Response to Steph's "Critical Engagement Post #1 – Art as Activism" post.

Steph’s interpretation of Nina Felshin’s, But is it Art?: The Spirit of Art as Activism, addresses questions that had arisen in my own mind regarding the reading selection. What is the difference between being an activist, and activist art (if there is a difference at all)? What qualifies the art as being “public”? And as to whether or not Edward Burtinsky is to be considered as an activist, or as someone that is the means to providing said “activist art”.

As we discussed thoroughly within class, because an artist has produced what is to be considered as activist art, they are not necessarily an activist themselves. As is the case with all works of art, the interpretation is to be left up to the viewer of the piece(s). When a viewer raises questions or personally interprets their own meaning of the art that they are observing, then that would qualify the pieces to be works of art. In regards to public art, that interpretation is also what defines the art as actually being “public”. Felshin discusses that activist art does not always conform to traditional methods of the sharing of art (such as in galleries, etc), but at exhibitions, on billboards, etc. But as Derek pointed out in class, a public art showing of activist art in Edmonton’s Churchill Square, is not going to be seen by the larger public. Location is what matters when the public art is displayed, and in a city like Edmonton, not everyone is going to be on that side of the city, let alone walking through the square (we’re a large city with sprawl, therefore commuters do not always pass through that specific area).

In my own opinion, word of mouth can perhaps be the simplest way to participate in activism, as long as the facts are straight. This is a simpler form of activism, but activism nonetheless. Edward Burtinsky on the other hand, uses his camera and photography skills as his method of providing activists with the art that they react to. By doing so, IS it actually activist are that he is partaking in? Or is he more simply, an activist that is using his art as a way of educating the greater public on issues such as the Tar Sands, etc. I see Burtinsky as an activist, yes, because he sees where change is needed, and provides the necessary tools that are required to spread awareness. The photographs that he takes are seen from his own point of view, propagate his desire for more attention to be paid to global issues that affect us all; in either a major or minor way. Steph’s post had raised a few questions in my own mind that I went back to the reading selection to answer. By Felshin addressing the beginnings of activist art being used as a way to further the message that activism is spreading, I was intrigued by how thorough she was in explaining the roots of it. Activist art is not something new, but it is consistently being brought to the forefront to spread awareness of issues. I now question what I had considered to be as art, and am curious as to just how much art, primarily in Alberta, focuses on the energy economy, and how much of it is considered to be activist art within the public sphere.