Art, Politics, and Heresy
Janet Albrechtsen has a response to the response to David Mamet's declaration of defection from the Left, which we wrote about here last week.
I think it's worth noting because of her assertions about art and politics, summarized in this excerpt:
Think about it. So many issues the Left is consumed by are about raw emotion, not intellectual analysis. They will ask you how you feel - not what you think - about some gripping issue. And that's why Mamet changed his views. He started thinking about issues, engaging his head. So many on the Left take the shortcut, letting their gut reaction dictate their response.
Of course, even before Mamet's political conversion it was easy to work out that left-wing politics is essentially emotional, not logical.
With only rare exceptions, poets, playwrights, actors, directors and artistes generally are overwhelmingly political bleeding hearts.
If your daily occupation is to emote as effusively as possible and your aim is making your audience feel some emotion or another, then rational analysis is simply not your strong point. Hence any collection of Australian artistes - think Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Judy Davis or David Williamson - resembles nothing so much as an old-time Fabian Society love-in.
Notably absent in Albrechtsen's piece are her thoughts on what does or does not make good art, or the value of art in modern society. If she is rejecting the arts as viable (she seems to find them almost annoying), does she welcome or condemn Mamet's shift?
She is, however, spot-on in raising a more interesting question: when do politics handicap art? She makes the case for conservatism's basis in intellectual pragmatism, which strikes me as inhibitive to the creation of good art, which so often strives to express things that defy reason. But the same could be said of a pointedly liberal mindset, so intent on making its political points that it bypasses any opportunity for the viewer to connect to the emotional content of a particular piece.
Of course, one might also argue that any attempt to define a set of necessary intellectual characteristics for the making of art is heresy. I, personally, am inclined to agree with this latter assertion.
Comments
Pre-comment caveat: I am a big believer in the Myers-Briggs type indicators, and use them in my argument here. I think Ms. Albrechtsen's assertions here demonstrate a lack of understanding from the S (sensing) point of view toward the N (intuitive). She suggests that the only two alternatives in making a decision are "raw emotion" or "intellectual analysis," clearly implying that the latter is more valuable. In fact, having an S personality, she is simply more comfortable making a decision based on logical reasoning; this is completely valid. Others, however, put more weight on intangible factors (you might call them "gut feeling," "instinct," "intuition," or if you are Ms. Albrechtsen, "raw emotion"); this is equally valid. Both decision-making styles are personal preferences hard-wired into people. (As a side note, I have often noticed that N's are more likely to recognize that both approaches have merit, whereas S's are more likely to see logic as the only valid approach.) Cast aspersions on emotion as she might, Ms. Albrechtsen cannot deny that art based solely on "intellectual analysis" tends to be very dry or cold, and often does not age well. Coming from a musical perspective, I offer twelve-tone and serial music as an example. These pieces are often based on systems of unimpeachable logic, yet paradoxically they come out sounding chaotic or just unpleasant to most listeners. There is no simple formula for what will sound "right," just as there is no simple formula for what will make a good painting, novel, play, or movie. Instead, artists must rely on some degree of intuition (tempered by appropriate use of logic) when they set about creating their work.