Safe Art
Recently, the arrest of a high school student in Kentucky has garnered some media attention over the question of free speech and artistic freedom in America today. Now, as I write this essay the facts of the case are less than clear to me, but the gist of the story is that this young man has been accused of violating a Kentucky law that forbids "terroristic threatening" (and no, I'm not making up the term "terroristic threatening"). The student says he wrote a story about zombies taking over a high school, while the police say his writings contain no zombies but actual threats.
In any event, given the recent pronouncement by the new Attorney General that he does not consider the distribution of obscene materials to be protected by the First Amendment, a lot of people, myself included, reacted quite strongly to the idea that an American could be arrested for something he wrote.
Art, of course, can provoke people; this is indeed one of its purposes. And so it is universally true that repressive societies and governments seek to control art, which is the real reason the Attorney General's latest anti-porn campaign is so unsettling. We in America are accustomed to seeing ourselves as a free society, one in which citizens may, within some very broad limits, write and say pretty much what they please. The assumption is that we are responsible enough to handle our own affairs, and that the country is stronger if we do. This is, of course, only an assumption, and there are plenty of people who don't think it's true. Many (but not all) forms of Christianity, the most common religion in America, are in fact based on the opposite argument: no one can handle their own affairs, because all humans are in a fallen, sinful state.
These two attitudes have a profound affect on art. Both appreciate art, mind you; the difference lies in what type. And here we come at last to the subject of this essay: Safe Art.
Safe Art is just what it says it is. It's art that won't get you into trouble. It's sure to elicit a smile and a nod from your teacher, from your friends, from your colleagues. If you're technically skilled at your art form, it can and often will win you awards, applause, and praise. You'll get favorable reviews and people will have no fear recommending your art to their kids and acquaintances. You can produce Safe Art and carry it in public and have no fear or shame, and indeed, being in proximity to it and referring to it often can even get people to remark on the high quality of your character.
Most artists, understandably, are safe artists. Most art is safe art. It fits conventions and stays within boundaries. The Harry Potter novels offend a few people (mostly for religious reasons), but really very few, and most of us wouldn't be bothered to see one of J.K. Rowling's books in the hands of one of our kids. Only the very paranoid see kids (and some adults) pretending to be wizards and believe that these fans are actually trying to practice magic or summon demons or monsters. It's harmless fun.
Harmless. Safe. Safe Art.
And so it is no surprise that the Attorney General isn't planning to prosecute J.K. Rowling. Her art is safe, representing no threat to him or the power of his government or his belief system. What makes it safe, of course, is that it doesn't challenge the conventions of the society that consumes it, and so Safe Art has a lot it can tell us about the beliefs of a society. That Harry Potter does not directly challenge modern versions of Christianity or other organized religions makes it safe. That it does not address political issues or challenge capitalism or socialism makes it safe. That it has little, if any, sex in it, and no homosexuality, makes it safe. And that it is violent, but only so violent and then ultimately only against "bad" characters, makes it safe.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no objection to Harry Potter, and the fact that Rowling, a novelist, is apparently richer than the Queen of England (plus, Rowling earned her money, rather than inheriting it), delights me to no end. There are times when we all want to simply enjoy a piece of good, safe, art, and Rowling has the writing talents to produce just such art. A lot of writers do, in fact, and their work fills the bookstores and no one objects.
But then there is the other kind of art. Dangerous Art. Like Safe Art, this stuff lives up to its name; it is in fact its mirror image. Where Safe Art respects and even supports cultural mores and boundaries, Dangerous Art defies them, often deliberately, sometimes actively seeking out the most offensive way possible to do so. Such art is routinely banned and burned, and is the sort that most people will deny enjoying, even if they secretly do. It is the art that all too often brings the artists themselves under suspicion, an irrational response that Matt Cheney answered quite well:
"I'm not saying anything new here, I know. But if anything is going to combat is idiotic, fascistic paranoia that continues to explode around us, it may be our willingness to stubbornly and loudly repeat things we already know: That thoughts are not actions; that writing is a form of imagination, not terrorism; that fiction is not reality; that it's entirely possible for a perfectly nice and harmless person to write really dark, disturbing stories."
Dangerous Art is the art that people like the Attorney General will always target, because it threatens them, their power, their authority, and their fears. In another time, Harry Potter's magic content would have branded it Dangerous Art, and Rowling would, like Galileo, have been forced to recant her work or face death. Dangerous Art is the art that takes no prisoners, that provokes, that offends to make its point. This is the art that pushes the boundaries. I've been asked at times why in my own work offensive sexual themes play such a strong role, and the answer is simply that sex is the single most powerful tool any writer in modern America has to make people sit up and take notice (I could have used violence, but violence is considered a positive thing by American culture, and we have long been desensitized to it). The Nobel Committee, when awarding that prize to John Steinbeck, recognized the truth about Dangerous Art when it said:
"But he had no mind to be an unoffending comforter and entertainer. The topics he chose were serious and denunciatory, as for example the bitter strikes on California's fruit and cotton plantations which he depicted in his novel In Dubious Battle (1936)."
I'm no John Steinbeck, not by a long shot. But I do recognize what he did and why. Because it is not the Safe Art that pushes us forward. It is not Safe Art that challenges injustice, not Safe Art that frees slaves or emancipates women or preserves liberty or that truly challenges us to be better human beings tomorrow than we were today. It's the Dangerous Art that does that, because Dangerous Art takes chances, embraces new ideas, and most of all because Dangerous Art is not afraid to tell hard truths. It's not afraid to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes.
And in the end, it is the Dangerous Art that is most often remembered. It is no small irony that the Bible, that haven for so many who cling to Safe Art and seek to repress other forms of human expression, is in fact one of the most dangerous books ever written.
In any event, given the recent pronouncement by the new Attorney General that he does not consider the distribution of obscene materials to be protected by the First Amendment, a lot of people, myself included, reacted quite strongly to the idea that an American could be arrested for something he wrote.
Art, of course, can provoke people; this is indeed one of its purposes. And so it is universally true that repressive societies and governments seek to control art, which is the real reason the Attorney General's latest anti-porn campaign is so unsettling. We in America are accustomed to seeing ourselves as a free society, one in which citizens may, within some very broad limits, write and say pretty much what they please. The assumption is that we are responsible enough to handle our own affairs, and that the country is stronger if we do. This is, of course, only an assumption, and there are plenty of people who don't think it's true. Many (but not all) forms of Christianity, the most common religion in America, are in fact based on the opposite argument: no one can handle their own affairs, because all humans are in a fallen, sinful state.
These two attitudes have a profound affect on art. Both appreciate art, mind you; the difference lies in what type. And here we come at last to the subject of this essay: Safe Art.
Safe Art is just what it says it is. It's art that won't get you into trouble. It's sure to elicit a smile and a nod from your teacher, from your friends, from your colleagues. If you're technically skilled at your art form, it can and often will win you awards, applause, and praise. You'll get favorable reviews and people will have no fear recommending your art to their kids and acquaintances. You can produce Safe Art and carry it in public and have no fear or shame, and indeed, being in proximity to it and referring to it often can even get people to remark on the high quality of your character.
Most artists, understandably, are safe artists. Most art is safe art. It fits conventions and stays within boundaries. The Harry Potter novels offend a few people (mostly for religious reasons), but really very few, and most of us wouldn't be bothered to see one of J.K. Rowling's books in the hands of one of our kids. Only the very paranoid see kids (and some adults) pretending to be wizards and believe that these fans are actually trying to practice magic or summon demons or monsters. It's harmless fun.
Harmless. Safe. Safe Art.
And so it is no surprise that the Attorney General isn't planning to prosecute J.K. Rowling. Her art is safe, representing no threat to him or the power of his government or his belief system. What makes it safe, of course, is that it doesn't challenge the conventions of the society that consumes it, and so Safe Art has a lot it can tell us about the beliefs of a society. That Harry Potter does not directly challenge modern versions of Christianity or other organized religions makes it safe. That it does not address political issues or challenge capitalism or socialism makes it safe. That it has little, if any, sex in it, and no homosexuality, makes it safe. And that it is violent, but only so violent and then ultimately only against "bad" characters, makes it safe.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no objection to Harry Potter, and the fact that Rowling, a novelist, is apparently richer than the Queen of England (plus, Rowling earned her money, rather than inheriting it), delights me to no end. There are times when we all want to simply enjoy a piece of good, safe, art, and Rowling has the writing talents to produce just such art. A lot of writers do, in fact, and their work fills the bookstores and no one objects.
But then there is the other kind of art. Dangerous Art. Like Safe Art, this stuff lives up to its name; it is in fact its mirror image. Where Safe Art respects and even supports cultural mores and boundaries, Dangerous Art defies them, often deliberately, sometimes actively seeking out the most offensive way possible to do so. Such art is routinely banned and burned, and is the sort that most people will deny enjoying, even if they secretly do. It is the art that all too often brings the artists themselves under suspicion, an irrational response that Matt Cheney answered quite well:
"I'm not saying anything new here, I know. But if anything is going to combat is idiotic, fascistic paranoia that continues to explode around us, it may be our willingness to stubbornly and loudly repeat things we already know: That thoughts are not actions; that writing is a form of imagination, not terrorism; that fiction is not reality; that it's entirely possible for a perfectly nice and harmless person to write really dark, disturbing stories."
Dangerous Art is the art that people like the Attorney General will always target, because it threatens them, their power, their authority, and their fears. In another time, Harry Potter's magic content would have branded it Dangerous Art, and Rowling would, like Galileo, have been forced to recant her work or face death. Dangerous Art is the art that takes no prisoners, that provokes, that offends to make its point. This is the art that pushes the boundaries. I've been asked at times why in my own work offensive sexual themes play such a strong role, and the answer is simply that sex is the single most powerful tool any writer in modern America has to make people sit up and take notice (I could have used violence, but violence is considered a positive thing by American culture, and we have long been desensitized to it). The Nobel Committee, when awarding that prize to John Steinbeck, recognized the truth about Dangerous Art when it said:
"But he had no mind to be an unoffending comforter and entertainer. The topics he chose were serious and denunciatory, as for example the bitter strikes on California's fruit and cotton plantations which he depicted in his novel In Dubious Battle (1936)."
I'm no John Steinbeck, not by a long shot. But I do recognize what he did and why. Because it is not the Safe Art that pushes us forward. It is not Safe Art that challenges injustice, not Safe Art that frees slaves or emancipates women or preserves liberty or that truly challenges us to be better human beings tomorrow than we were today. It's the Dangerous Art that does that, because Dangerous Art takes chances, embraces new ideas, and most of all because Dangerous Art is not afraid to tell hard truths. It's not afraid to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes.
And in the end, it is the Dangerous Art that is most often remembered. It is no small irony that the Bible, that haven for so many who cling to Safe Art and seek to repress other forms of human expression, is in fact one of the most dangerous books ever written.
posted by Unknown at 6:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home