Every artistic expression is either influenced by or adds
The words of Dario Fo — “Every artistic expression is either influenced by or adds something to politics” — shine like a torch upon the hidden truth of creation. For art does not dwell in isolation, floating untouched by the world. It is born of human struggle, of triumph and sorrow, and thus cannot help but breathe the air of politics, where the fate of the people is decided. Whether in protest, in celebration, or in silence, art always speaks to the structures of power.
In ancient days, the bards who sang of kings did not merely entertain; they preserved memory, shaped reputation, and guided the hearts of tribes. Homer’s verses were not only poetry, but a binding force for the Greek spirit, teaching men what it meant to be heroic or dishonorable. Here we see that artistic expression has forever been entwined with the destiny of nations, for it molds the values by which rulers govern and by which the people rise or fall.
History offers us fierce reminders. When Pablo Picasso painted Guernica, he did not merely record lines and colors; he cast before the world a mirror of war’s savagery. His canvas, drenched in anguish, became a weapon sharper than steel, condemning the cruelty of fascist bombings. Thus, his brush added to politics a cry so thunderous it still reverberates across ages, warning mankind of the cost of tyranny.
Yet it is not only protest that binds art to politics. Even a festival mask, a folk tale, a song sung at harvest, carries within it the voice of the people — affirming their identity, resisting their erasure, reminding rulers that power without culture is hollow. Dario Fo himself, through his plays, wielded laughter as a spear, stripping the mighty of their false dignity and giving courage to the oppressed. His art did not exist apart from politics; it was a battlefield where truth met lies.
Let the young and the old alike remember this teaching: art is never neutral. To sing, to paint, to carve, to dance — these are not acts apart from life but acts that shape it. Artistic expression is both shield and sword, both witness and judge. It reveals the soul of a people and challenges the decrees of kings. And so, as Fo proclaimed, every act of creation is also an act of power.
CLThi Ngoc Chau Le
This quote brings up an interesting point about the role of art in political movements. Many artists have used their work to challenge the status quo, from literature to visual arts. But do we risk limiting the purpose of art if we always tie it back to politics? Is it possible for art to stand on its own, purely as a form of expression, or does it always have to be part of the political conversation?
TMVu Tra My
I find Fo’s perspective on art and politics both inspiring and challenging. It makes me wonder if art, in its many forms, has the potential to create meaningful political change, or if it simply reflects societal conditions without actively influencing them. Can art really change the political landscape, or is it always a reflection of the politics that already exist in a given society?
MNTo Minh Nguyet
Fo’s statement is powerful because it highlights the responsibility of artists in shaping or responding to political issues. But here’s my question: can art ever be truly apolitical, or is it simply a matter of perspective? Some might argue that certain art forms or genres are just about aesthetics, not politics. So, when does art cross the line from personal expression to political statement? Where do we draw the line?
GTNguyen Ly Gia Thien
I agree with Fo's idea that art is influenced by or adds to politics, but it also makes me wonder—does this apply to all forms of art equally? For example, can abstract art or more personal, introspective pieces be removed from political influence? Or do we see political undertones in even the most apolitical works because of the world in which they are created? Is it possible for art to exist outside this dynamic?
PAPhuong Anhh
Fo’s quote really makes me think about how art and politics are often intertwined. Whether through protest, satire, or simply reflecting societal issues, art seems to always have an underlying connection to the political world. But does this mean that all art is inherently political? Can art be purely about personal expression without touching on any political themes, or does every piece have some level of influence or commentary on the world around it?