Is Art Activism?

Reflections from touring Jens Galschiøt's Gallery and Studio

Statues depicting homeless figures outside Jens' gallery/studio

As we explored Jens’ work today, I began to think more about the concept of “art as activism” and what it truly means to be an “activist”, especially after our discussion with Dr. Karen in Aarhus last week.

To me, art is not, in and of itself, activism. Art can activate, but it is not, without a reaction, activism. During our tour of his studio, Jens mentioned how if everyone agrees with your work and likes your end artist product, it is not activism, because it is not invoking new thought or discussion. To be activism, viewers should feel moved to take a position, have deep dialogue, or be invited to reflect on their own experiences. Art is not doing the talking or leading those discussions - the artist is.

To say “art is activism” fails to highlight the artist in the equation - the one who determined something needed to be done, said, or changed and put their talent, time, effort, and money into the project. Negating their efforts and positionality would be fatally mis-analyzing the potential impact of the piece.

When a piece of art - be it a statue, painting, or work of literature - hits the public eye, the news does not go to the painting and ask “what was your intent?” or “what did you hope to accomplish or convey with this?” No, they go to the artist. From there, the artist controls and directs the dialogue. They make the physical, emotional, and mental change, not the art.

The artist’s positionality and intended statement are critical portions of their piece that determine whether a work of art is meant to activate people in a certain manner. Without their opinions and work, the art is merely something pleasing to the eyes and holds no moral or activistic value.