18 July 2008

Since When is Art Supposed to be Apolitical?

CNN is reporting that pro-gun groups are up in arms about the new art exhibit Wounded in America, now on display in Los Angeles. The exhibit uses words an images to display the tragic results of gun violence - including accidental, intentional and even self targets. The stated aim is to raise awareness of how dangerous guns are and the kind of damage they can cause. Obviously, pro-gun groups are not going to enjoy this type of exhibit, but the statements made in the CNN story were so ridiculous, trying to invalidate the whole exhibit on the grounds it is "politically motivated." Well, so what if it is? Isn't art always inherently from a specific perspective and usually trying to make certain points? Why should "Guns are dangerous and cause harm" be any less valid than "These images are merely symbols and not reality"?