I've been thinking about the variable meaning of the word 'political' so that 'making art politically' could mean something very different to you from what it means to me. This situation is of course desirable and it is in the nature of language that it should be so indeterminate. I took the phrase from an interview I read by Hirschhorn where he is asked if his art is political and he replies that he makes art politically but that he doesn't make political art. In so doing he refers to Jean-Luc Godard who he attributes as having made this distinction:
"I think that the problem, the difficult question, the goal is to do the artwork politically, this is the whole, entire and enormous difference. J.-L. Godard said : “to make film politically and not make political films”. “Working politically” means working without cynicism, without negativity and without self-satisfying criticism. "Working politically" means first working, just working, doing the work, doing it ! Because I believe that Art – as Art – can attain a real importance. I want to work it out. I want to do an artwork which resists the moralist or nihilistic tradition.
I love the work of Goya and I love the work of Duchamp. Why should I choose between these two artists to answer the question “is Art political” if I think that both Goya and Duchamp are exemplary of how to do Art politically ? Goya and Duchamp made artwork with the confidence of the absolute autonomy of Art. So I want to try to replace the word “political” with “autonomous”. I want to insist on the importance of the autonomy of Art. The term "autonomy” is a positive term to me, because "autonomy" can be a tool to work out contemporary problematics involving economic, religious, cultural and social issues. But I also know that “autonomy in Art/ autonomy of esthetics” can also be interpreted in a negative way, and I do not understand nor do I accept this. It is a reductive interpretation of the term “autonomy” and – I think – it is a politician (not a political), academic, polemic and only critic understanding. To consider “autonomy of Art” as only a self-sufficiency, as “l’art pour l’art” is partial and dogmatic.
The “autonomy of Art” which interests me is the autonomy of courage, the autonomy of assertion, the autonomy to authorize myself, the autonomy to do something on my own – without argumentation, without explanation, without communication and without justification. I authorize myself to believe in the autonomy of Art. The autonomy of Art does not come from self-sufficiency but from self-authorization. This is why autonomy is never passive, autonomy is active, it’s the activity of hope."
I like the distinction he makes between the self-sufficiency of art and its self-authorization.
That's an incredibly powerful statement which I will go to bed thinking about: "I authorize myself to believe in the autonomy of Art."
