Capturing the Capital

At the recent exhibition, “Capturing the Capital,” a group of multimedia artists got together to display pieces that dealt with politics and the artist’s place in a political world.

While I was unable to view all of the pieces (there was a discussion at the venue while I was there, so I did not want to be pushing past people to see every single piece), I did get a good feel for most of them. One piece in particular seemed extremely interesting to me. “Protesting on Demand,” a piece put on by the Floating Lab Collective, allows random people to put in requests for protest topics in via email that the Floating Lab Collective would, in turn, protest in DC. This combines many different sorts of multimedia (such as the internet as well as performance art), and makes an interesting comment on protesting. I have often laughed at ads in the Washington Post calling for protestors and offering $8 an hour in return. What good is a protestor, I thought, if they’re not protesting something they actually believe in? The Floating Lab Collective seems to be making a similar statement. The use of “on Demand” in the title of their piece is reminiscent of “Movies on Demand,” a slogan often quoted on TV for digital cable. People apparently are unable to wait to get a movie, or to drive to the video store to rent one, and want to have them as soon as they “demand it.” The Floating Lab Collective seems to be saying that people act the same way about protesting. People aren’t coming from all over the country to protest for what they believe. Businesses are hiring people to come in and protest, in a manner similar to “on Demand” cable.

Another piece, Jon James Anderson’s “Gestalt,” is a sort of newspaper released by the author that deals with politics, art and, of course, political art. What’s interesting about this piece is not necessarily that which he has written, but the form in which he has written it. He has made a true newspaper; it is the right size, it is printed on cheap news-grade paper, and he has made dozens (if not hundreds) of copies of it. This is extremely different than what one might consider traditional art. There is not one finished piece, but hundreds of different parts. It is not intended to be looked at or watched, but picked up and read and then thrown away. It is, for all practical purposes, not a piece of art and only a newspaper.

However, Anderson’s statement is what is important for this piece. To me, he is saying that artists must evolve. In order to remain political and change people’s minds in today’s society, an artist must use a medium that is familiar and easy for people to understand. Few people go to museums anymore, so few people might see a traditional painting or sculpture that has political significance. However, millions of people read newspapers. Anderson is ensuring that all of these people will have access to his piece.