The critical vision

A neglected tradition of artistic expression exists in the United States. It combines technical excellence with a critical vision of society. From before the Revolutionary War to the present, artists working in this tradition have created a powerful monument to political dissent and moral conscience. These men and women, sharing a vision of the harsh realities of life, have used their talents to illuminate the defects of social and political existence and to point to the possibilities for change.

Usually ignored, patronized, or disparaged by critics in academia and in the popular media, these socially engaged artists have generally worked without the status and recognition accorded to their more politically conventional contemporaries. Their works of social commentary have rarely been seen or presented as a tradition. Yet, we must identify and legitimize this critical vision in U.S. art history. The artists who have produced critical art encompass a wide range of intention, and political and social ideology. They have employed almost all artistic media in their critique and expose of injustice and brutality in the United States and elsewhere. Their paintings, graphics, murals, sculpture, and photography cumulatively stand as a dramatic indictment of a social order that frequently neglects the needs of its divergent inhabitants. This tradition of political engagement complements the tradition of dissent in literature, journalism, speech, film, and scholarship.

The works that form this tradition treat exclusively the expression of social themes and ideas. This emphasis on cpntent is a radical departure from the formalist orientation of most modern art and of orthodox criticism and scholarship. Especially in recent decades, artists and critics alike have been infatuated with visual abstraction and the formal hallmarks of artistic creation. As a result, concentration on artistic content has been viewed with considerable suspicion. Thematic concerns, particularly those focusing on a critical view of politics and society, have often been regarded as quaint, out‐of‐date, or merely topical. A self‐serving ideology of “modern” art has dominated U.S. cultural life in the twentieth century. With remarkable success, it has defined the visual communication of political opposition as beyond the pale of respectability in the tightly managed art world.

Artists seeking to communicate thoughts and feelings about society can scarcely avoid an emphasis on content. It is time to oppose the present cultural orthodoxy by presenting a more sympathetic treatment and appraisal of their efforts. Accordingly, it is necessary to underscore the value of both creating and examining artistic content, and it is equally urgent to note the dangers inherent in emphasizing solely formal considerations. This latter tendency has served to separate art from the wider context of life. It has encouraged artists and critics to avoid commentary on controversial issues of social policy. It provides an academic rationalization for indifference to political affairs, a posture that historically has justified existing social, economic, and political institutions and priorities. Formalism is thus a manifestation of political as well as cultural conservatism, whether intended as such or not.