Art as a political communicative tool

INTRODUCTION

In 2004, the New York Foundation for the arts conducted a vote asking people about

their thoughts regarding political arts. According to the vote, 69 percent of individuals re-

sponded that “political art is boring”, and 4 percent of individuals thought that “politics

should be kept out of art” among 3000 people. While this result shows that the majority of

people are aware of the relationship of politics and art, this also indicates that the majority of

people are differentiating political art from ordinary art. As Ó Croidheáin (2010) points out,

views of people who see the relationship between art are varied from the idea that art is al-

ways political to the idea that only direct political affiliation makes art political. While the

former argument is that art can be interpreted in many ways, latter argues that art should be

appreciated only as artists intended to. Because of this reason, people who argue there is a

category for political art sometimes criticise political artists as activists.

For example, Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, who was arrested by the Chinese government

for his activists’ behaviour, is often accused as an activist. However, Ai Weiwei denies that he

is an activist and asserts that he is only an artist. He argues that ‘art is the liberation of the

mind’ and ‘all art has its own message’(Zamyn, 2009). He sees art as a communication tool

between artists and audiences. He criticises the world by putting his messages in his artwork,

and let audiences appreciate it. According to his assertion, artists imply some meaning in the

artworks. By doing that, artists give art its own meaning and power.

To debate whether art is always political or not, the definition of the term “political”

should be preceded. People perceive the term “political” in a different way. Some people un-

derstand the term “political” as a direct political affiliation. For them, the political artwork

has a boundary that involve direct political messages, so that they believe that only a few art-

works including propaganda, government art is political. They assert that art does not have to
be political, and art can be appreciated itself when it does not contain any political messages.

On the other hand, others perceive the term “political” in a broad sense. As Aristotle once

said that “all human being are political”, they believe that every social interaction and ele-

ments are political. In this sense, “political” does not only mean direct political affiliation, but

“any discussion of, or any thinking about, relationships of power between people” (Berlatsky,

2015). According to this argument, art is always political because people find the power rela-

tions in artworks.

This gap of perception causes the debate of whether art is political or not. However,

the term “political” is needed to define in a broad sense, which includes power relations in

every interaction of society. As one of the human activities, and communication tool, art itself

generates the power relations between artist and audiences. By expressing their opinion and

giving the meaning in art, the artist gives art the power. On the other hand, as a receiver, audi-

ences are introduced to the artists’ ideology and the world. This happens even when an artist

aims for apolitical artworks. Art has its power to mobilise audiences and refine the world. In

this essay, I argue that art is always political. By defining the term “political” first, and by ex-

ploring and interpreting some art politically, I would like to demonstrate that art is always po-

litical; nevertheless the artists did not intend to have any political messages in artworks.

THE DEFINITION OF “POLITICAL”

To discuss whether art is political or not, it is important to define what “political”

means. As a contested concept, there are several definitions of it. As a narrow term, “politi-

cal” refers to the act primarily associated with the government and the state. In this case, an

only direct affiliation of politics is political, so that political art is narrowed down as propa-

ganda, government posters, or arts that are sponsored by the states. This definition has very

restrictive boundaries so that it “restricts who is political and who can engage in politics”
(Bambra et al.:2003). Also, this is a ‘top-down’ approach which separates politics from other

social activities.

On the other hand, in a broad sense, “political” contains every act in our daily life.

According to this definition, politics is “power-structured relationship or arrangement

whereby one group of person is controlled by another” (Millett, 1969). Contrary to the former

definition, this is a ‘bottom-up’ approach to the definition of “political”, thus, everyone in the

society engages in a political act.

However, the narrow definition of the term “political” is only a definition of dictio-

nary. In a political science, scholars adopt the latter definition, and define the term “political”

in a broad meaning. Human beings are born as a political being and identify themselves in the

society by interacting with others. According to Foucault, “political thinking is focused on the

concept of power relations” (Sluga, 2011:69). Every relation that we can find among people

is based on the power relations, and these make every element in the society political.

Art for art’s sake

People who argue that art is not always political believe that the term of “political”

should be used in a restricted area, where there is a direct political affiliation such as govern-

ment or the states. They understand the term “political” as a definition of dictionary. They of-

ten differentiate pure art from political art, and they assert that art should be understood as art

itself. They believe “art world” exists itself, “with separate cultural spaces, communities, and

languages” (Lambert, 2012), and artworks should be appreciated within the original intention

of artists. In other words, people who assert that art should not be political “often seem to

view politics in relatively narrow terms” (Berlatsky, 2015). People who support that art

should have remained as art often see the politicisation of art as corruption. However, pro-

gressive theorists criticise artists who aim apolitical work as artists “who see that as a failure

to challenge the dominant political discourse, or even worse” (Ulko, 2013). Winegar (2006)
asserts that artist can draw a utopia through the art project, and it is political if artists do not

fight for art’s complete autonomy from political, economic, or social power. The movement

of artists who wanted to keep their art as art itself was spread in the early nineteenth century.

Artists argued that their art does not need moral or social justification. However, they over-

look three things in their argument.

First of all, artists’ that want audiences to see their work as apolitical is political itself.

In other words, by pursuing art qua art, art becomes political. To pursue art qua art, art at-

tempts to deny pre-dominations of any other forms. But paradoxically, this act itself is the po-

litical act. Since political act contains every power relations among people, artists who im-

pose their opinion to audiences are political. As George Orwell once said that “the opinion

that art should not be political is itself a political opinion”. In other words, every choice and

idea in our daily life is political. And in this sense, art can never be independent of the poli-

tics.

In addition, people who argue that art is not always political overlook that art requires

interpretation. This interpretation does not have to be always as an artist’s intention. Even

though artists do not want any political meaning in their artworks, audiences have their free

will to interpret artworks in their favor. Audiences, who are political beings, raise questions

from the artworks. Audiences appreciate artworks within its social context, which contains

politics, culture, and society values. By picking up the elements and details that draw audi-

ences deeper, audiences regenerate the meaning of artworks, and accept the meaning politi-

cally.

Thirdly, they overlook that art is a communicative tool between people. Art exists in a

social context and every art has its audiences. When creating an artwork, artists consider its

audiences and the message to deliver. As a medium, artwork connects artist and audience, and

they exchange the meaning of artworks. This generates the discussion of power between peo-
ple, which makes art as political. According to Berlatsky (2015), “art and politics, aesthetics

and power, exist in the same spaces; they are both social”.

In conclusion, Art and politics are bonded in each other and sometimes use each other

for its own sake. While all human activities are political, artist and audiences exchange the

meaning of it through artworks. In other words, as a communicative tool, art works politically

among people.

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF ART

Like all other elements of human life, power is exercised over art by imposing artists’

opinion in a context of social, economic, and political system. Art is political in many ways:

- Art is political because, it is dominated by some social groups and often subordinated

by government or the states.

- Art is political because it reflects the time period of the society, and imposes the

meaning to the audiences. Art as a medium, audiences connect themselves to the art

world, build, reproduce, and refine the meaning of art.

- Art is political because it shapes a social value. Art is a great tool for recruitment, and

art creates solidarity within the society. It enables people to share and shape social

value.

Art and power domination

Art and politics have coexisted from the beginning of human history, and art has been

subordinated by politics for a long time. The masterpieces that we see in these days are often

created by the request of the states or the rich people. The government and the state used art

to manipulate its citizens, and artists have often belonged to the states. However, this is not
exceptional for artworks that were not subordinated by the states or government. As a tool for

expression, art contains artist’s opinion and thoughts toward the world. As a political being,

human beings communicate each other within society through speech, and expression and

these make them political. By accepting and appreciating art, audiences are imposed to

artist’s ideology and thoughts. In other words, art is always political whether it is subordi-

nated by political power or not.

Art that reflects the time period of the society

Art is political because art reflects the time period of the society. It often reflects the

time the artwork was done, but sometimes it also is interpreted by the time audiences’ get the

artwork. By considering the politics and society of the time period, interpretation makes art

political. According to Rose (2012), art can reveal important aspects of social context and

cultures by expressing the values of a given culture or social class. Relatively to other forms

of art, this is usually clear in poems. Because poets use a metaphor to deliver the message,

poems can often be translated in multiple ways.

Until the day I die, I long to have no speck of shame when I gaze up toward heaven,/ so I
have tormented myself, even when the wind stirs the leaves./ With a heart that sings the
starts, I will love all dying things./ And I will walk the way that has been given to me.//
Tonight, again, the wind brushes the stars.
Yun Dong-Ju, “Prologue”

For example, the above poem was written in 1941 by Korean poet Yun Dong-Ju.

Without referring to the time period it was written, this poem itself appears as a self-reflective

poem. The author does not have any direct political affiliation in his poem. However, by con-

sidering the political and social situation of the time period, the poem can be interpreted as a

political message. At the time period when this poem was written, Korea was under the domi-

nation of Japan. By considering this fact, readers can figure out what the author wanted to say
in the poem. In other words, the poem can be interpreted in various ways regardless of the au-

thor’s intention, and political interpretation can be one form of it.

Another example of this is Khaled Hosseini (2003) ’s novel. As an Afghanistan Amer-

ican author, he writes his novel based on the war in Afghanistan. One of his novels, “the Kite

runner”, is a growth novel during the wartime in Afghanistan. However, even though the

background of the novel is during the wartime, the author does not affiliate any political mes-

sages directly. Because of this, most of the readers find the novel as a well-written growth

novel, and this does not cause any repulsion. Nevertheless, the wartime of Afghanistan and its

political situations are often not the main focus but are very much prevalent throughout the

novel makes it very political indeed. As some arts demand non-artistic knowledge to under-

stand the meaning of arts, the novel requires audiences to link artworks with the situation of

the time period of Afghanistan. By linking artworks with their own situation or the time pe-

riod that artworks reflect, readers can read the political situations, and authors’ political mes-

sages. According to Griselda Pollock (1988), the world is built, reproduced, and redefined

through the social practices, and art is one of them. Like this, through art, people connect

artistic thoughts with political activity.

However, this political interpretation happens even in apolitical artworks. By exem-

plifying Harry Potter, Berlatsky (2015) argues that all art is political thus art is always politi-

cal. According to him, “Harry Potter imagines the world in which certain powerful people

know about dangers which they must keep secret from everyone else” (Berlatsky, 2015).

Even though it does not contain the realpolitik in itself, this has “particular take on power and

its relationship to secrecy” (Berlatsky, 2015). In other words, politics does not have to mean

direct political message, but it can be any relationships of power among people.

Art and social value

 Art is political, because art is one of the accessible ways of shaping the social values.

As one of the most powerful and accessible ways of shaping social consciousness (Okail,

2014), art “has the capacity to trigger reflection, generate empathy, create dialogue and foster

new ideas and relationships and offers a powerful and democratic way of expressing, sharing

and shaping values”(Common cause, 2013). As a social form of human behaviour, art enables

us to “understand how to imagine and rehearse a different way of being and relating” (Com-

mon cause, 2013). Art is the frame that people use to understand the world, and construct the

idea. By shaping the world and value people share in the society, artworks politically.

ART THAT REFLECTS POLITICS

While some art is clearly associated with the political value, it is hard to find political

messages in some art. While this enables people to approach the artworks easily, it makes it

hard to understand the artist’s intention. Art is political, and audiences impose political value

during interpretation. And sometimes the political meanings of the specific artworks change

by the audience's situation or the time period. As an artwork that has clear political meaning

and purpose, graffiti in Palestine is a good example. Graffiti in Palestine is famous for its

clear message toward Israel and international society, and many artists are involved in the

work and resisting toward Israel. On the other hand, poems are relatively hard to find politi-

cal meaning inside. By using a metaphor, poets make it possible for readers to interpret it in

several ways.

Graffiti and politics

The modern form of graffiti, which started in the late 1960s in New York, evolved

into a complex art form which often resist to the dominant power. Compare to other artworks,

graffiti contains direct political messages in it and targets all the citizens as its audiences. The

good example of graffiti with the political message is the one on Palestine wall. The Wall sur-

rounding Palestinian territories are over 700 kilometers, and it isolates Palestine from the
World. Since Israel constructed the wall between Israel and Palestine, street artists gathered

together and started painting on the wall. The artwork is still ongoing, and artists spray on the

wall about Israel’s oppression and cruelty. Artists aim to transmit political messages to the

next generation. By painting on the wall, artists can approach broad audiences efficiently.

Even though some people raise a doubt if the graffiti cannot be more or less than art, artists

and its supporter believe that graffiti can work mightier than the violent resistance toward Is-

rael. In Palestine, graffiti is used to provoke emotions among its people and resistance to the

Israeli regime. By accusing Israel as an oppressor, the wall has become a tremendous petition,

political thread, and an entreaty for humanity. Furthermore, artists assert that this visual sym-

bol can mobilise people to resist Israel. The characteristic of graffiti on the Palestinian wall is

that it is easy to understand and perceive the political meaning of it. As artists target the gen-

eral public as its audiences, and as artists show their purpose of art clearly, graffiti becomes

the safest and most efficient way to reach a broad audience.

Poems and politics

Whilst graffiti has its clear purpose and meaning of political, poems are often hiding

its political value by using metaphors. Mahmoud Darwish is a Palestinian poet who is consid-

ered as the most important contemporary artist. As a political activist, the author wrote sev-

eral poems that criticise Israel. Some poems of his involve direct political messages, but some

poems are taking a form of a love poem and hard to find its meaning without knowing the sit-

uation.

O man, May God cure your soul./ Why don’t you try the taste of love/ Why don’t you make
way for the sun!
-Mahmoud Darwish,“Dialogue with a Man who Hates Me”
 As above, it is hard to interpret the poem politically without knowing the political sit-

uation in Palestine. But once it is referred with a political situation in Palestine, it is able to

find that the author “criticises the Israeli and sympathises with him at the same time”

(Neisser, 2000). In the poem, he is accusing Israelis of war and conflict. The one who is

blocking the sun and causing darkened lives of the Palestinians are Israelis. Yet he shows the

sympathy toward Israelis by asking “Why don’t you try the taste of love”. He believes that

happiness is possible if one pauses to “taste love”. By poems, the poet tried to communicate

with Palestinians and also Israelis.

Often, a poet makes it vague to interpret the poem to avoid censorship. In this case,

audiences involve the personal life of a poet when interpreting the poem. Below is the poem

of a Korean poet, Yong-un Han which speaks about his lover who left him.

You have gone. Ah, you have gone, my beloved./ Gone without a parting glance – along the
narrow path through the maple grove, tearing the blue mountain haze./ Our old vows, once
firm and radiant as golden flowers, have turned to cold dust and gone wafted by a sighing
breeze.
Han Yong-un, “The Silence Of Love”

By using the metaphor, the author hid what he actually wants to say through his art-

work. This lets audiences transmit their situation, or poet’s personal life during interpretation.

As a poet who lived under the Japanese domination era, the author is famous for his active re-

sistance toward Japan. But, without the information of his personal life, it is hard for audi-

ences to derive the political meaning from the poem. Indeed, he took an advantage of this, by

interpreting love as Buddhism, or his actual lover, he could avoid the censorship of Japan.

Even though there is still dispute whether his work is political or not, it shows how artwork

can always be political regardless of the poet’s intention.

CAN ART AFFECT POLITICAL SITUATION?

 Even though much aware of the relationship of art and politics, and admits that art can

be political, there is still a dispute if art can affect to political situations. Some artists believe

that “art is useless as a tool for political change (Slackman, 2006)”. A Syrian actor, Duraid

Lahham argues that often the men in power played his critical artworks by pointing out “free-

dom of criticism”. He argues that he criticised the government through his play, but it could

not provoke any changes in civil society. Likewise, in the case of graffiti, many Palestinians

raise its doubts over it. Banksy recalls his conversation with an old man he met in Palestine

(Parry, 2011). The old man was not happy about Banksy’s work on the wall. By criticising

Banksy’s artwork, the old man insisted that the wall should have remained as itself, because

Banksy is beautifying the wall. He worried about worsening the situation by making children

think that the wall is beautiful.

The Palestinian poet Darwish could not avoid criticism either, even though he affected

other writers as well as readers. Despite the fact that the poems contributed in shaping Pales-

tinian identity, and further building its solidarity toward Israel, many Arabs criticised Dar-

wish’s poems because it often showed humanity toward Israel. In addition, Munir Akash, edi-

tor of The Adam of Two Edens (2001), criticises the author’s poem was not successful in de-

livering political messages. He asserts that the author’s “celebrity was ahead of his poetry”

(Jaggi, 2002). However, even though art fails to affect politics in a direct way, it does not

mean that art does not function politically at all. Art affects politics by:

- bringing international eyes on the issue, and;

- producing knowledge and solidarity.

Nevertheless, of people who criticised graffiti for its beautifying of the wall, graffiti

succeeded to bring international eyes on the Palestinian and Israeli issue. Many artists from
all over the world came to Palestine to paint the wall, and they felt sympathy with the Pales-

tinian situation. Darwish’s poem as well, contributed to shaping Palestinian identity. Because

it was written in non-political words, it could also be spread all over the Arab world, and in-

ternational world.

In addition, Eyerman (2013) argues that art provokes political protest, “some of them

aimed at producing knowledge and solidarity within the group of protesters and others as a

means of communicating to those outside what the protest is all about” (Eyerman, 2013). Ac-

cording to him, art serves as a great tool that recruits supporters and it has been used to trans-

mit political ideology. Arts are important in a sense of a communicating tool, and art articu-

lates the political ideologies.

To sum up, artworks might have limitations to provoke big political change. Surely,

the function of art as political tools is challenged by the dominant power and further changes

in the world. But it does not mean that art can not affect politics at all. By transmitting politi-

cal value in artwork, or by interpreted politically, art affects people’s perception about poli-

tics. Art is rich in information, and it is important as a mean of political expression. In other

words, even though art cannot provoke the direct involvement in politics, it can build and

construct people’s political ideology, and call for justice silently.

CONCLUSION

Once and for all, the debate of art’s political attribution is originated from the differ-

ent perception of the term “political”. While some people understand the meaning of “politi-

cal” as a direct affiliation of politics, this is only a restricted definition of a dictionary. In po-

litical science, scholars such as Weber define politics as competition for power (1991:78).

Politics is based on power distribution, and everything that shares, distributes, transfer power.

This can be found in any sphere of the world, thus, makes all elements in the world political.
 While the narrow definition of the term “political” restricts the meaning of politics,

and understands that politics and art can exist separately, scholars of political sciences under-

stand politics as an essential element in our daily life. In this sense, “political” does not only

mean the direct political affiliation, but also the relationships of power between people which

can be found in a daily basis. Thus, politics can be found in every power relations in the soci-

ety, also, it can be found in art.

Once, Winegar(2006) said that art is political unless artists do not fight for art’s com-

plete autonomy from other social element such as politics or economy. In fact, many artists

argued to be apolitical, and be independent from the states and capital. However, paradoxi-

cally, the fight for art’s autonomy is political act itself. By saying that they do not want peo-

ple see their artworks in a political way, artists impose political message in their artwork: I do

not want my artworks to be seen as political. Imposing meaning in the artwork is the political

act, thus, all art is political. In other words, by fighting for art’s autonomy, art becomes politi-

cal one more time.

Art and politics always coexisted, and the relationship is ever intimate in the contem-

porary world. According to Groys, “art is as much a force in the power play of global politics

today as it once was in the arena of cold war politics” (Groys, 2008). As a political being, all

the activities of the human being make humans political. “Political” does not have to affiliate

direct meaning; rather it can be defined as something that can be found in anywhere. Also, art

always reflects its time period of the society that it was created, or it was interpreted. As seen

above, art is interpreted considering the social context, including politics, cultures, and econ-

omy. Artists’ political intention does not decide whether the artwork is political or not. Be-

cause artwork is interactive between artist and audiences, interpretation takes an important

role in the artwork. By making the audience to involve in the process, audiences raise ques-

tions and reproduce the meaning of art. Furthermore, art articulates social value. By commu-
nicating with audiences through art, artists impose a certain meaning in art, and it enables

people to understand the world.

While art that contains direct political messages sometimes bothers audiences, most of

art makes it easy to approach by not containing any direct political messages. But this does

not mean that art is not political, thus audiences should have a critical attitude when appreci-

ating artworks. Art can be interpreted in many ways, in addition to an artist’s intention. By

looking at the time period, and social context, art can transmit powerful messages among

people. As a communicative tool, art transmits the society’s value and provide a frame to

look at the world.

What this all adds up to is an involvement and challenge of actors -- artists and audi-

ences. While art does not tell people what to think. Rather, art “provides us with one of the

few remaining playgrounds” (Stone, 2014) to think, where people can actively involve in.

Sometimes, art leads people to be aware of unfamiliar conditions, by morally striking artistic

activities. By making people question the society they live in, artists challenge the main-

stream in the society. As developing technology and science challenges the way of thinking,

“artist should always be the first to become aware of the change that arises and the bound-

aries that it destroys” (Zamyn, 2009).

Reference

- Baldacchin, John. (2012) Art’s Way Out. Rotterdam, Netherland: Sense Publishers.

- Bambra, C. et al. (2003) “Towards a politics of health”. Health Promotion Interna-

tional, Vol. 20 No. 2 187-193

- Berlatsky, Noah. (6 April 2015) “Is all art political?” Ravishly (accessed 30 December

2015), <http://www.ravishly.com/2015/04/06/all-art-political-noah-Milo

%20Yiannopolous>

- Bowen, Rob. (18 August 2009) “What makes Art, Art? Perception, interpretation, or

something more?” Fuel your creativity (accessed 16 December 2015), <http://www.-

fuelyourcreativity.com/what-makes-art-art-perception-interpretation-or-something-

more/>

- Common Cause. ( September 2, 2013) “The Art of Life: how arts and culture affect

our values” Values and Frames (accessed 28 December 2015), <http://valuesand-

frames.org/the-art-of-life/>

- Darwish, Mahmoud. (1967) Dialogue with a Man who Hates Me

- Eyerman, Ron (3 June 2013) “The Role of the Arts in Political Protest” Mobilising

ideas (accessed 20 December 2015), <https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/

2013/06/03/the-role-of-the-arts-in-political-protest/>

- Groys, Boris. (2008) Art power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

- Han, Yong-un. (1926) The silence of my beloved, Translated by Sammy Solberg

(1971)
- Hosseini, Khaled. (2003) The Kite runner, New York, US: Riverhead Books

- Jaggi,Maya. “Poet of the Arab world” The Guardian, 8 June 2002.

- Lambert, Steve (20 Oct 2012), “An Open Letter to Critics Writing about Political Art”

Artistic Activism (accessed 23 December 2015), <http://artisticactivism.org/2012/10/

an-open-letter-to-critics-writing-about-political-art/>

- Millett, Kate. (1969) Sexual politics, Illinois, US: University of Illinois Press

- Neisser,Yvette. (2000) “The Dialogue of Poetry: Palestinian mid Israeli Poets Writing

Through Conflict and Peace” The Search for Regional Cooporation, Palestine-Israel

Journal, Vol. 7 Nos 1&2

- Ó Croidheáin, Caoimhghin. (10 July 2010) “Political Art”. Global Research (accessed

29 December 2015), <http://www.globalresearch.ca/political-art/20092>

- Okail, Nancy. (31 Oct 2014) “Art as political expression” The Tahrir Institute for

Middle East Policy <http://timep.org/art-political-expression/> (accessed 30 Decem-

ber 2015)

- Parry, William. (2011) Against the Wall : The Art of Resistance in Palestine. Chicago,

IL, USA: Lawrence Hill Books.

- Pollock, Griselda. (1988) Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and Histories

of Art, New York, US: Paperback

- Rose, Barbara. (November 2012) “The Politics of Art”, Brooklyn Rail (accessed 29

December 2015), <http://www.brooklynrail.org/2012/11/editorsmessage/the-politics-

of-art>

- Royseng, Sigrid. (2010) “Review Essay, Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of cultural pro-

duction: essays on art and literature”. International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol.

16, No.1, 68-69.

- Slackman, Michael. “An Arab Artist says All the World Really Isn’t a stage”. The

New York Times, 19 August, 2006

- Sluga, Hans. (2011) “‘Could you define the sense you give the word “political”’?

Michel Foucault as a political philosopher” History of the Human Sciences Vol. 24

No. 4 69–79

- Stone, Dickon “Art for your sake”. The European Magazine, 29 May, 2014

- Ulko, Alex. (28 June 2013) “NAS why? or can art be apolitical?” New eurasia,

<https://www.neweurasia.net/culture-and-history/nas-why-or-can-art-be-apolitical/>

(accessed 2 Jan 2016)

- Weber, Max., and Gerth, Hans. (1991) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, New

York, US: Routledge

- Winegar, Jessica. (2006) Creative Reckonings, Stanford, California, Stanford Univer-

sity

- Yun, Dong – Ju. (1948) Prologue, Translated by Chae-Pyong Song and Darcy Bran-

del <https://jaypsong.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/prologue-by-yun-dong-ju/> (ac-

cessed 2 Jan 2016)

- http://www.zamyn.org/commissions/art-is-always-political.html (accessed 28 Decem-

ber 2015)