As a writer, and a former college professor, I've often found myself in debates--many of them heated--about the role of politics in art. I've always been uncomfortable with art that tips political themes into the realm of propaganda, but I also find the argument that almost all art is (in some sense) political very compelling.

I'm not sure what to think of watercolor artist Tim Hinton's "Obama paintings." Over the weekend, we recieved a press release about the artist's most recent work, which depicts the presidential candidate before the backdrop of the American flag, and I've been thinking about them all morning. They're striking paintings and they most certainly have artistic merit, but I wonder what the presence of a political message does to their meaning and value as works of art.

From the press release: "Love or hate the politics of Barack Obama, the man has enraptured the American people and moved the world to closely watch as America is precipitously poised on the eve of history. Only Tim Hinton has captured the soul of the man, the presence of the man, the heart of all America stands for: unyielding faith in the face of unrelenting circumstances."

Loving or hating a painting's subject seems (to me) somewhat besides the point as a viewer. And I'd hate to think of my favorite paintings becoming subject to similar standards of evaluation. Imagine how polarized and stratified our galleries and museums would become if collections were determined entirely by the meaning of the subjects in the curators' lives.

Incidentally, I hunted for "McCain paintings" in the interest of affecting the appearance of political balance on the blog, but the closest thing I could find was a handcrafted model of the fighter jet he flew in the war. Feel free to send links to portraits of the republican candidate our way if you have any.

(Note on the images: I was unable to pull images of Hinton's paintings from his site, nor were any included in the press release; for that reason, I've included an image of the flag, an image of the artist and an image of Obama from the web.)

Perhaps the recent swell of controversy surrounding the Democratic primaries has cast a light on the question of the persistence of sexism in the US and beyond, or perhaps it's just a good time to talk about these issues, but there has been quite a lot of chatter (online and elsewhere) on the matter. People are asking some good questions. For example, What precisely does the fact that women are still under-represented in major museums mean?

This short piece in The Guardian's Art & Architecture Blog argues that women's struggle in the arts is far from over. And just last year, Jerry Saltz wondered "Where Are All The Women?" By his estimation, only 8% of the artists represented in the new MoMA were women. No matter the occasion for the conversation, it seems inevitably to spark frustration, even among those who feel as though they do their part to promote women artists.

By now, you've probably heard that Lucien Freud's portrait of Sue Tilley, Benefits Supervisor Sleeping (at right), has sold for £17.2 million, making Freud the highest payed living artist in history. But have you been keeping up with the subsequent chatter?

• Kira Cochrane riffs on Freud's relationship to his muse at The Guardian: "Down the ages, the role of artist has almost always been taken by a man, the role of muse by a woman, and in this relationship we have seen the clearest, most delineated understanding of man as active, powerful subject, and woman as passive, benumbed, decorative object."
• And Annika Mengisen asks, "What does $33.6 million mean in the art world?" at The New York Times: "Does this symbolize a thriving art market, is it a happy exception, or is it even worth the price? According to one estimate, the money paid for the painting could have paid for 20 minutes of America’s gasoline consumption."
• See what artists are saying at Art News about the size of the model, the merit of arguably "ugly" images in our arguably "ugly" world and concepts of truth and beauty in contemporary art.
  

SARS No. 5 (mixed media on paper, 30x42) by He Hong Wei

Chinese arist He Hong Wei was scheduled to exhibit Hometown, a series of paintings inspired by the SARS Crisis, at the Oc-Eo Gallery in London, when an earthquake devastated parts of China's Sichuan Province. In response to the tragedy, the artist has decided to sell the paintings and dedicate 100 percent of the proceeds to disaster relief. Peter Quintana of Oc-Eo remarks of the five donated paintings, that they were "painted by He Hong Wei at the time of the Asian SARS Crisis. They have won accolades in Beijing and are of great personal significance to the artist. Together and individually, they are an astonishingly emotional statement of the frailty of humankind faced with natural disaster and loss." Visit Oc-Eo for more details. Visit Alive not Dead for more information on other art-related disaster relief efforts.