Seminar 3: Can Art Teach? Should Art Preach?
Saturday, November 6, 2004, 2.00pm-4pm
Centenary Auditorium, Art Gallery of NSW, Level 1
Admission Free
The University of Western Sydney and the University of Wollongong
in association with The Art Gallery of NSW present:
Can Art Teach? Should Art Preach?
Convenor:
Louise D’Arcens (English, University of Wollongong)
Panel:
Sharon Connolly (Film producer, former CEO Film Australia)
Ivor Indyk (Publisher, editor Heat, English, University of Sydney)
Michael Goldberg (Artist, Sub-Dean, Sydney College of the Arts)
Michiel Dolk (Artist, art historian and writer)
Convenor’s Introduction
It has become commonplace today to acknowledge the intimate relationship between art and the political and ideological context in which it is created. When we look at, say, the paintings of Gordon Bennett, read the novels of J. M. Coetzee, or watch the films of Spike Lee, our sense of the work’s context is ever-present, influencing our responses in a way that is enriching, yet also potentially limiting. The education system in particular has come increasingly to interpret artistic and literary works as vehicles of ideology, and, moreover, to value (and devalue) these works according to whether they can be called progressive, subversive, or conservative.
But even if we do acknowledge that ideology and politics plays a vital role in both creating and consuming art, does this bring us any closer to understanding what creative expression is — what makes it different from other forms of cultural and personal expression? What is it, for instance, that differentiates David Williamson’s Dead White Males from a university lecture in English Studies? Or Michel Houellebecq’s novel Atomised from a treatise on capitalism and bio-technology? How can an approach that sees art as political or ideological vehicle remain sufficiently attentive to the ways that creative works explore these concerns through creative and formal means? This is especially pertinent in the case of those ‘uncomfortable’ works, like Houellebecq’s novels or the photographs of Tracey Moffatt, which offer complex explorations and thus defy easy ideological categorisation.
Other questions arise in relation to the creative aspect of art. How central is ideological engagement to individual artists’ conceptions of what they do? Does taking an overt ideological stance limit or compromise an artwork’s integrity and force? Or, alternatively, is it indispensable to producing important art?
Considering this series of questions affects the way we understand the place and value of art as a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon. And together they lead us to the final — and central — question: can we think about art as having a function that ‘escapes’ ideology?