ART AS A RESULT OF THE IDEOLOGY OF POWER

Abstract

Is the war over? Is its success measured by the number of victims or the consequences it has
caused? Is art the only winner of any war because it is the only one showing both sides of the coin?
It is ideologically colored, but not conflicted. It is rebellious, but not destructive. It is a luxury of leisured, but not just the empty decoration. It is a living ideology, but not politics. Philosopher Jacques Rancière claims "Art is an act of collective intelligence that should not be politically active. Artists should be at aesthetic distance because there is virtually no art outside the gallery institution." However, Lucy Lipard clarifies "There is no neutral zone. Every artist must ideologically choose, otherwise they will be manipulated." However, artist Alfred Jaar states that there is a huge gap between reality and its presentation. It is the artist who fills this void with intellectual and creative engagement.