at making a universal art when he claims that he aims to “create a new truth beyond negativity, beyond current issues, beyond commentaries, beyond opinions, and beyond evaluations”. These aims set his art apart from politics, which is concerned with real action in the here and now, rather than eternal statements or truths. And yet…

Doing art politically means using art as a tool

For Hirschhorn Art is a tool used to confront reality, encounter the world we live in: a tool (or a weapon).  Hirschhorn declares that he wants to address and confront universal concerns. Although he feels he can only make art with what surrounds him in his own history and milieu, he aims to reach out beyond these by avoiding the particular and trying to touch the universal. In this way, he declares that art can be used as a tool to confront reality and encounter the world. Potentially, art can touch somebody, or something can be touched through art.

Doing art politically means building a platform with the work

He considers his art to be a platform that provides a site for dialogue or confrontation with the other. How do you reach the other? By using a door, a window or a hole. This gives us a clue as to how we might read his work. Hirschhorn aims to create holes in reality with the potential for a “breakthrough”.

Doing art politically means loving the material with which one works

Hirschhorn emphasises the importance of materials: he says that the artist makes the decision to use their materials and therefore must love their materials (without becoming kitsch, sentimental or obsessive). The decision about the materials is Political.

Doing art politically means inventing oneself guidelines for oneself

Hirschhorn employs enigmatic guidelines.  Examples include:

·       Less is less, more is more

·       Quality no, energy yes

·       Panic is the solution

·       Better is always less good

·       To be responsible for everything that touches his artwork

·       To be the first who has to pay for his artwork

·       Never won, but never completely lost

Doing art politically means working for the other

He claims that he makes work for "the other" (not for the majority).  For Hirschhorn "the other" could be someone you don't know, someone you're afraid of or the other self that you have and he claims not to make art for himself but "for Art first" and then for "his art".

Doing art politically does not mean working for or against the market

Art can only exist beyond the laws of the market by maintaining its autonomy. Artists need support and assistance, but they must never become dependent on them.

Doing art politically means being a warrior.

He gives no explanation here – but note that connection between the warrior and militant (another nod to Badiou?)