Artivism between Critique, Risk of Commodification and Visibility In Turbulent Times

Artivism (art + activism) is often praised for raising awareness and creating alternative political narratives, but it has also been subject to several sociological critiques. Artivism may generate visibility and discussion without producing concrete political or institutional change. Critics argue that symbolic resistance can be mistaken for activism. A second issue is that Artivism is often object of co-optation by institutions: often absorbed by museums, galleries, universities, corporations, or governments. Once institutionalized, its critical edge may be weakened or transformed into cultural capital. A second issue is that Artivist works often reach audiences who already share similar political views and limit its ability to influence broader publics or opponents. Thirdly, the risk of commodification: even protest-oriented art can become a marketable product (see Banksy, Pussy Riot, etc.). Critical theorists argue that dissent can easily be turned into a consumer experience. A fourth issue is the question of representation: Who gets to speak for marginalized communities? Artivists may unintentionally reproduce power inequalities by representing rather than enabling self-representation. A fifth issue the risk of aestheticization of suffering: can transforming social problems into artistic objects make suffering appear beautiful, distant, or consumable rather than politically urgent?

Starting from these considerations the session aims to discuss on potential critique of artivism and its risks in turbulent times