Art is politics.

Whenever an artist attempts to display politics in his or her piece, it almost always shows the artist’s bias and opinion.  Whether we think that politics has a place in art or not, it is the artist’s choice to include whatever point of view they choose.

The New York Foundation for the Arts conducted an online poll in June 2004 concerning people’s attitudes about politics in art.  It was found that out of about three thousand people, 69% voted that political art is boring 4% thought “politics should be kept out of art,” and 27% appreciated “political art.”

If we think back to the role of art in society, other than as purely entertainment, many artists such as Michael Angelo and Diego Rivera used art to express their opinions about politics.  Sometimes the artists who were funded by the wealthy, the church, and leaders were paid to make the politicians appear in a good light, using a point of view that may or may not be the same as the artist’s.

Now, many artists have an extreme freedom in what they say, do, or show because times have changed dramatically.  In times past, the artists might have been censored if they showed the leaders in a negative light, but now, many artists go against the grain, without punishment.

Sometimes when an artist tries to create an unbiased piece of art such as a documentary with no opinion, it can become very boring.  My high school Spanish teacher would always say that she “loves controversy” and she would always show us paintings by Hispanic artists and make us debate, in Spanish of course, whether or not we agree with the artist.

However, if there is one thing that I learned from The Arts in New York City it is that artists really don’t give a shit whether we agree with them or not.  Art is their form of expression.  Artists use their artwork as a way to express themselves, whether they are expressing a time in their lives (like Ralph Lemon), their religious point of views, their social views (like Andy Warhol), or their political views.

One of the most extreme forms of the artist as a political voice is in the move Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore.  Moore incorporates his point of view into the entertaining documentary, but doesn’t state it blatantly in a rude or cunning manner.  He uses sarcasm, humor, and other mechanisms to get his point across.  At the end of the movie, whether we agree with him or whether we do not agree with him, does not change his point of view.  I am sure that there are many people out there who completely disagree with Moore’s views, but he still owns the number one documentary, which is really impressive.

Moore, like all other artists, use their art pieces as a form of expression of themselves.  We are attracted to certain artists because we disagree or agree with them and these strong feelings that the art evokes from within us makes us enjoy art.

All art requires courage.  ~Anne Tucker

Fahrenheit 9/11, a 2004 documentary written by filmmaker and political commentator, Michael Moore, examines the presidency of George W. Bush and the War on Terror. The film expresses a straightforward POV against the Bush administration and uses certain imagery and film techniques to substantiate it.

Watching the film is like practically throwing yourself into a barrage of satire. It is structured in a way so that Moore is surreptitiously making a mockery of Bush, showing footage after footage of his ugliest moments juxtaposed with hilarious music; Moore is challenging the public to think twice about their elected president.

The introduction to the film features a celebratory clip of the Florida election—the election that decided the victor, in which either Al Gore or George Bush would become president and potentially avert or lead the nation into its impending crisis. Moore’s narration to the clip appears delusional, referencing Ben Affleck and the Taxi Driver guy to exemplify the dream-like situation. This is precisely the attitude in which he is addressing Bush’s election. The whole presidency was a mistake on Fox News’ behalf and many are skeptical of the fairness of the results.

Allusions to celebrities, as seen in the introduction, are used quite frequently to diminish the public’s opinion of Bush. Popular pop icon, Britney Spears was interviewed, and Moore had specifically chosen to use the clip to indicate that Bush supporters are very much like the “dumb” carefree celebrity. The incessant cow-like gum chewing only helped to destroy both Britney’s and Bush’s images. This clip in particular was a clever choice; Moore made an attack against Bush without actually targeting him or his political decisions.

The effectiveness of the film in defacing Bush was made possible by Moore’s blunt honesty and good sense of humor [not to mention his music choices]. The information presented in the film was easier to digest, especially the emotion filled tragedies, because of satire and the comical arrangement of clips—Moore had invoked something in the public eyes, and had shown them a lame duck president. It is only normal that the fault would be directly toward the president who had gone on vacation.

In terms of narrative choices, Moore had opted to portray his opinions alongside the ugly sides of the war, which ensued as a result of Bush’s carelessness and self-centered approach toward the war. The film invoked logos, ethos, pathos in which everything Moore spoke about was fact and all the issues he brought up were issues of the general public’s concern. Moore managed to persuade many and perhaps influence a few people into anti-Bush sentiments by unveiling the aftermath of the war, such as the tombstones, the loss family members, and the injured children.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I am not deeply involved in politics, and I do not think I ever will be. I feel unusually apathetic and distanced to most political issues and I have little initiative in trying to understand them. Before watching this film I felt indifferent towards Bush, although I had heard plenty of things about him and read a few articles in the Times, I for one, had no solid reason to hate him. After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I had unintentionally grown more and more angry and burdened by Bush’s incompetence. I know better than to let one film influence my opinions about our president but sometimes one film is all it takes to make you hate someone, especially if it’s a damn good one.

[Fahrenheit 9/11 is the highest grossing documentary of all time]

The role of the artist as a political voice and activist is one that even I’m a little unsure of.  When an artist presents a work that takes on a political stance, it’s made with an agenda: to make money, and to convince the viewer of the artist’s beliefs.  The problem with that is the viewer might be completely against the opinions being presented.  For example, in the movie I saw recently, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore played the part of a political voice, as he used satire, juxtaposition and other techniques to criticize George W. Bush’s presidency.  While all the information he presented was true, it was also put together in a way to make the former president look like a complete idiot.  The film was structured so that you couldn’t see Bush as anything other than a lucky fool who managed to become president and mess up the country’s response to 9/11.

So the role of an artist as a political voice is one that is full of controversy.  One of those reasons comes from the fact that often times artist’s work gets criticized heavily.  If people believe that the material is offensive they want it banned; or if the film is being funded by a certaion company they might drop it.  This was the case with Fahrenheit 9/11, the film was supposed to be financed by Miramax Films, but its parent company, Disney required Miramax to drop the film.  The reason this was an issue was because the opinion being put forth by Michael Moore was too outright, with no room for disagreement.

Artists should have the ability to present their work and their opinion without issues and controversy.  It’s not the artist’s problem if the viewer disagrees with the views, the viewer has the ability to get up and stop watching.  (It’s not like the artist is tying you to the chair, taping your eyelids open and forcing you to watch their work, because if that were the case there is something really wrong with that artist…)  And its up to the viewer to decide if they agree with the artist’s opinion or not.  The knowledgeable viewer, who has his or her own opinion on a particular topic knows better than to take a film at face value and be swayed easily; while a person who is not well versed and well read on a subject will be easily influenced.  An artist’s job is not to educate, so one should not expect an unbiased work, an artist expresses what he or she sees and feels.  So if an artist feels that our former President is an idiot, or believes that the government is corrupt, etc, then he or she should be able to say so.  Whether you choose to believe them or not is entirely your own decision.

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.

Every human usually has a functioning brain. Every human has a soul (if you believe in that). Every human has his/her own distinct personality. Every human lives in different environments and conditions. Every human, thus, is molded from every experience in his/her current lifetime into the current person that they are and with that is the person’s opinions. When a person has his/her own opinion then they would stand by it, listen to other people’s reasons, or ignore what everyone else has to say. When an idea is brought into the public which strikes their inner core then those people will react differently to that idea. Sometimes it is more than one idea that bombards the public. Or sometimes it’s the fact that they can’t find the idea in the artist’s work. Either way the artist’s work is in the open to interpretation.
Now when the artist becomes involved in politics it somehow strikes a deep nerve. Why? Well, maybe because politics govern our lives in a subtle manner? I guess that’s why people are rooted into politics in one way or another. When something has to deal with the way we live, it might have a deeper connection with the people and they people would want to stand for their ideals in order to have a better lifestyle, like religion. (I still question wonder about the idea of the separation of church and state because it seems to be irrelevant to most people even though it was essential. I don’t know what happened – people happened.) Anyway, when an artist puts his/her opinion pertaining to politics, it can become widespread. Take Poster Boy for example. He cuts up posters in MTA subways and creates political statements when he re-pastes different poster pieces together to create a new image. People become aware when artists expose political ideas in the open and sparks conversations. As we said in one of our earlier classes, every art piece is open to criticism because it becomes exposed.
Then politics affects everyone because it concerns the government. Every person has had to deal with the government in one way or another. Each person had his/her own experiences and  memories. Michael Moore cuts deep into the political and emotional wound of people affect by 9/11 when he created his documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. That was a politically and emotionally charged movie because it happened to document a terrorist attack on American soil and the political events that happened prior and will happen after the disaster. This obviously would open people’s eyes or make them angry – depends on their perspective of the government and the event.
Because the artists dip their feet into the field of politics, people may question why they do that. It’s fine to question actions – actually, it can be good. Anyway, there will be people who say that art is to express the artists feelings or to paint “pretty” things or to create pieces that are different and inspiring. There are people who like portraits of the past, but those pieces were politically charged. Why? There are hidden messages within the paintings. The artists embed their views and opinions onto their artworks without the notice of their subjects. That was the great art of finesse centuries ago. Even going toward the current time, a lot of art was political. People don’t always see it. Not everything can be seen with our sight. A person can look and not see. It happens. Also, people may feel that they relate to the piece or they reject. As stated before, people will react differently to the pieces: negatively, neutrally, or positively. This can easily spark conversations with other people or arguments. Every person is opinionated and will stand by their ideas unless they are open or persuaded. But there are a lot of stubborn people who can be ignorant. I know a good amount of people. Sometimes I can be ignorant myself until the other person is able to convince me. Afterwards, I would ask myself about the artwork.
Always the artist. They have different visions and ideas. Their expression should be free without limit or else it isn’t art. Having freedom of expression does have its limits because we can’t yell, “Bomb!” in a crowded area for the heck of it or for a political purpose because it can hurt or even kill people. Because they have the ability to get their opinions out, maybe that’s the reason why it’s controversial when it’s political. People themselves aren’t able to get their own opinions out as well as they do and they can strongly agree or disagree with the message.
I guess it’s the freedom the artist has with the artwork and expression that becomes controversial. Politics becomes embedded in it.

Individuality.

Good or Bad?

It’s Great! Right? It’s what makes us the people that we are. We all think for ourselves, don’t we? We’re all our own person right? In our society this individuality is valued. Mamet in Theatre describes how in a democracy this is what essentially makes the democracy. The individual is what makes up the democracy and this individuality allows us to decide for ourselves what we choose to accept or reject. Therefore we have many views about politics. We are free to hold a political position and no one can force us to change this political view or force us to explain to them why we view things the way we do.

Individuality leads to us all having our own personal views on everything. As a result there seems to be much disagreement when it comes to addressing political issues. Individuality can be somewhat problematic when it comes to politics. Because we all are such individuals and think for ourselves, we all have our own values, ideas, and beliefs. That’s why there seems to be so many disagreements when it comes to politics.This is why so many people would rather avoid the issue rather than deal with the confrontation that results from the differing opinions. There never is a right answer to an issue, and this is why people often disagree. It’s not like math, where there’s only one correct answer to an equation, it’s just not that easy. Everyone thinks that they are “right” and that’s why conversations often turn into disagreements.

The artist has a very important role of exposing the political issues to the public. Because most people would rather avoid the issues and pretend they’re not there so as to avoid confrontation, the artist has to expose the public to the issues that are avoided. It is their role to deal with these issues in a creative manner. The artist is able to address political issues indirectly, which allows them expose what’s normally avoided. The artist is able to make a political statement without ever really stating a position. They never directly state their opinions, and yet through their art work their views can be determined. This is in essence the very beauty of art in itself. Art can be entertaining, and yet it can also be influential.

The beautiful thing about art is that it allows us to be ourselves. Who then has the right to decide if the artist should or shouldn’t be allowed to create art that may reflect their political beliefs. Just because it may cause some controversy, does that take away from its artistic value?

Take for example the song Stand up by the Flobots, this band is known for the strong messages present in their lyrics. However before I knew this I honestly just really liked listening to the song because I just really liked the beat. I thought wow this song is really catchy. However after playing it on repeat over and over I finally started to actually listen to the lyrics and realized that they were quite powerful. …now what would happen if I didn’t agree with what was being said in the song, would that mean that I would then hate the song? Well it just so happens that I didn’t disagree with what was being said, but I wonder, if I did, would I not enjoy listening to this song again, even though at one point I played it on repeat over and over again because I liked the beat.

Hmmm, really makes you wonder, what’s more important, the art or the meaning behind the art? After thinking about all of these things, one can see why it is so difficult for the artist to take on a political voice.

There were these boys in my high school who thought they knew it all and that they were so informed about the issue of politics.  I even remember when one of them tried to debate with our principal about Democrats and Republicans during the senior breakfast!  The point is, whenever I heard these boys talking about politics, I would just roll my eyes and lose my patience.  “Who do they think they are?” I would think.  “What do they know about politics, they can’t even vote yet.”  All these boys were doing is expressing their opinion in my small class community of thirty students.  Just that was enough to get me riled up and annoyed with them.  Imagine someone expressing their political views to thousands and even millions of people.  Imagine the massive, explosive reactions people would have to that person.  It would not be a pretty sight.

I think that one reason that the role of an artist is so controversial is because of the differences in the way people define art and an artist’s role.  I remember the human chain that our Arts in NYC class made a few weeks ago.  The question that we were asked was something along the lines of, “Is art a form of entertainment or a form of expression”?  I remember that Peter was one of the first people in that human chain, meaning that he saw art purely as a form of entertainment.  I was also standing in the beginning of this human chain.  Towards the end of the chain, we had people who drastically believed that art is a form of expression and not purely something meant to entertain the audience.  These radical differences in people’s perception of art and it’s purpose show why the artist as a political voice is so controversial.  There are people who want to go to a museum simply to see something beautiful, or watch a movie just to laugh and eat popcorn, or listen to a song just to dance and entertain their ears.  These are the people who don’t want to be preached to by art.  These are the people who probably would not want to hear or see an artist’s political views expressed on paper or in lyrics.

Of course, a person’s view might change depending on what political stance the artist is taking.  The role of the artist can be so controversial because everyone has such different political opinions.  You can’t please everyone, so it’s practical that not everyone will enjoy what your political piece says.  Not everyone is going to appreciate Michael Moore bashing George Bush in a two-hour movie.  However, if you happen to dislike Bush, then “Fahrenheit 9/11” is just the movie that you might sit down and pop some popcorn for.

The time period can also contribute to the reason why an artist’s role as a political activist is so controversial.  Natalie Maines expressed her views on President Bush right when he announced the war with Iraq.  Nowadays though, celebrities such as Pink and Kanye West have expressed their disapproval with the President and reaction to them has not been so overblown.  Of course there are still critics out there.  These critics are the ones who think, “What does an artist know about politics”, just as I thought “What do these boys know about politics?”  These critics probably expect that an artist should just do what his or her job says and that’s it.  Just shut up and sing and don’t preach to me about politics (they think).

Another reason that the artist’s role can be so controversial is that there are some people out there who just have really strong political beliefs.  These people are political maniacs and get set off by the slightest comment about politics.  I’m thinking about the boy who tried to debate with our principal.  If an artist expresses something that is controversial, these political maniacs will not take it lightly.  However, I don’t even think you have to be a maniac to be offended by political art.  If someone said something bad about Obama or the Democrats, for instance, I know I’d be upset.  That’s because I actually identify myself as a Democrat and I feel like that’s a part of who I am.  I’m not a political maniac and I don’t follow politics closely, but I’d still take it as an affront if an artist said something bad about the Democratic Party.

Politics reminds me of the quote that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.  Politics is the delicate, glass house that you have to be careful around.  Well, when artists express their political views, they don’t just throw a stone, they throw a boulder and the whole house comes crashing down around them.

What is it that makes comedians funny? The fact that they are speaking the truth in a humorous light.

What is it that makes an artist’s works controversial? You guessed it, it’s the fact that they are exposing the truth in their own way.

There will never be one solid truth because people believe what they want to believe which in return creates controversy. An artist’s political stance through their artwork will either be loved or hated by people. When an artist chooses to exercise his role of a political voice in society it becomes a topic of controversy mostly because by using his “truth” he is influencing those who are uninformed. I placed truth in quotations here because his truth might not necessarily be another’s truth and vice versa. This in turn is what makes people angry because if what they agree with is different from the artist’s point of view, they think that the artist is feeding “lies” to the public.

One major controversy of this is whether an artist’s purpose is purely for entertainment or if it entails to something more than that. I believe that although most art is used for entertainment purposes, a lot of it is also used for political purposes. I see no harm in it being used for both. In fact I think it’s easier to get your political viewpoint across if it is also entertaining to the audience. Realistically no one wants to sit and look at something that’s going to have you yawning half of the time. If you capture my attention you will also capture my thoughts. =) For example Michael Moore’s documentary on 9/11 only captured my attention because of his sarcastic humor. Because of that I was able to pay closer attention to all the facts he was presenting and form my own opinions on them.

In other words, although it becomes a very controversial topic, I believe that art can and is able to freely display an artistic opinion of the world. Although art in forms of plays, movies, performances and etc. are used for entertainment purposes I think that they were originally meant for something else. An artist wouldn’t create his work without a purpose in mind. This is evident in works such as “How Can You Stay In The House All Day and Not Go Anywhere?” by Ralph lemon and “Do the Right Thing” by Spike Lee. Both artists had a specific viewpoint in mind that they wanted to express. I don’t know about Spike Lee but Ralph definitely did not do his work with entertaining the audience on his mind. This then creates controversy among people who believe that art should solely serve as entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. But who needs people like them?

I believe that to be a truly educated individual you need to be able to open your mind to both sides of a topic. Agree with one side but also try and understand or at least respect the other side. That’s the beauty of art. It’s there to free your mind and let you explore other ideas. It would be a pity to have this free form of expression serve solely as entertainment…

Art is the result of isolation. It is a result of not being the center of attention. When an artist visually creates a piece, he is putting himself into the middle of everything. He is creating a controversy, much like that of politics. By placing himself in the center of attention, an artist is able to present his opinion on any matter, including political, governmental matters. Many artists choose a side, whether it is positive or negative and in their artwork are very adamant about presenting their views to the public.

Artists, such as music artists generally tend to take a negative outlook on political life and the government. In a popular 80s song, Fight the Power, by Public Enemy, the lyrics start,

“And the rhythm rhymes rollin’
Gotta give us what we want
Gotta give us what we need
Our freedom of speech is freedom or death
We got to fight the powers that be.”

As they continue to shout out against the government, Public Enemy goes on to say, “It’s a start, a work of art
To revolutionize make a change nothin’s strange
People, people we are the same.”

To Public Enemy, the government was a racist machine, holding back equality for Blacks, and their song Fight the Power helped bring people’s attention to the matter.  The song appeared in the Spike Lee movie Do the Right Thing as a way to grasp the attention of the characters in the movie as well as the viewers in order to show the harsh inequality and the public and government indifference to the cruel and unfair treatment of Blacks at that time.

Another popular anti-government song, specifically demeaning the American government is Green Day’s song, American Idiot, in which Billy Joe sings

“Don’t want to be an American idiot.
Don’t want a nation under the new media
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind f*ck America.
…..
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn’t meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We’re not the ones who’re meant to follow.
For that’s enough to argue.”

Billy Joe and his band disagree with the politics of America which are meant to involve the citizens of the country, but in reality only alienate them from those who are supposed to be leading them. He mocks the “television dreams of tomorrow,” the goals that the government tells us will be achieved and make everything better. The mockery of all of this in this song, shows the band’s anti-American government stand point and distributes their opinion to not only America but the world. In this manner, not only Americans will begin to adapt this opinion but so will other countries.

Another mockery of the government can be seen in the Eminem’s music video for the song My Name Is, where Eminem impersonates Bill Clinton. In the video, “Bill Clinton” is standing at a podium, giving a speech, and when he goes to walk away from it, his pants are around his ankles, he pulls them up, and then a woman comes out from behind the podium, wiping her mouth. This part of the video is a mockery of Bill Clinton’s scandal with Monica Lewinsky and his lies about not having “sexual relations with that woman.”

Music, as an art form, is one of the best places to find mockery of the government. Every year, thousands of songs come out, and it’s a guarantee that at least one has a political undertone, whether it be in the lyrics or in the video. Many songs are straight out against the government, and others are more subtle about it. Music artists tend to let out the rage they feel toward the government in their songs, and in turn, the negativity is distributed to the public.

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