A reader asks Matt if he believes all art, on some level, is political.

Matt responds:

It depends on how we identify political.  The word means different things to different people.  I remember reading how George Washington was against political parties because he felt that people would act in the interest of the party, not the nation.  So the definition of why we’re acting is important.  One person’s nectar is another’s poison.

Art, when it becomes political art, can become propaganda, which brings up the question of what is propaganda?  Adolf Hitler was a master propagandist.  His message was attrocious, but he was a master showman, and people were mesmerized.  The spoken word has that ability to move nations in the right or wrong direction. There is an old saying that history is written by the victor.  I had occasion when I was in Germany, at the Christhaus, to see some of the old German nationalist paintings:  flawless-looking people holding rakes and standing there with their children, and “All is bright and light because we are the new leaders!”  That was going to be replaced by one of my Once Upon a Time paintings, which are all about finding a safe place in yourself, not looking for political answers.  That message is that peace belongs to me as a peacemaker, and that my job as an individual is to bring peace.

I haven’t made any study of this, but I doubt if there are that many propaganda  paintings in the fine-art museums of the world except as anomalies.  Art should be message based, but I don’t think it should be used as a weapon.  It should be used as an example of how we can reach our goals, even if those goals in many cases are unreachable.

Thanks for the question,
Matt