When the artist acts as a political activist or in such a manner, h or she is being critical of a regime or a certain higher power above them. Of course this is controversial, often times people don’t want to hear the truth, or the facts presented do not seem correct in the eyes of certain people. Everyone views the world through their own lens, with personal experience giving each person his or her own individual opinions. Most people consequently try to associate with others who share the same viewpoints. Then when an outsider, lets call him our artist commenting on politics, shatters the fragile bubble of similar viewpoints, the inhabitants of the bubble become upset. This is how controversy arises and why political artists always have the spotlight on themselves.
Furthermore, people simple get angry when artists attempt to make politically privy statements. We think of art as a means of expressing beautiful things and inspiring people in an objective and constructive way. Artists with political power seem like… propagandists. Not that they don’t have the right to of course. Inherently I think some people feel as though artists with no profession training in politics can accurately portray facts, nor should they. Often times they come across as too persuasive or biased. To put it simply, who wants anyone, artists especially, (not to discredit their artistic talent) to push their opinions (right or left), on the masses. I sure don’t. Wait, isn’t that what Leni Riefenstahl did under the Nazi regime?
Sometimes it isn’t even the facts that people upset. Sometimes it’s the delivery as well as the person. I guess some artists have a natural look about them that makes you wonder if they’re trying to screw you or pull a fast one. Then they put out a work of art: half the viewers love it like there’s no tomorrow and half the viewers hate it. Now isn’t there something wrong with this picture. What about Rodney Kings, “Why can’t we all just get along?” These political works of art are not informing people; they’re being divisive. They incite argument that pitts one side against another. Granted, in most cases this is a good thing. Argument equals democracy. Total agreement equals tyranny. Unfortunately though, arguments based on small snippets of art leave people misinformed, angry and judgmental. Any seemingly non political work of art that sparks scholarly debate does so in a subtle way. The rest though, are like billboard advertisements with bright colors that hypnotize the sheeple. And boy, everyone seems to be running to the store.
