In the last paragraph of Talking Politics 2008, Martinez poses these questions to spur thinking on the premise of political action through art. His highlighted piece at the bottom of the page drew me in, specifically through its name: "It's just a little headache, it's just a little bruise/redemption of the flesh/The politics of the future as urgent as the blue sky." The piece itself, when I looked for a closer and clearer image, was mentally disturbing and almost difficult to look at. This-I think- is a hallmark and one of the most vital characteristics of politically motivated art.
The importance of the inherent aestheticism of artwork is discussed at length through this article's round-table discussion. Adel Abidin remarked that "Art is based on aesthetics and you can never ignore that", while the artist Enrique Chagoya states that "...strong aesthetics make stronger political content and make the work more engaging, but that aspect may render it fragile because it very easily becomes a commodity."
I find myself resonating a great deal with the statement made by Chagoya, that aesthetics are integral to art, but too heavy a reliance on them create a superficiality to the work that takes away what is meant to be the deeper meaning. A roughness, a rawness to pieces of art, ones that even disturb the viewer, are more powerful in conveying meaning than the aesthetically pleasing works. An adherence to societal standards of beauty would be comforting to a viewer, and this sense of comfort does not foster a sense of questioning and uncertainty, and therefore is not the goal of this type of art.