Demonstrating Minds: Is Arts Activism Effective?

At Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art, a thought provoking exhibit about the role of art provided important food for thought.  Is art activism effective?

In an essay in the exhibit catalog, art and terrorism were examined.  In the past, artist and warriors had a connection. Artists would present images of war, and warriors needed the artists -- there was a relationship between the two. Now things have changed. "The act of war coincides with its documentation and representation."

Terrorists have been posting video and visual images of beheadings, torture, and war.  The art is seemingly been eliminated. These images (such as the one of Abu Graib) have stunning impact. Bin Laden was a video artist, but unlike other artists, he was not an iconoclast. He was an iconophile, a propagandist. He, like many terrorists, use images to manipulate others.

What kind of arts activism can have equal impact? Is it hopeless? The point was made that our art institutions house a long history of war and peace time images, and they enable viewers to consider the context and history of violence in our culture.  The artist continues to be relevant. Historically, the word iconoclast referred to individuals who discarded or destroyed the images of religious expression. The iconoclastic response is necessary to counter the iconophile. The images that the terrorist presents can be effectively questioned and broken.

So yes, we need art. We need the creativity and independence characteristic of artists.

To see the work of Tanya Boukal, one artist's activism, see: http://www.boukal.at/en/the-melilla-project

A link to images and description of the exhibit: http://www.kiasma.fi/en/calendar/demonstrating-minds/