I stand accused of political activism in my art; that I have engaged in political dissent against the state.
The work involved does challenge the opinions held by certain authorities.
In my defense I will argue that there is a distinction between political art and political activism.
Activism demonstrates the absence of concern for any aesthetics and remains solely a medium for driving dialogue and opinion.
I have always been concerned with aesthetics in my art rather than solely trying to drive opinion.
Yet this will not save me.
The authorities have determined that “Political commentary within art when presented as protest could be considered both political art as well as political activism.”
All is lost, I am afraid…
“You should have remained more ambiguous.” I was told.
‘The art might have been acceptable if it were more multifaceted in its capacity to communicate several meanings or alternative perceptions that were less offensive to the authorities.”
“My work remains an attempt to remind us of the world as it could be.” I uttered as a sort of justification.
“You have used your work as a medium for driving opinion in an anti-governmental fashion!
We all know that art is dangerous as it can assist in creating an awareness that motivates people to action.
We will only allow art as propaganda to work where we need the public to act, as in time of war, when we want them to die for us.” they replied.
“Artists should know better! Resistance is futile Tibet is ours!
You are a terrorist and not a Friend of China”