When I began thinking about this topic of an “artist as a political voice”, the first thing I was curious about was what other people had to say about an “artist” and his or her role. These are some opinions I found:
“My role in society, or any artist’s or poet’s role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.”
-John Lennon
“If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.”
-John F. Kennedy
“The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all over the place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap of paper, from a passing shape, from a spider’s web.”
-Pablo Picasso
What I extracted from these opinions on “the artist” is that artists create from what they know, from what they see around them. They are inspired voices, reflectors of life and society through creative means. The concept of freedom of an artist intrigues me and is pertinent to this topic. We speak about this idea a lot in class. I personally find it really important. Would art still be art if it were censored? Would it still have its dually beautiful, yet confounding nature if artists consistently obeyed the burdensome voices of society and government, telling them what is right and what is wrong; what is art and what is not? With these restrictions, would we have the famous art pieces of our time, from artist like Picasso and Michael Moore? Yet, there is also the idea that even though an artist should not be restrained, and be able to convey an opinion, the artist, as John Lennon said, should not be a “preacher” either. But where is this line drawn. I honestly don’t know. The topic is really a maze of an issue. This could be why the artist as a political voice is so controversial, just on a simple level; there are so many definitions of an artist. Sometimes when an artist does something that does not fit people’s fixed criteria it can cause confusion, and resentment.
Even though, art has a huge spectrum of ventures with in its description, I mainly want to focus on film. I guess because this semester in this seminar, and in English as well, we have really focused on film in ways I have never focused before. This examination has made me think about every movie I watch with a new perspective. I think about the man behind the lens, the creator of the masterpiece. Where this film truly comes from. Film is also an insanely popular medium that really reaches every different kind of person out there.
This thought process somehow led me to watching Oscar acceptance speeches. I guess this was because it is an opportunity to see an artist’s overall personal thoughts on a role or a film. I am not entirely sure where the idea came from honestly, and that folks, is the power of YouTube stalking.
I was watching the acceptance speeches for Schindler’s List, a movie about a man, named Oscar Schindler, who saved many Jews during the Holocaust. From director Steven Spielberg’s acceptance speeches, it seemed to me that a main reason he made this movie was to keep the memory of those who died in the war alive. He interviewed many survivors for the film, and in his speech he urges educators to take advantage for these survivors and teach their stories in schools. Teach so that they remember. Spielberg’s goal in making this movie was to keep a legacy of those victims, dead or alive, in people’s minds.
This opinion is not so loud. Yet, it is there, and it was extremely influential in American Society.
While watching the acceptance speech, of Dustin Lance Black, the screenwriter of Milk, a movie about gay activist, Harvey Milk, I was moved. He said that when he heard the story of Harvey Milk growing up, it gave him hope for a world with equal rights and equality. He told the gay teenagers in America that soon, there will be equal rights. This movie could be seen as just a biopic, but the fact that this movie’s subject is a controversial topic in American politics today, automatically makes the movie more taboo. The artist who made this movie was clearly making a statement about hope for the gay community to soon gain equal federal rights.
These too movies both have strong messages, yet one artist may seem controversial while the other may not.
What I found was that even movies that are not outwardly political, and don’t have an opinion flashing in bright red lights, can still have an opinion and a voice. It made me realize that the majority of movies have some sort of political message just most of them are not completely in your face. Every moviemaker has a point he is trying to get across. Every artist cannot help but put their own perspective in their own. That is what makes a specific piece unique. Having an opinion makes someone an individual.
It is interesting to think of this in term of controversy with an artist’s political voice. The movies that seem to get the most flack are the ones that are most in your face. Yet, other artists are expressing their opinions as well, certain people just make it more evident. If someone thinks an artist should not state his own personal views, then, to me, this is basically saying that no art should be created.
Even with all this, I do not think that art can be exclusively defined as “a political voice.” I do not like the idea of placing art into a single box. I think art is much broader and deeper than just that title.
Susan Sontag makes an interesting point about the matter: “Making social comment is an artificial place for an artist to start from. If an artist is touched by some social condition, what the artist creates will reflect that, but you can’t force it”
Of course there will always be exceptions, but I really do believe that a political commentary is not solely what an artist should strive for. Art to me is a labyrinth of possibilities, of artistic and creative expression that does not simply end in political commentary.
Quotations: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/artist.html
