I was surprised to find yet another conversation about the Rodarte makeup line for MAC on MetaFilter this morning, some two weeks after the controversy began.
This discussion on MetaFilter is mostly more of the same: the policing of art with a variety of interchangeable though not always compatible standards. For example, commercial art must be X, art for women must be Y, art about cities in developing countries must be Z, etc.
Which prompted me to wonder: if one common standard for “politically conscious” critiques of art is whether the work introduces a difficult topic to mass media, hasn’t the Rodarte makeup line, facile and shallow as it was intended to be, been more “successful” than the Lourdes Portillo documentary, deep and thought-provoking as it is and was intended to be?
According to Google, there are currently 32,600 results for “lourdes portillo juarez” versus 281,000 results for “rodarte juarez.”
Personally, I don’t believe art should be judged by its political consequences. Political acts should be judged by their impact. Likewise, art that is, in essence, a political gesture should be judged by its political impact. As for the Rodarte makeup line, here’s an excerpt of my comment on MetaFilter:
I don’t care for the Rodarte fashion. It’s purposely dark and creepy. That’s what they do. Should I be outraged by their aesthetic in general or only when it invokes a reference that is mainstream?
…What are appropriate topics for fashion? Are they different than topics appropriate for art? Why?
…Or, simply: fashion is a superficial art form. On purpose. If your critique of fashion is that fashion is superficial, it may be your observation that is shallow and lazy.