How can art be political?

Art in of itself is not political. However, through Jacques Ranciere’s concept of the ‘distribution of the
sensible’, one can understand the political potential of art. In this essay, I will specifically draw on the
political and aesthetic value of graffiti. Often dismissed as mere vandalism rather than a legitimate
art form, I believe through a Ranciere’s lens, we can see how graffiti can change our seeing and
understanding of the world. I will begin by explaining his key concepts and then analysing a graffiti
piece from celebrated artist Banksy in relation to Ranciere’s work. To conclude this essay, I will touch
on the politics behind the art of cinema however by looking especially at the heavily political
movement of Cinema Novo in Brazil during the 70’s. This movement was a response to the Brazil’s
need to break from Americanised culture through cinema, a wave of postcolonial influence that
ultimately did not benefit Brazilians. Through this analysis, I hope to provide a clear understanding of
political potential and limitations of graffiti and cinema, through the work of Ranciere.

The concept of the ‘distribution of the sensible’ through any art medium is key in Ranciere’s
philosophy on the relationship between politics and aesthetic. This term refers to the relationship of
power established and maintained through organising what can be seen, heard and understood in a
given society. From my interpretation of his text, the idea of the distribution of the sensible is the
complex way in which our perception of the world organises things politically in our society. To
further illustrate this, in his book ‘The Politics of Aesthetics1’, Ranciere writes “The distribution of the
sensible…is never anything but the boundary between two worlds, the line that separates the visible
and invisible, the sayable and unsayable, the possible and impossible” (Ranciere, 2004) This
distribution of the sensible according to Ranciere is not fixed or in a neutral state – it is a product of
social and historical process which provokes divisions in different social groups with their own way of
perceiving and understanding the world. The significance of the distribution of the sensible is
important when commenting on our perceptions of the world as it also shapes who is in control and
allows certain groups of society to be represented. Ranciere goes further on to write ‘Politics is not
the exercise of power. Politics is the disruption of the distribution of the sensible. (Ranciere, 2004).
Therefore, by this sense of the sensible, we can see that political action in art can create new
manners of what can be seen, heard and understood in our societies. This will then go on to
challenge the dominant modes of power and will open new ways for our perception and the
particular meaning we give to our everyday reality.

Seen as a fairly new art medium, graffiti over the years has had trouble finding its own place in the
art world. Depending on certain cultures and continents, one can see an uprise of support for street
artists. However, with the gentrification of many cities around the world and as we grow to an ever
more grotesque consumer society, we also see the gentrification of this art form. This is where,
personally speaking, I find graffiti loses its once crucial political value. Yet this is not to say political
graffiti does not exist anymore. In fact for many artists the sustenance of their work stems from their
surroundings in our society, which in turn relates to Ranciere’s ideas of our perceptions being what
centres our politics and reality. According to the Eden Gallery in New York , graffit is defined as a
‘form of visual communication created in public places’ (Gallery, 2021) I find this definition fitting and
most in line with what originally graffiti was intended for, yet ‘public places’ can often mean
unauthorised locations. This, I find, is the first step in understanding graffiti’s political value. The
mere action of doing graffiti in most of modern-day societies is still considered unlawful, therefore
the message of the piece could mean nothing but its existence is in unwanted places such as
suburban areas or affluent neighbourhoods, is provocative enough. This provocation is not in vain of
pure vandalism, but it speaks for itself when it makes one question its place in our idea of reality. We
1
Published first in French in 2000, later English edition in 2004
have certain perceptions of these areas which we hold to certain meaning and graffiti does not fall
into the same categories, making the political statement of the artwork more striking. Although
Ranciere has yet to address graffiti as a legitimate art form in his work, the idea of the disruption of
the distribution of the sensible provides a structure for understanding the political potential in
graffiti. Graffiti further pushes the disruption of established standards of visibility and inclusivity in
and amongst our societies. A key example of this would be graffiti artist Banksy and his mural ‘One
Nation Under CCTV’ (Banksy, 2008) Painted on the side of a building in central London, this piece is
made up of a young person in a red hood on a ladder seemingly just finished painting the words ‘One
Nation Under CCTV’ adjacent to a real life CCTV camera. The young portrayed artist is then being
watched by a painted policeman in the bottom left corner. This piece of artwork is here to challenge
us as a society to question the systems of power and authority that survey our lives. The issue of
surveillance has been a prevalent problem for governments around the world since the late 1800s
(White, 2018) however as we progress further technologically, the need for autonomy in our privacy
has never been more of a political problem. Ironically, Banksy would have had to been captured
during his creation of this piece which I find resembles the powerful symbol of rebellion alongside
resistance. Furthermore, the policeman seen capturing the young artist reflects our current society’s
compulsive need to be surveyed and collected as data.

Nevertheless, it’s important to recognise that Ranciere understood that art can be commodified and
structured to fit the dominant power’s agenda i.e the governors of politics, by not disrupting the
distribution of the sensible and being complicit in maintaining certain perceptions of the world.
Furthermore, Ranciere understood the importance of art with various purposes. Art can be enjoyed
for its simple beauty or as quoted by fellow Ranciere admirer “ a work of art may be designed to
please, to soothe…rather than to unsettle, challenge or disturb” (Buchanan, 2006) Some may argue
the fact that a certain piece of artwork critiques existing state of affairs makes it a political however, I
find that art may be critical without being political if it does not provide any sort of alternative
version or a plan of action on the issued raised. With the case of graffiti, as mentioned previously,
the mainstream art market has embraced this art medium and turned into a commodity, like in the
city of Dundee2. This begs the question if graffiti has lost its revolutionary potential in recent years.

Ranciere declares in his book ‘The Intervals of Cinema’, that ‘there is no politics in cinema’ (Ranciere,
2014). This is not to be interpreted as a dislike for Cinema, in fact Ranciere was an avid fan of this
style of art. He considered himself in the position of ‘amateur’ which Ranciere found to be a political
stance in terms of the politics of art. (Anon., 2013) However, through his views on politics and
aesthetic, again we can see the political value of cinema stems from the distribution of the sensible
and how this art medium can challenge our perception of space and time. I agree with Ranciere in
the sense that just as art is not inherently political, cinema would fall under that category.
Furthermore, I understand where Ranciere writes from because as previously mentioned, what
makes art political is its attempt in highlighting social and political issues which in turn offers the
opportunity to develop more rounded perceptions of our ‘sensible’. Often films give us a certain
moral message to carry with ourselves afterwards but this rarely leads to the audience doing
something about the problems raised. On the other hand, as our idea of reality is shaped from
historic and social advances and the disruption of the sensible, the political potential of cinema can
do a lot for societies. A good example of this, I believe, is the heavily political movement of Cinema
Novo in Brazil over a span of 3 decades between the fifties and seventies. This era was a time for
critical social commentary, exploring new filmmaking techniques and portraying the stories of
Brazilians during the struggles of this period. (Jon Davis, 1980) The impact of this movement I find is

2
https://openclosedundee.co.uk/tours
the exception to Ranciere’s critiques of political cinema. Poverty, social and racial inequality were
central themes for the key filmmakers of this time such as Glauber Rocha and Nelson Pereira dos
Santos with their films ‘Black God, White Devil and Dry lives respectively. (Green, 2021) These films
like many other, at the time helped bring awareness to the economic and social crumbling Brazil was
going through at the time. Many of these films used local people as actors, often very similar to the
marginalized characters they were trying to portray. In comparison to the dominant culture of
Hollywood films, Brazilians started to question their national identity and how they were
represented. There was a rise in Brazilian folklore and mythology amongst the country in response to
Cinema Novo which was lacking under the many years of military dictatorship. Moreover, I personally
find the creators of this movement help emphasise the political importance of Brazilian cinema.
These filmmakers were more often than not, from similar backgrounds of their characters in their
films – this gives the intention behind this era of cinema that more importance as creators such as
Glabuer Rocha, had to find their own way, with little to no money to express themselves politically.
The social and economic issues had been rooted into their lives that they needed a way out despite
what they would need to give in return. Alongside this interpretation of Cinema Novo, I would like to
think that Ranciere would be able to see this movement as not only challenging the distribution of
the sensible throughout Brazil ( postcolonial perceptions and understanding of their reality) but to
also question the traditional structure of cinematographic art as well.

Whilst art may not be inherently political, there is elements of political involvement in many art
mediums. Ranciere’s key concept of the disruption of the distribution of the sensible allows us to
break down the ways in which the arts have their own political value. For example, with graffiti and
the works of Banksy, the social commentary is clear through its message. However, the presence of
graffiti in many places is still looked down on which makes the population question what is seen,
heard and understood about our perceptions of reality. I believe in a discussion with Ranciere, the
topic of graffiti would lead to a thorough analysis of what exactly constitutes as art and then
analysing the definition in terms of its relation to politics which in Ranciere’s terms, broadly refers to
our understanding of our society. Furthermore whilst politics in cinema does not always necessarily
provide a call to action in resolving political issues, it still plays a significant role in depicting the way
‘something in common leads itself to participation and (how) individuals have a part in (its)
distribution (of the sensible).’ (Ranciere, 2004) I find Cinema Novo and its multifaceted impacts
throughout Brazilian society demonstrates this idea clearly. Moreover, we can see these effects still
in play today.

Aesthetics is a concept I find, that bleeds into our existence more often than one might think and just
as politics does the same, there is no denying the cross section where these two concepts meet.
Bibliography
Anon., 2013. Diagonal Thoughts. [Online]
Available at: https://www.diagonalthoughts.com/?p=1961
[Accessed 2 April 2023].

Banksy, 2008. One Nation Under CCTV. [Art].

Buchanan, I., 2006. Ranciere and the politcs of art: against instrumentalism. Journal of the
Thepretical Humanities , Volume 11(1), p. 137.

Gallery, E., 2021. What is Graffit Art?. [Online]

Glauber Rocha, J. D., 1980. History of Cinema Novo. Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media,
Volume 12, pp. 19-27.

Green, J. N., 2021. Brazil: Five Centuries. [Online]

Jon Davis, G. R., 1980. History of Cinema Novo. Framework: The Journal of Cinema Novo, Volume 12,
pp. 19-27.

N., J., 2021. Brazil: Five Centuries of Change. [Online]

Ranciere, J., 2004. In: The Politics of Aesthetics . s.l.:Continuum, p. 12.

Ranciere, J., 2014. The Intervals of Cinema. (trans. J.Howe) ed. London: Verso.

White, A., 2018. Smithsonian. [Online]