fastboyent

So, I was in a huge debate today with someone about "art for a social change". Now I know that a lot of people don't give a crap about this, but I do, and I know that there are people out there who talk about about it, talk about wanting to do it but don't.

My question is if you can talk so full heartedly about doing something like "art for a social change" then why not do it? It is easy enough.

I guess this has to go back to the definition of what "Art for a Social Change" means. Basically the idea behind it is strait forward. To make art that will change (or hopefully change) the social way of thinking about something. For instance, one of my pieces that I consider "art for a social change" is this one I call Gay Rights: The Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.


(and yes, for all of you who where wondering, that is Sub in the background, showing his more...well softer side shall we say [he is going to kill me for that])

This is of course in response to thinks like Prop 8 and so on.

Why do people have to sit back and and talk like they are doing something when the are not. Why are they talking like they are doing "art for a social change" when they are still doing images of still lives or landscapes or of a "family portrait" style of image? It doesn't make since. Yes I know that Actions speak louder than words, and things like this have happened through out the ages, yet when people speak of doing for a social change and then not do it is when it comes to more of actual activism I have found, like physical, take the streets activism...not in art. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not...who knows...maybe I'm just looking too much into this and not over reacting...
who knows.