Politics should not enter the classroom…but is there a justification for its presence in art? Why is it that some people are so afraid to discuss politics in an open forum, but are not afraid to talk about Seinfeld or Harry Potter?
My answer to these questions is that many people have very strong political views. Yes, people could love Seinfeld or hate Seinfeld, and the same could be said about of Harry Potter; however, these pieces of art and the messages they send don’t affect our everyday lives. Politics does.
Nowadays, people are quick to associate themselves with either liberals or conservatives, and want to be part of a group of extremists. Although in reality many of them are probably moderates, it’s not “the cool thing to be.” Personally, I think it’s crazy. Regardless of your political views on abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, it must be recognized that there are shady areas – issues are not always black and white.
I believe the artist has a duty to expose these shady areas, since they are often difficult to explain in words. Take the issue of gay marriage for example. Whether or not you think that gay marriage should be legalized, you could still agree that a photograph showing the happiness experienced by a same sex couple on their wedding day would be a very strong argument for the legalization of gay marriage. On the same token, a video depicting the horrors experienced by a girl who became pregnant against her will, could convince lawmakers to allow abortion in their states.
Many people turn to art to escape their real world problems. When I go to a movie, I’m looking for a laugh or a movie that renews my hope of a happy every after. Although some people may have been amused by Fahrenheit 9/11, others would view it as an attack on the government and would have been frustrated at Bush’s alleged involvement in the terrorist attacks. The majority of Americans (those who haven’t taken Arts in New York City) tend to view art as simply entertaining and beautiful. They don’t understand that art could have a purpose, much less a political purpose.
Additionally, art is universal. In order to read the newspaper, one must be literate, and most people who read the newspaper are well educated. Although the political views of the readers may differ from those of the writers, they are educated enough to be able to pick out the writer’s biases and accept a difference in opinion. I am not undermining the complexity of art, nor the abilities needed to interpret it. On the flip side, I believe the reason for the controversy caused by political messages found in art is a result of the inability of viewers to understand the art on enough levels. An ordinary person walking the street may only notice the artist’s view on the issue, but he or she needs to be able to look to deeper into the art to understand the artist’s message about the world in order to fully appreciate it.
The artist’s political role in society is his most controversial role because people tend to forget the politics is important in everything we do. Political figures establish and enforce the laws governing society. Artists have a right and an obligation to expose the political problems of society. Sure people look to art as an escape, but I believe everything in life must be a learning experience. Not necessarily textbook learning, but rather learning about the world we live in through art.
