There is something base about them, something contrived. Former New Yorker art critic Harold Rosenberg said that the opinions of painters do not decide elections, and, as a political tool, painting in this century has been meaningless.
Painting is something altogether finer than oppression, deceit, gunpowder and fabrication.
People with money and property have long felt it their God-given right to wield power over artists, which is something akin to slavery, and is the very reason I believe that as with the separation of church and state, so should it be with painting and politics. The most noteworthy example of modern political painting is Picasso's Guernica . They wanted to acquire it. Perhaps, but only in recompense, for already the horrors had been committed. No, the single most effective political message Picasso ever sent was not in Guernica or in any other of his works, it was when he left his homeland to live in France.