Thank you for your deep thoughts. I have been plagued by the same question for almost all my life, and I strongly agree with your line of reasoning and your conclusions. I just wish to add one angle.
You mentioned pardoning bad art for its political merits. It is not only a common phenomenon; it is universal, and it seems to be part of our species-specific herd inheritance. It is not restricted to the arts, in fact, but we see it in all areas of human activity. A politician always speaks wisely (even if he/she talks bullshit or nonsense) if he/she is MY politician. A country is the best in the world, even holy, if it is my country. The baby is the most beautiful I have seen if it is my baby, etc. We divide the world into two: things that are mine and things that are not mine. Mine is the portion of the world that I am committed to: my herd, my tribe, my people, OUR opinions. All evaluations of quality are secondary to this division.
Aesthetics, on the other hand, is something universal. I don’t mean that specific aesthetic evaluations are universal, but that the aesthetic attitude looks for something in things that is above all specific manifestations of things, something “higher,” something inherently non-partisan, non-tribal, unselfish, but at the same time emotionally and/or intellectually powerful, irresistible, self-evident once experienced, in some sense true par excellence, the truest true.
Therefore, there is an inbuilt conflict between these two, the political and the aesthetic, the partisan and the universal.
If a political performance wants to create a strong aesthetic feeling and gain artistic recognition, its form must acknowledge the universal without giving the feeling that the universal is subordinated to the partisan. The universal and the partisan may well walk hand in hand, and indeed, some “partisans” fit much better in “the universal’s” hand than others.
But to do so, they must somehow converge in the now of the performance, so that the spectator (and the participants) experiences their union. In this union the whole is crucial, and defects will be pardoned if the whole is strong enough. In some cases the defects, or apparent defects, of the performance may even add to the total effect, as in a case when you are moved to tears by a not-quite-perfect violin solo by an octogenarian musician in the market square, with his likewise old, shabby dog by his side. There are lots of universals there for the one who is sensitive to them.
So, the question of the partisan and art is indeed complicated, and whether there is a conflict between them or not depends on everything; it is case-specific.
This came around at such an interesting time! I have been thinking about this as I recently had a conversation with someone where I was recommending an 'actually good vegan artist'. It sounds really judgemental! But I do find that sometimes, as much as the music is meaningful, the music makes it hard to listen. Thankfully this artist I was referring to was enjoyable not only as a vegan, but as a music lover. I wouldn't be embarrassed to share it with my non-vegan friends.
For me, if our key goal is to reach new audiences with art that shares our message - then we need to be making sure it is good! We need to make sure it is something that stays with people and they want to recommend to someone else and so on. There is a reason why certain political books are widely read, and some long forgotten. They are accessible and incredibly storytelling. It's the same with any other art form!
Great read, and really gave me some insight into how others are viewing this topic.
Thanks so much for this Leanne. I regularly tussle with this thought, and glad it resonates with you; I couldn't agree more. There's definitely a desire to reach out beyond the tropes of the activist. I think the desire and aim for a more 'pure' art drives the work (and hopefully movement) beyond the ironic and metaphorical cages we put ourselves in as activists.
Thank you for your deep thoughts. I have been plagued by the same question for almost all my life, and I strongly agree with your line of reasoning and your conclusions. I just wish to add one angle.
You mentioned pardoning bad art for its political merits. It is not only a common phenomenon; it is universal, and it seems to be part of our species-specific herd inheritance. It is not restricted to the arts, in fact, but we see it in all areas of human activity. A politician always speaks wisely (even if he/she talks bullshit or nonsense) if he/she is MY politician. A country is the best in the world, even holy, if it is my country. The baby is the most beautiful I have seen if it is my baby, etc. We divide the world into two: things that are mine and things that are not mine. Mine is the portion of the world that I am committed to: my herd, my tribe, my people, OUR opinions. All evaluations of quality are secondary to this division.
Aesthetics, on the other hand, is something universal. I don’t mean that specific aesthetic evaluations are universal, but that the aesthetic attitude looks for something in things that is above all specific manifestations of things, something “higher,” something inherently non-partisan, non-tribal, unselfish, but at the same time emotionally and/or intellectually powerful, irresistible, self-evident once experienced, in some sense true par excellence, the truest true.
Therefore, there is an inbuilt conflict between these two, the political and the aesthetic, the partisan and the universal.
If a political performance wants to create a strong aesthetic feeling and gain artistic recognition, its form must acknowledge the universal without giving the feeling that the universal is subordinated to the partisan. The universal and the partisan may well walk hand in hand, and indeed, some “partisans” fit much better in “the universal’s” hand than others.
But to do so, they must somehow converge in the now of the performance, so that the spectator (and the participants) experiences their union. In this union the whole is crucial, and defects will be pardoned if the whole is strong enough. In some cases the defects, or apparent defects, of the performance may even add to the total effect, as in a case when you are moved to tears by a not-quite-perfect violin solo by an octogenarian musician in the market square, with his likewise old, shabby dog by his side. There are lots of universals there for the one who is sensitive to them.
So, the question of the partisan and art is indeed complicated, and whether there is a conflict between them or not depends on everything; it is case-specific.
This came around at such an interesting time! I have been thinking about this as I recently had a conversation with someone where I was recommending an 'actually good vegan artist'. It sounds really judgemental! But I do find that sometimes, as much as the music is meaningful, the music makes it hard to listen. Thankfully this artist I was referring to was enjoyable not only as a vegan, but as a music lover. I wouldn't be embarrassed to share it with my non-vegan friends.
For me, if our key goal is to reach new audiences with art that shares our message - then we need to be making sure it is good! We need to make sure it is something that stays with people and they want to recommend to someone else and so on. There is a reason why certain political books are widely read, and some long forgotten. They are accessible and incredibly storytelling. It's the same with any other art form!
Great read, and really gave me some insight into how others are viewing this topic.
Thanks so much for this Leanne. I regularly tussle with this thought, and glad it resonates with you; I couldn't agree more. There's definitely a desire to reach out beyond the tropes of the activist. I think the desire and aim for a more 'pure' art drives the work (and hopefully movement) beyond the ironic and metaphorical cages we put ourselves in as activists.