Do the Visual Arts Need a More, er, Visible Role in US Politics?

Charlie Finch chastises those in the visual arts for not participating more visibly in Presidential politics in his most recent artnet.com column. What research he did to conclude "the involvement of the visual arts community in Presidential politics is nonexistent" is not revealed, but he does cite a few high-profile precedents that, by having no obvious and current parallel, would seem to suggest he has a point. Here's the gist of Charlie's complaint:

That art is now defined as marginal and transgressive only adds to the general ignorance of all Presidential candidates about what is, with music, the greatest contribution of Western, and every other, civilization, to the human spirit. Organizing efforts tied to the run for President by Artsland have been sporadic in recent years. There was an effort to sent [sic] volunteers to Ohio for John Kerry in 2004 and Ronald Feldman’s brilliant marketing of Roy Lichtenstein’s print of a colorful and empty Oval Office in support of Bill Clinton in 1992.

This year, to coin a phrase, nada. Perhaps the art world’s joyous bath in collector dollars, to the strains of unknown and musically passé rock and roll bands, has eliminated any overt concern for the public weal. Certainly, this indifference is matched by the unsurpassed artistic ignorance of the candidates. Giuliani condemned "Sensation!" and Hillary Clinton was unjustly criticized for exhibiting a late de Kooning in the East Wing of the White House. That’s it.

It's not clear what Charlie considers "this year." Does that refer to the period one year out from the November 2008 election or to the 2007 calendar year? Either answer would suggest that Charlie has bought into the absurd leap-frogging urgency of moving up the primary dates. What that would indicate he's ignoring, however, is that neither party has yet chosen a candidate, and that whereas his precedents all happened when the art world's presumed favorite (the Democrat) was already nominated, we are far from that point now, and many of us in the art world are still, rightly, debating which of the candidates among those in our party running, should get the nod.

None of these issues gets in the way of his jumping to conclusions about how there's too much money about for the art world to condescend to care about politics. The truth of the matter to my mind is that it's simply too early in the process to comment on much more than just that, the process, which is what the January group exhibition "Caucus" at Schroeder Romero will be doing, for one. As for supporting particular candidates, I know of quite a few artists working on various primary campaigns, but again, we have yet to cast a single primary vote, so the notion that those of us invested in "the greatest contribution of Western... civilization...to the human spirit" as a whole have somehow fallen down on the job strikes me as quite premature. Indeed, Charlie's charge of "indifference" perhaps reveals nothing so much as his own impatience.

Checking artnet.com's archives, we find that Charlie himself had waited until July 2004 to write what was then also titled "Art and the Presidency" (recycling headlines? how very green of them). Back then, though, his criticism was reserved for the entire nation, via criticism of the candidates:

It says something about Baby Boomer times that none of our presidents since Nixon, even the movie star Reagan, have inspired any great art. Perhaps, we have finally reached the time when any run-of-the-mill elitist, full of moral polenta, can become president.

The same might be said for other positions of power as well.