The role of art and artists has altered over time. The ancient world is full of monuments to power, records of the doings of civilisations and individuals, and examples of the transmission and perpetuation of culture – the teachings and dogma of religions being one example. There is also no doubt that art has the capacity to engender cultural change by its very existence. If it reflects society then the converse is also true. Identifying a specific society though its art is the subject of art history but can an individual work of art of even the output of an artist create a change in the frame of mind of society or even prompt society into action? This is a particularly pertinent question in 2021.

If we look at the mediums available to us as artists, some take on the role of political power far more easily than others. Architecture has always been near the top of the list. A government building, a war monument, a gothic cathedral or even a city, can be the very essence of symbolic power. Size, position and splendour all play a part. Who can doubt that a Rouen Cathedral or the New York skyline are political statements about power – one religious, one economic.

On a par with the solidity of architecture, is the fluid power of fabric. Convert cloth into a flag or a uniform and you have a symbol of power which millions have willingly died for. Unlike architecture, the flag is portable and moves in the wind giving it a quite different and adaptable energy. Trump supporters brandishing a variety of flags and banners during their assault on the Capitol Building let alone using a flag and pole as weapon against police, suggests the power invested in fabric.

However, beyond those mediums, what else is capable of galvanising people into action? Probably the only medium is documentary film. The arguments for averting the effects of climate change can be built, essay-like, over an hour, loaded with images of a degraded environment, suitably emotive music and the insistent but reasonable voice. The extent to which any of this actually changes people’s opinions to the point of action though is problematic. If the face and voice of David Attenborough and the commitment of Greta Thunberg have influenced only those in accord with the messages, then what hope has a single painting in 2021?

Let’s look at three examples of painting that either were intended to galvanise public opinion or through judicious publicity achieved at least public notoriety.

When Marinetti wrote the futurist manifesto it was an attempt to persuade Italy to shed the past and embrace the future. The movement emphasized the importance of the future, mainly as it relates to the advancement of the machine age and the importance of the urban environment, propelling people forward into a progressive state of mind. Futurism also championed speed, technology, science, youth and violence

As an example, we have Boccioni’s ‘The City Rises’ where cubist fragmentation of objects suggests violent movement. This painting among many others was shipped by train all over Italy before WW1 and displayed in rural areas. Choosing to paint it in a cubist style wouldn’t have helped the cause. The weight of cultural objects and buildings was hardly likely to have been undermined by an obscure art style originating in France. Unfortunately, Marinetti’s worship of war and machinery collided with WW1 but even so Futurism became just another quirk of art history bound to its time.

When Picasso painted Guernica it was in response to the bombing of the unfortunate Spanish town and was in itself highly symbolic. For years it hung in the United Nations building as a reminder of the inhumanity of humankind but did it have any effect politically or essentially change attitudes. Probably not. Painted in the cubist style with references to Spanish culture and history it was a record of outrage which quickly passed into history as a tourist drawcard.

My third example comes from the time of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1973. As the centre piece for the National Museum of Art in Canberra, Blue Poles became a symbol of excess and if the press were to be believed, insanity. The amount paid for this seminal painting of Abstract Expressionism exceeded the imaginations of most of Australia. Certainly, no Australian painting commanded such a sum. The number of column inches in newspapers, the numbers of words of spoken criticism and the endless cartoons kept the subject bubbling in the public imagination for the best part of a year. Today the problem is not the purchase of the painting or its worth [$1.3m in 1973, $350 m in 2018] but the galleries fight to keep it all adhered to the canvas. The mix of different kinds of paint and cigarette butts is a nightmare for restoration staff. I have no doubt that Blue Poles is a magnificent example of Pollock’s work but in terms of changing hearts and minds, let alone opinions about the value of art, the divide between those who accept and those that reject remains as ever.

So what are the problems with painting as a political medium? Essentially, painting is expressive and a communication between the artist and the public and

‘artists aim to break rules and find unorthodox ways of approaching contemporary issues’. [Wikipedia] That assumes that art is, or should be, about contemporary issues at all. Secondly Art influences society by ‘changing opinions, instilling values and translating experiences across space and time’ [Wikipedia]. Research has shown that art affects the fundamental sense of self. Painting, sculpture, music, literature and the other arts are often considered to be the repository of a society’s collective memory and there is no doubt that this is true. This is all well and good and no doubt examples could be found of instilling values and influencing a cultural perspective but can painting directly alter someone’s opinion about a subject and if it could, what form would it take?

As an activity, painting is the result of an artist moving paint or other materials around a support. With a combination of colour, composition, texture and tone, a pleasing mix can be obtained to which an audience might respond within a canon of beauty. Beneath the veneer of materials there can also be underlying symbolism or values-driven content which could engender an emotional or intellectual response but is this enough to qualify painting as a medium though which to alter opinion about a subject such as the preservation of animals?

A picture of a cow in a field is just that. Having identified the breed of cow, its environment and the way it has been painted, where does the leap come from to galvanise someone into political action? The image is static, maybe poetic, maybe steeped in sentimentality but even prolonged exposure is unlikely to create permanent change. There is also no guarantee that the audience will see the political content or intent. How any one person interprets a painting is a matter of any number of factors.

The question then becomes can painting fulfill the role or even, should it be expected to? When Marinetti wrote his manifesto Italy had yet to experience any aspect of modernism let alone the electronic media. After a century of TV, film, video and the internet, painting looks impotent. If it ever fulfilled a political role in modern times, that role has long gone as has that of the artist as a proponent of culture and painting as an activity has become very much an individual approach to the world geared to the art market.

If artists today want to claim the high moral ground they are probably in the wrong field. Ai Wei Wei has been imprisoned a number of times for creating work that is critical of the Chinese Government and other artists have been censured but beyond ‘oh, that’s interesting’ has his art the power to alter opinion? Modify it maybe, alter it , probably not. A room length imitation rubber boat full of would be refugees is outlasted by what was written about it but the memory dies upon the audience exiting the building.s