Art can be effective politically. Etched in my memory is the photograph of a Nicaraguan man tortured and blown in half, his spine left clean of flesh. But this is visual, what of the other senses to escort political ideas. At the 2nd Auckland triennial in 2004 the Public/Private exhibition, I remember clearly a sound work. A head set on the wall with a small notice beside it, which I can only vaguely recall some explanation of ten thousand people being tortured (or was it more?) What I do remember was the sound of skulls being sawn into with water dripping. I couldn’t stop my ears from listening, the work entered directly in. It brought the experience very close and I had no buffer, my imagination instantly filled in the gaps. Having said that, I don’t think art has to be hard hitting to be effective, I can think of other ways that reach me, through emotional means or humour. The curators of that specific exhibition were attempting to use creative practices to promote debate, and Hanfling noted this in his article on the exhibition when he quoted from the publicity brochure.
...the curatorial aim is to make connections that will intensify the privacy debate. At the same time, we want to reveal art making as a vibrant and challenging platform from which to express powerful, poignant and disturbing ideas. (Hanfling)
It’s a matter of where you stand in relation to others, and the manner or channel in which you reach the audience you wish to affect.
Bibliography
Hanfling, Edward. "Current Affairs: Surveying the Second Aucklad Trienial ." Art New Zealand (2004): 62-65.
O'Rorke, Imogen. Andrea Geyer's "9 Scripts from a Nation at War". 2010. On Mute
