Nine artists and curators debate whether art must take a political stance

In a feature on Artribune, nine artists and curators respond to the question of whether art should engage with politics. Marco Trulli argues art must question power systems and institutional ties to war. Gabi Scardi rejects the label 'political art' but insists artists are inevitably part of their time, citing the Turkish pavilion at the 2017 Venice Biennale as an example of internal critique. Miltos Manetas, referencing Yanis Varoufakis, proposes a Franciscan rule: art should minimize harm to the most vulnerable. The Glorious Mothers draw on intersectional feminism to assert that art is always situated within historical and social relations. Marco Scotini critiques the Venice Biennale as a site of nationalist pride that simultaneously invites emancipatory curators while legitimizing nationalist violence. Tomaso Binga views political engagement as an inherent condition of artistic practice, citing her work 'Riflessioni a puntate' from 1991. Adelina von Fürstenberg, founder of Art for The World, argues art is a tool for dialogue and transformation, echoing Joseph Beuys. Pietro Gaglianò states art is always political, even when not overtly aligned, and that silence is complicity. Ugo La Pietra, known for social art, says current horrors have left him unable to find critical tools, finding solace only in his 1992 drawings on ethnic cleansing from the former Yugoslavia, which now speak to Palestine.