CNN recently published a story called “Artists tackle ‘man vs nature’ debate”. The story covers an art show in London that was designed to approach environmental activism from an artistic standpoint (as opposed in some ways to political, academic, or other more traditional activism. It isn’t a new idea, but it is an important one. Approaching environmental activism from a place that is positive, inspirational, and unique (as opposed to being dire, depressing, and repetitious like many environmental debates are these days). In terms of activism however, this approach is not without its problems. For those without art training, those who are relatively unexposed to art, or those who are unwilling to address the art in the manner the artist intended, much of what is going on in the pieces, and the show more generally, may be lost. This is especially true in cases wherein the message and/or medium is relatively abstract. This all begs the question: “What must art ‘be’ to be politically efficacious?” Does making a simpler piece with wider audience comprehension somehow betray the value of the piece as “art”, or devalue it politically? Take a peek at the reader comments for some insight into the debate.