BUT, I think it’s extremely difficult and takes a very skilled writer/painter/singer/artist to do so. Creating stasis is difficult enough, creating stasis while talking about politics is close to impossible. If a writer of the past/present has done it, kudos. But, I think we would all agree that there are many people who ‘try’ it. Unsuccessfully. And my commentary was mainly about that group.

Zina–YES. “I think all art has a message, but also think that there’s a continuum from art to propaganda which depends on how effective the art really is as art. (Where any piece falls on the continuum is, of course, an extremely subjective question.)”

As the comments on this post start to slow down, I’ll share my final thoughts. I think all of us would agree that ‘art’ is used frequently as propaganda (Joyce also adds that art is improperly used for ‘didactic’ purposes and although I agree with him, I didn’t want to get into that in this post).

I think we would also all agree that propogandistic art is manipulative by its very nature. One way to understand why propoganistic art is an improper way to affect the viewer is by using the aesthetic philosophy of Joyce (that of art creating stasis, while improper art creating kinetic action in the viewer).

As art is used by many people for many different purposes, I think it is vital to create one’s own hearty philosophy of art so as not to be manipulated by poorly done pieces (whether they’re over-sentimentalized, or used as propoganda, or just simply poorly written/performed). Because art is a valuable part of our society and even when it is done poorly, is very powerful.

A writer can tell a story (or an artist can create art) that elicits understanding and empathy in me for a character whose experiences and/or views are different from mine. If it feels honest and genuine and true to me I find myself moved and enlightened.

But if I in any way feel manipulated or, if anything in the medium seems contrived by an agenda then all I am is annoyed. It feels disingenuous and I don’t appreciate it as much at all.

I can think of examples of works on both ends of the art-to-propaganda spectrum. One movie that I think definitely succeeds as art is “Million Dollar Baby.” But I still dislike the film because, in spite of its effectiveness as art, I disagree with its premise. My sister found a quote from (or maybe heard an interview with) a quadriplegic after that film came out in which the quadriplegic essentially said, “Why does everyone assume my life’s not worth living? Of COURSE I want to live!” So I guess I wouldn’t say that Clint Eastwood “shouldn’t” use his art to promote his views, or that to try to promote a viewpoint necessarily destroys the artistic value of a work — I would just say that in some intances I disagree with the views and therefore dislike the art.

Sometimes an artist may be commissioned to produce something that he doesn’t agree with, but it still says something, whether it’s about himself or those that pay him.

I think artists have every right to voice their opinions. As a society we have taken away so much from famous people and demanded they give more (think paparazzi). To suggest that they just stand around looking pretty is an insult.

I may not always agree with them, and yes, most of the time I wish Rosie would just shut up because she is so rude, abusive and demeaning to those who disagree with her, but I can always turn the channel.

Here I confess the gaps in my knowledge; I can’t think off the top of my head of another politically pandering work of classic literature, though I’m sure they exist (it’s been a long time since college). But here’s the gist of what I’m saying: whether or not they realize it, artists with a political agenda are participating in a tradition of politically motivated art that’s millenia old. Today, we see classic art out of its original context, and therefore removed from the hot-button issues of its day (Ooh! Milton! Another one! He published all kinds of political pamphlets, and was very involved in the politics of his day). But many of those writers and artists were involved in politics, and their art reflected that, even if it’s not as obvious to us today.

What I’m thinking about, though, is the fact that artists can’t control how people react to their art. Some might see political statements in art where none were intended. So what art does to the viewer isn’t always a quantifiable thing.

But I agree that deliberate activism can muddy the aesthetic waters. Art evokes–it doesn’t manipulate. I’d never thought about it in terms of kinesis vs. stasis. Interesting.

jendoop–I pointed out what the difference between what art ‘does’ to the viewer (creates stasis) and what activism does (creates kinetic action) so I guess that’s how I determine the difference. So, for example, if you’re writing about politics in order to raise the mind of the viewer above loathing or desire, then that could be considered art. If you’re trying to get someone to vote a certain way on an issue, that is activism. You can write about politics in a piece that would be considered art according to Joyce’s definition, but the result of your writing must create a stasis. If it moves someone to a certain action, then that would not be art. It would be propoganda or editorial. Both of which have their place, but not in art.

I can only speak for myself and all I am saying is that when the agenda takes precedence over the art–regardless of the issue–the art loses something for me personally.

If you don’t like that Happy Feet has an agenda, don’t watch it. Art can, and often does, serve more than one purpose (referring to your example of Happy Feet being art and politics). There are “evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:4). This is one reason we are taught the gospel, so we can decide for ourselves what to partake of, art included. But it is still up to the individual to make that choice. IMHO, saying that a certain issue is taboo to the art world is ridiculous. It is censorship.