An Aesthetic Thought Experiment: The Art of Politics

 For the sake of discussion, let's perform a short easy thought experiment by creating a set of given assumptions.

First let's assume Picasso's Guernica is an ideal example of political art that represents the most compelling argument against war.

And, virtue signaling aside, let's all agree that war is so bad that the argument is sufficient to change a person's mind.

And, at least by contemporary standards, it is a example of great art by a recognized great artist.

The thought experiment is this.  Can you name a single potential war that was stopped because humanity reveres this painting?

What about violent conflicts?  Anything come to mind?

Now if you've gotten this far and you still can't think of anything significant and true, the question becomes what if the painting was not an abstract image but just the words 'Stop War'?

Here it's a bit more speculative. Do you think that message, clear as day, would stop an act of violence anywhere in the world?

Okay.  My guess is that most everyone arrives with the same answer, The painting And the slogan are equally ineffective.

So maybe the problem is the quantity of such work. Would 10 high quality artworks with the same message work in stopping a war, a conflict, a fight, or even an argument?

100?

What if we displayed a whole museum's worth of work dedicated to ending war?  Would that do it?

Will this thought experiment convince even one art curator to restrain themselves from curating art that promotes political identity and social engineering issues?

What argument justifies this co-option of precious art resources in the service of propaganda?