One of the main themes that came out of this article was the growing nature of the connection between aesthetically pleasing and social commentary artwork. These artists have found that they overlap, its rarely just one or the other. One mentioned that "visual art's aesthetic dimension helps clarify its meaning." (Talking Politics 2008, pg 3) The connection between the two is valid, and is essential for greater understanding now, as well as to serve as documentation for the future. Artists recognize that they must be smart in how they present their piece, making it visually interesting so people will then spend the time to get involved with the work and determine deeper meaning from it. This concept really made me think about how much art might have been made in the past, that had a good meaning, but lacked the pizzazz for the piece to be considered later in history. I felt like there was also interesting commentary in the article about the art market, and sales. Art has to be profitable, and sometimes I think an artist must choose between their values and being successful. If the rest of the world feels a certain way, it's easier for artists to fit in, rather than find a way in.
Earlier in the year we read an article about protest art. In one of Jimmy Howerton's articles in response from Q1, he really mentions some ideas which connect to those mentioned in this article. He mentions how many news stations are sectioned out on what they report on based on their political standing. That people avoid others opinions, causing us to become more polarized. I feel like that idea is mentioned in this, when the artists are talking about selling work. If you give in to the wants of a group of people, and only make art for them, you can be successful. But is it worth it to give up what you value? Art is "highly monetized" (pg 5) and people will sometimes make art just to make money, like with protest art and the news stations who streamline their opinions to only fit their viewers' ideals.
Overall, I think the article did a great job in giving readers a variety of perspectives. At sometimes it was difficult to read due to the nature of the open table, but it was informative. I think the art world really needs to think about, moving forward, the reason why we should create art. It should ahve a purpose, one that encourages discussion and questioning, rather than simply agreeing and staying safe on your side of the court.