On Tuesday, February 17, the Clarke Forum hosted Shannon Jackson, the Chair of the Art History Department at UC Berkeley. Professor Jackson visited as a part of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society’s Visiting Scholar Program, and engaged with fellow member students and faculty over the course of multiple days last week. The title of Jackson’s Clarke Forum discussion was “The Arts, Democracy and Public Life,” where she led a presentation focusing on the power of art in historical and present political climates, followed by an engaging Q&A session with the audience.
Jackson began the speech with an engaging thought experiment, where she broke down each of the words in her title. She requested audience participation in shouting out what the words “art,” “democracy” and “public” meant to listeners. She utilized the answers, which included “people,” “participation” and “conversation” throughout her speech, connecting back to the audience on a personal level.
Her speech, though topical and relevant to contemporary politics, discussed art installations in recent history that have sparked controversy or conversation. More specifically, Jackson focused on the mechanisms of public art, often overlapping with media coverage, that engaged the average community member. Jackson explained how political themes were often communicated to its audience in ways that felt very approachable, meeting its audience in both the physical spaces they populate and the social climates they reside within.
One of the artists she returned to across her entire presentation was Paul Ramírez Jonas, who describes himself as an “artist in the Public Realm.” His art installations, which include “Key to the City,” “Let Freedom Ring,” and “Public Trust” were provided as examples of the ways art, democracy and civic engagement may intersect each other through simple yet inspiring acts. In a compilation of pictures and short clips, Jackson proved how important art and civic engagement are in a democratic environment that relies on its participants’ use of free speech and self-advocacy. Each of Ramírez Jonas’ installations required some degree of action from public participants, reinforcing how civilians may engage with art in a democratic society.
Jackson transitioned her speech to dissect the role of institutions in art and public engagement. Here, she covered a range of actors within the government and public interest spheres, including museums and federal funding bodies. In this discussion, Jackson highlights how discourse and a dynamic political climate can vastly reshape the landscape of contemporary art, the entertainment and public service sectors, and the general public’s perception of it all. Jackson’s presentation delved into how the current Administration’s funding decisions act as ‘double maneuvers,’ in that it simultaneously cuts elements of culture out – closing culture – while replacing it with a promotion of the ‘correct’ culture – commandeering culture. Jackson grounded this lens in the story of Amy Sherald, whose exhibition “American Sublime” was intended to be represented in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery.She decided to withdraw from that endeavor when the portrait “Trans Forming Liberty” was threatened to be removed for being “provoking” in the eyes of President Donald Trump. This exhibit is now proudly displayed in the Baltimore Museum of Art, where Sherald hails from. Jackson elaborated on this case study, eloquently explaining how Sherald had been an example of a collective system, the federal administration here, finding a solo scapegoat of ‘radical’ culture that can be vilified to imbue a general distrust of the arts, another double move used to oppress civic engagement through the arts.
Examples of this and more were a significant point of Jackson’s emphasis on the importance of art in today’s society. A major function of the public and political sphere that Jackson discussed was the ability to commandeer and close culture. This is exemplified in cases like Sherald’s, where freedom of speech may be called into question. Shannon Jackson’s speech was an emotional call for continued involvement in the arts and civic engagement, now more than ever, and it appeared to be eagerly received by the Dickinson community in the audience.
