The Arts in New York City

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

Art is not politics.

Simply put, art gravitates toward showing rather than telling, which by its very nature is the reason why art is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Art in general is thought as a form of entertainment and this in itself differs from the motives of politics, which is to contemplate laws and to pass them for the welfare of the general public.

Frankly speaking, political matters are not as enjoyable as art, which is why I choose to abstain from getting involved with any of the serious business at all. But on the flipside, I really do enjoy fine art and its limitless expression.

Since it appears that art has no relation to politics, especially for those uninterested in neither of the two, why is it the case that so often the two coincide, creating political art in the form of cartoons, movies, paintings, and even poetry?

The answer essentially contradicts and limits what art is. Political cartoons attempt to draw attention to a certain issue by taking a position in the argument—we forget that art is intended to be viewed, interpreted and appreciated by all.  This is exactly why the artist as a political voice is the most controversial of his roles, as compared to his roles as a social critic and a curator of culture.

People are wary of appreciating political art [even if it’s good], because they are afraid of the repercussions of their appraisal. Does liking a political piece indirectly equate to agreeing with the statement being made? Political art is a very touchy subject because it involves the artist, the public, and the government. Both the public and government are affected by what the artist chooses to portray in his art. For instance the stance of the artist may contradict with the individual’s beliefs and as a result the impassioned individuals take action against the art piece/gallery in the forms of protests and complaints.

An example of this is the photograph done by Andres Serrano titled Piss Christ. Thousands of people took offense to this photograph, notably United States senators Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms. Others stated that the piece violated laws on separation of church and state. However some people did enjoy his photograph. Lucy Lippard, an art critic, presented a constructive case in which she believed the photograph was mysterious and beautiful.

I agree with Lippard’s point of view that in the presence of art it is important to keep an open mind and to actually think about what you dislike about the piece. No one would have acted against Piss Christ, if Serrano did not mention that it was a crucifix submerged in his own urine. For the most part the piece looked like it was taken in sepia tone.

Another example of how people take offense towards artwork is in the movie Wall-E. The New York magazine said the film was a critique of the “free market” where a government-run corporation controls 100% of the economy. This would be an absurd assumption, considering the fact that this movie was intended for pre-teens and teenagers. This brings up a fine point—is it necessary for the artist to confine his artwork to satisfy the principles of the society in which he is raised? Then what is art? A broken winged bird that cannot fly.

The amount of contempt for the artist as a political voice is frightening and heartbreaking. If the public ever accepts one of the polarized political views, what is to become of art, or political art for that matter? Is all artwork that disagrees with the general consensus to be rejected and forgotten? What is art if it is no longer capable of [free] expression?

People forget that artists are attempting to abridge the gaps formed from our differences in color, race, education, language, and social status. They are fighting for those who are scared to voice their opinions. Art should bring us together, not apart.