Politics, Art and Revolution

In Hallein yesterday, Peter Friedl discussed general issues which are relevant to all who consider themselves artists. Friedl is interested in the diverse ways in which themes can be represented within the context of their history. His historical focus was clear from the outset, as he teased us with the question: “What is History?” - an inquiry pertinent to any interested in the background of various artistic genres, and also a nod to E.H. Carr’s definitive volume of that name. But rather than directly tackle this question, he set about a discussion considering politics in art, and the role and reaction of the artist to revolution.

Friedl considered Gustave Courbet’s The Artist’s Studio, a work which neatly connected his general interests in the political and art history, with the theme of this year’s Summer Academy. This led to the question as to how an artist can or should react to revolution. He considered a range of figures in a variety of scenarios, such as Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Georg Forster, and Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo. In the examples of these figures, he drew a series of conclusions about the attitudes and responsibilities of the artist in times of political change; and, most pertinently, the many artists who used concepts of “autonomy” to excuse their postures of inaction.

His own concept of the “studio” is reading: a good book and solitude. The history of writing, and its role in human affairs, is of fundamental importance: neither the death of the author nor the birth of the reader has provided all the answers. Friedl concluded with a few thoughts on literacy, and the persistence of illiteracy around the world, wryly suggesting that “perhaps illiteracy is generating new subversive forms of intelligence”.