Art and Politics

Manet

Goya

Art, Politics, and the Question of Engagement

I’m sitting here thinking about politics and art — my art, to be specific. I have questions. I’ve always been a politically engaged person. I read the papers, listen to the news, have opinions, and share them liberally. But when it comes to my art — my paintings and drawings — I sometimes feel quite apolitical. As if I’m not addressing the issues directly. As if I’m not using my skills to confront what I believe is one of the major problems in our society right now: the growing disruption between people — between us, you and me — and our ability to change the world and make it better through the political process.

So one question I have for myself is:
Is my art an escapist activity?

Am I making my work to provide an escape for both myself and those who view it? For me, this is a disturbing possibility. The idea that art could serve as a tool to avoid reality is the complete opposite of what I want my work to do — or to be. I want my work to open up my viewers’ worldview, to broaden their perspective, to help them consider things they may never have considered about this world. That is a radical aspiration.

I’ve always felt that the defining line between art and not-art is subversion. Does the work one is looking at or experiencing subvert the subject — or ask questions about it? That questioning can be as simple as: “Can a rose be green?” “Can a cat have a dog’s body?” “Can paint be appreciated as just paint?”

It can also be something far more radical, like Goya’s The Third of May, 1808 — a direct and visceral depiction of the execution of a group of men.

I’m suggesting that this entire spectrum — from the color of a rose to the portrayal of a military execution — is equally political. It contains a particular truth of experience that, especially in this moment, feels radical.

When I’m in my studio, working away on things, I am lost in what I would call my “real reality.” So another question arises:
Is losing myself in the making of my art indulgent?

I don’t think it is. I believe that when any human labors to represent the humanity of their experience, they are engaging in a profoundly unselfish act. It is our capitalist system that defines this sort of activity as indulgent — as something not worthwhile.

In fact, in my opinion, getting lost in art-making is a form of highly charged political activism. It is both a protest and a gesture against a society that represses individuality and self-autonomy.

When I think about it that way, I realize my paintings aren’t an escape at all. They are a way of paying attention — of insisting that observation, imagination, and empathy still matter. Maybe the quiet act of painting is itself a political gesture: a refusal to surrender to cynicism, noise, or despair. Through color, shape, and mark, I’m asking both myself and others to stay awake to the world — to keep believing that beauty and awareness can still change it.

Brian Frink

Brian Frink is a painter whose work explores the intersection of landscape, memory, and imagination. His paintings evolve through improvisation, experimentation, and a lifelong fascination with the beauty and mystery of the everyday world.

Frink is Professor Emeritus of Art at Minnesota State University, Mankato, where he taught painting and drawing for more than three decades. His work has been widely exhibited and recognized with numerous awards, including fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts and the McKnight Foundation.

He lives and works at Poor Farm Studios, a historic nineteenth-century former poor farm in southern Minnesota, where he continues to pursue painting as an ongoing adventure in discovery.

https://brianfrink.com
Previous
Previous

Art Created by the Sun!

Next
Next

Disruption