Quantcast
Channel: Wisdom Crieth Without » Dylan Crabb
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4

Art and Politics

0
0
Thomas Nast's famous depiction of the

Thomas Nast’s famous depiction of the “Tweed Ring,” courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation

Art is a form of self-expression and is utilized by someone to express one’s individuality, to distinguish them from a larger collective entity. There is no wrong way to express art because it is left up to interpretation, anything can be art to someone. Art is used to invoke an emotional response in others in an attempt to better understand the world around them, or the people around them. A piece of art can do this so well that the intent of an artist behind a particular piece of work is usually disregarded by the public. The intent of the author does not matter when there are so many different perspectives on a piece of art that can offer so much reflection into the complexities of the human spirit. That is one of the main goals of creating art, to search for a deeper reason to live out our brief existence on in this universe, to contribute to the beauty of our world so that we can be remembered for something after we depart. Art is a wonderful chaotic; fantastic and depressing; joyous and lamenting.
But can art be political, should it be political? Surely something that can inspire such emotion in a person can also inspire activism, or does politicking forsake art in exchange for passionate rhetoric with empty nuance? Do political endeavors attract emotional artists or just bland, empty, and sometimes heartless talking heads? The United States presidential election of 2000 may have many people saying nothing good can come from politics and that everyone is corrupt. But, if pieces of art can inspire such an emotional reaction out of someone, then why can’t that energy transfer to political action?
The renowned writer, George Orwell1, wrote a three-part essay in 1940 called “Inside the Whale,” in which he advocates for so-called ‘quietist’ philosophy, the philosophy that artists should remain independent from political action because artists cannot change how the world works; they are simply observers.
However, another (more contemporary) writer by the name of Salman Rushdie2 wrote a counter essay called Outside the Whale, in which he disagrees with Orwell’s quietist position. Rushdie explains that Orwell’s apparent cynicism was a product of the time he was living in, a time of imperialistic nations led by fascist dictators who arose to power under a guise of liberation. Orwell seemed helpless in his world because there were a lot of large-scale violent acts taking place when he was alive. Quietism was Orwell’s form of escape from the cruelty of his global environment. However, Rushdie later explains in his essay:

“The truth is that there is no whale. We live in a world without hiding place: the missiles have made sure of that. However, as much we may wish to return to the womb, we cannot be unborn. So we are left with a fairly straightforward choice: Either we agree to delude ourselves, to lose ourselves in the fantasy of the great fish, for which a second metaphor is that of Pangloss’s garden; or we can do what all human beings do instinctively when they realize that the womb has been lost forever – that is, we can make the very devil of a racket. (Salman Rushdie, Outside the Whale, page 99)”

The above is particularly meaningful as Rushdie references the Cold War of the twentieth century between the United States and the Soviet Union. Weapons technology has grown to the point where every human being on the planet can be adversely affected by a significant weapon. The advent of nuclear weapons has put every corner of the globe in potential danger if these relatively new weapons were to fall into the wrong hands, which is why to ignore world affairs would be akin to stepping into a state of willful ignorance in exchange for a moment of temporary security. Quietism may be more comfortable to an individual but it does not help improve that overall state of humanity. To ignore atrocities is to ignore one’s own humanity by not taking responsibility for others, which is why I agree with Rushdie’s position of “rowdyism” rather than Orwell’s “quietism.” If an artist holds a position in the public eye, then he/she has more opportunities than the average person to try and bring about change.

_______________________________

1An English novelist and journalist – author of 1984 and Animal Farm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
2An Indian novelist of eleven titles and a member of the British Royal Society of Literature: http://www.salman-rushdie.com/

|Next Page >


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 4

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images