Progressive artists make statements via their art, often in ways that are stunningly creative; sometimes they are complicated enough that they need serious explanation – which can be problematic.

Here are two examples: One at the Whitney

http://hyperallergic.com/338783/in-response-to-trumps-election-artist-asked-the-whitney-museum-to-turn-her-work-upside-down/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=In%20Response%20to%20Trumps%20Election%20Artist%20Asked%20the%20Whitney%20Museum%20to%20Turn%20Her%20Work%20Upside-Down&utm_content=In%20Response%20to%20Trumps%20Election%20Artist%20Asked%20the%20Whitney%20Museum%20to%20Turn%20Her%20Work%20Upside-Down+CID_c2eb22fd0a98dbcda71743d8c1496d88&utm_source=HyperallergicNewsletter&utm_term=Read%20More

and the other in Mississippi:

Mississippi Governor Decries Billboard by Artist-Led Super PAC

I found the first artistic decision by Annette Lemieux – a request to turn her work upside down after the election –  clever;

I have mixed feelings about the second one, for how it can be misinterpreted, abused by those you want to criticize, but it’s also surely a conversation opener as there ever was one.  The problem is that it takes a lot of explaining to get to a correct understanding of the expressed statement if you are not on the same wavelength, and I see that as a problem for a piece of art.  A message can be, should be partisan in some cases, but only if it is clear. Says the artist who is always asked to provide a novel-length artist statement…..