The Arts in New York City

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.