It’s easy to have a civil conversation about many things- sports, art, what you did last weekend, or what happened this week on “The Jersey Shore”. Two friends can talk about all of these things, and more, without getting angry or upset. They may get loud and even speak negatively of each other’s opinions, but usually in a comical manner. There is one thing, however, that even the best of friends often cannot speak about civilly: politics. Yelling, name calling, and noises of contempt can quickly ensue when politics are brought up. “Conservatives” and “liberals” alike often find the other side utterly ridiculous and feel incapable of respecting the intelligence of opposing ideas. The topic gets so heated that it is considered taboo among many groups. “Lets not talk about politics” is heard at social gatherings all over the country in attempts to avoid conflict and maintain a friendly atmosphere. People’s political views, and more specifically who they voted for in a given election, are at times seen as one of the most personal aspects of their lives.
Like politics, art can invoke strong responses. It is closely tied to emotion and can have strong messages. When you combine emotion with strong views, controversy is inevitable. The strength of people’s feelings about a particular political issue can easily be intensified by their emotional response to the art. Because of it’s emotional effect, a person who agrees with the art’s message will respond with extreme positiveness while a person who disagrees with it might feel offended. The result will be mass reproduction, a campaign to ban and burn the artwork, or both.
The fact that political art causes such a strong and controversial response also adds to the controversy. Some believe that because it effects the viewer so profoundly it should not be allowed. It is seen as unfair and irresponsibly influential. People, especially young people, are unlikely to be effected by, or even watch, a speech or plain statement of fact. Art, on the other hand, has mass appeal and influence. An old man in a suit does not appeal to the common person, but a singer in a rock band or an image on a big screen does. Art that spins facts or insinuates falsities is more likely to change or strengthen a person’s opinion than is a straight statement of what is or how a politician views a given issue.
For this reason, some people think politics should be outside of the artists realm. “Is it really fair for an artist to advance his bias in a distorted manner which others do not have the naturally ability to match?” a person of such a belief might ask. I don’t know if it is fair, but it is hard to say that the artist does not have the right to express his opinion. There right to free speech and expression does not stop at art, and there is no law stating that people must be fair and responsible in how they state there views.
