"Every artistic expression is either influenced by or adds something to politics"

Art does not exist in a vacuum; it is continually molded by the sociopolitical climate in which it arises. Every creative act, from painting and theater to literature and music, carries the imprint of its time, subtly or overtly reflecting the power structures, tensions, and ideologies at play. When Dario Fo asserts that all artistic expression is either influenced by or contributes to politics, he emphasizes the inextricable link between art and the dynamics of societal power.

Artists, even when pursuing intensely personal themes, cannot help but be influenced by the environment around them. The very act of choosing what to express, which form or style to adopt, often stems from prevailing cultural norms and debates. For example, Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica” dramatically rendered the horrors of war, becoming an artistic cry against fascism. Even less direct expressions, abstract art, for instance, can challenge conceptions of beauty, order, and value, thereby engaging with cultural narratives shaped by political forces.

Conversely, art can shape political discourse. A novel, a song, or a play may ignite conversations, inspire collective action, or critique established authority. Satire, parody, and allegory have long been tools for artists to question, resist, or upend official accounts. The symbolism within artistic work often helps marginalized voices gain a platform and fosters empathy among broader audiences. As these works circulate, they subtly or overtly recalibrate societal and political understanding.

Thus, artistic expression serves as both mirror and lamp: reflecting the context from which it emerges and illuminating new ways of seeing the world. Whether by reinforcing dominant narratives or challenging them, art leaves an indelible mark on political consciousness. The interplay is inevitable and dynamic, ensuring that no artistic act is ever truly apolitical, whether by design or by default.