Reply
Sat 12 May, 2007 06:28 am
Why Are Most Artists Liberal? Stories Are Liberal
I consider animals as equal to me, even tho humanity has this huge ego which tells me i shouldn't.
But to be an artist you have to look at things in a different way, you have to use different perspectives.
That could be why they are usually liberal, they are good at looking at things from anothers point of view.
Re: Why Are Most Artists Liberal?
Quote:(One exception: Storytellers limits itself to the storytelling arts (movies, TV, theater, prose), as opposed to the other arts (sculpture, photography, painting, architecture, poetry, etc.) about which I know very little.)
This admitted omission certainly does muddy things a little. I wonder if the author considers Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Igor Stravinsky, etc., to be legitimate complications to his picture, or whether he would be content to categorize them as exceptions that prove the rule. He says he is trying to restrict himself to "storytellers," but judging by the title of his blog entry, he seems to want to expand this notion to "artists," and that's quite a big leap.
It seems to me that artists seek perfection rightly or wrongly (?). The artistic community is often idealistic in its view of the world and has a more laissez-faire attitude. Is this liberal?
Mainstream conservatives, however, seem to be more pragmatic and realistic in their approach, rightly or wrongly.......not that this is an earth shaking revelation!
I think it has something to do with what traits seem to come innately with a creative mindset.
Creativity is marked by the ability or desire to create something new (not imitative or derivative) and is manifested by those who are able to look at a situation or circumstance in a different and unique way and then express that.
Artists who are truly creative and not derivative are not interested in the tried and true-they're more interested in possibilities for new expression and change. This would seem to mesh more easily with a liberal political ideology.
Shapeless- it's interesting that you mentioned Ezra Pound and Eliot (I'm not as familiar with Wallace Stevens' or Igor Stravinsky's mindsets). But do you think that their tendency to take conservatism to the extreme that they did, is in its own way as creatively liberal as if they were leftists? By that I mean that any radical deviation, whether it be to the right or to the left, is a departure from the middle or norm and so speaks to me of independent or free and somewhat creative thinking.
It's an interesting way to look at it, Aidan. But that seems to me to be an excessively broad definition of "liberal." If we define "liberal" as departing from the norm, then sure, everyone can be a liberal. But the very broadness of the term seems to defeat the purpose of having it... seems like the word is sapped of its meaning if it is so broad that it can include things that are ostensibly its opposite. On the other hand, the notion of "liberal=innovative" is pretty consistent with the way artistic values have veen prioritized since the 19th century--namely, what we value most in art, even today, is innovation.
The case of Pound (and, for some portion of his career, Stravinsky) is also interesting because the work for which he is most well-known now was not created for the sake of "newness," exactly, but for returning to things that were "old." That is, Pound couched his work in the guise of restoration, reviving what he saw as older traditions that had been lost. "Make it new" is Pound's oft-quoted mantra: take the old and make it look new. The same can be said of Stravinsky's "neoclassical" period. It goes without saying that these "traditions" were as much a product of these artists' imaginations as of actual historical precedent, but if we are to go on what they said, we must acknowledge that Pound and Stravinsky were not after "mere" newness, but newly revived tradition, which seems pretty conservative to me. In more cynical but realistic terms, we might say that Pound and Stravinsky were using the authority of tradition to give credence to their otherwise traditionless innovations, but that only reinforces the point that "conserving" old forms was a more worthy endeavor to these artists than "liberating" them. (And, when you get right down to it, their actual political allegiances speak volumes about what cause they thought they were supporting through their art.)
It's also worth mentioning that the author of the blog seems not to be concerned with audience reception, which is a notable omission. Since the quality of art is something that is conferred upon the artist by beholders, the question of "why are good artists liberal?" seems to require that we also ask "why are liberal artists received well?" It seems to me that the author's question is as much (and maybe more) about us as it is about artists.
We are (small) 'l' IBERAL because we see in greater detail than the average person, and feel more acutely; my definition of 'art' is "emotional communication".
[having said that, we are not all liberal, but do fit into the left end of the philosophical spectrum.]
[my, haven't been here for a while!]
BoGoWo wrote:[my, haven't been here for a while!]
I was thinking exactly the same thing . . .
. . . you bicycle commie . . .
well look who's here !
[actually it's 'bicycle go...ie!]
[how the hell are ya?]
I ain't dead yet . . .
I consider that a positive sign . . .
i suppose if you had been having your 'ups and downs',
you would consider that a negative co-sign.
[as the waves wave]
Don't Bo Wo Go off on a tangent . . .
i was just practicing a little 'tangential meditation'!
[i just had a run in with 'global worming'; something got into one of my computers, and it's just sitting there looking 'green'!]
O.K., back to the thread question, why are artists more liberal than not. If that's true, one reason may be their bias toward the anti-authoritarian values of absolutism and objectivism. Most artists, at least now in the era of postmodernism, see the world in terms of relativism (rather than absolutism) and subjectivism (rather than objectivism). These are my biases and I consider myself an artist. Nevertheless, I hold onto the artistic values of modernism--for better or for worse.
For one, creativity, demands freedom of mind, and conservatism is constraining by definition.
Though on the political spectrum the farther right you are the more conservative and, theorically, the less government and more freedom you have. But it doesn't seem to work that way when being creative.
Liberals see from different points of view even to the point of being wishy-washy, but conservatives have a set agenda and tow the line. Creativity invites many mistakes and if you defend you creations you become limited by your own ego.
coluber2001 wrote:For one, creativity, demands freedom of mind, and conservatism is constraining by definition.
Again, it seems to work on paper, and I'd be the first to admit that I
want it to be true, but I don't think it works in practice. One doesn't have to look far in the history of any art to find great, conservatively-striped artists.
I also have to admit that there is something compelling about the (primarily modernist) notion of the "abyss of freedom"--i.e. that artistic constraints, whether self-imposed or decreed by someone else, can just as easily stimulate creative thought. One measure of creativity, after all, is the ability to manipulate and transform preexisting conventions. It's an aesthetic criterion that has less credibility today than it once did--that is why we consider Beethoven a greater composer than Rossini, even though early 19th century audiences considered them equally-towering giants--but it was a historical reality for centuries. There are some fascinating personal writings left behind by C.P.E. Bach in which he criticizes his father (J.S.) for being old-fashioned and resisting current trends in composition (the ones that would eventually be called the "Classical" style). It's a judgment that, in and of itself, not many music lovers would disagree with today. But in terms of historical legacies, well, C.P.E Bach hasn't fared as well as his father.
Art today is more and more global, with a wider arena of practitioners and audiences, fewer geographical boundaries and less commonality.
Modern artists navigate waters less bound by tradition, location, language and materials.
Does this more inclusive, diverse marketplace demand more liberal rather than conservative attitudes?
SP, I would guess that to the extent that conservatism is more narrow or provincial and nationalistic, YES.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace