Preaching to the choir

I was particularly intrigued by this story about an art show in Iran.

The whole article is worth a read for what it says about art as political reaction, but what really interests me is how this gallery showing is getting international press, while being virtually ignored by the people who actually could be going to see it.

"'Look, these cartoons are the reflections of U.S. and Israelis'’ deeds, but wouldn'’t it have been better if they were put on display in the U.S. or even in Israel?' said Ali Eezadi, 70, a retired industrial engineer who visited the gallery Thursday afternoon."

To me, this is the constant struggle for the political artist: how to craft your statement in a way that is truly subversive. Creating art that advocates a particular political statement, and then placing it someplace where only people who already agree with your statement will see it, defeats the purpose. On the flip side, placing such art someplace where people don't agree with its statement will probably result in people either ignoring it as well. After all, if someone put on a play about how great white supremacy was, and staged it in the Mission District of San Francisco, I don't think it'd get a huge audience. Protesters, maybe, but not audience. People would react to the news that it existed, but not actually approach the art in a way that would allow for an actual dialogue.

As artists, how can we create art that allows all parties to come to the table and actually think about ideas in a new way, without increasing polarization... or just being irrelevant?