This essay by Ben Davis on the role and impact of ‘social practice’ art is concluded by him saying ‘raises questions that it cannot by itself answer.’ That I wholly agree with. But I think that it should be classified as art without the guise or association to activism. It also should not try so hard to distinct itself from capitalism, even though it is a driving factor for the art form, for the pure reason that it is realistically impossible.

‘If I was an artist, he said, why didn’t I come up with some kind of creative solution to issues instead of just telling people like him what they already knew.’
I find this statement debatable. I believe the current examples of ‘social practice’ art in our world, serves the main purpose of art – to influence discourse on a certain topic and to act as a representation of an issue. With all the other non-profit efforts and actual movements that currently exist, ‘social practice”s goal should not be to compete and take center stage as a new form of activism, but instead act as a statement and work hand-in-hand with an organisation that has an actual solution. A very intriguing critique on this form of art is if this is ‘a starting point for addressing social problems, or a distraction that keeps us from seeing their true extent?’ That is a point that artists who proclaim themselves as ‘political artists’ or ‘social artist’ should take in consideration. In trying to do both ‘social good’ and achieve ‘aesthetics’, the latter tends to overshadow the former and the result may become contradictory.

‘Art has a variety of functions for today’s ruling class—and these include many that have little to do with raw profit. In fact, one classical function of art is precisely to allow robber barons and rapacious corporations to symbolically associate themselves with something that distances them from their own ideology, allowing them to put on a good face.’
The principles of art and activism is almost parallel to the workings of capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that art should try to exist outside of capitalism for there is no such thing. Instead it should learn to thrive and even ‘profit’ off the capital-driven society (I know, the irony). The essay points out the weaknesses of non-profit focused activism, which could threaten its impact – ‘Having to lower one’s rhetoric in order to please donors, mopping up the symptoms of social problems instead of going after the disease itself, and, ultimately, reducing the vital work of political organizing to a symbolic gesture’. It would think it happens more often than not. The gesture of ‘deliberately removing itself from commerce and making outwardly avowed political solidarity’ shows the idealism and narcissism of artists. Our roles simply cannot affect or change the way a capitalist society functions. Having a more nuanced view of this, may help artists achieve more clarity in their efforts to help with societal issues.

Art itself serves as a strong influence, and the trend of ‘activism art’ or ’social practice art’ may be critiqued to ensure artists do not lose sight of what is important – to serve a greater good for the community instead of alleviating their personal sense of contribution – but it should not be belittled or neglected.