The new censorship is subtle. It’s not about governments banning work. True, the Globe and Mail reported that the Arts Council of England revealed last year that it presently adjudicates applicants according to “relevance not excellence.” But the government does not need to get involved in actual censorship, either officially or unofficially. The notion of prioritising ideas over form has been internalised by artists — and specifically by critics — and is now treated as de rigeur. We now create and judge art only for its content
However, the government does not need to get involved in actual censorship, either officially or unofficially. The notion of prioritising ideas over form has been internalised by artists — and specifically by critics — and is now treated as de rigeur. We now create and judge art only for its content
Unfortunately, it no longer matters how a play, novel, or poem presents itself; beauty is dismissed as a bourgeois value. Now all that matters is the clearly communicated message that the work of art contains. Tragically, this notion runs contrary to the very nature of art, which since the time of the Greek sophists, has been more concerned with creating imaginary worlds than with teaching a moral or political lesson.
Adorno (a 20th century Marxist philosopher) was once famously paraphrased as saying that ‘there can be no art after The Holocaust.’ This statement has been widely misquoted and misinterpreted. What Adorno meant was that a play or novel that dealt with extermination of the Jews did a particular disservice to that horror if the play or novel was explicitly about The Holocaust — because the resulting art would be merely ‘sad’ or ‘horrifying.’ This would be an inadequate response to the human capacity for evil. Does that mean that artists should not, or cannot, respond to wrongdoing? Does it mean that art should not be political? No. It means that art must make it’s statement through form. Adorno spoke of Beckett, in this respect. He theorised that Waiting for Godot — through it’s poetic dialogue, and hopeless, aimless characters — says more about The Holocaust, than any play which refers specifically to the events of World War II.
It’s great to come out of a musical humming the title song; but I’m afraid it is not so great to come out of a play with a clearly articulated message for changing the world. Why? First of all; just because you ‘saw it in a play’ doesn’t mean you are going to do anything but repeat the ideas in tweets and Facebook posts that constitute a self-perpetuating, self-congratulating ‘virtue signal.’ But, frankly, preaching is best left to the pulpit — and the pulpit does it much better. These days the pulpit has been replaced by social justice speeches and political platforms. Plays, novels, poems, and paintings should — instead of telling us how to change the world — raise questions and stir emotions. I mean contradictory emotions and contradictory ideas; difficult emotions, and difficult ideas. Ideas must be in plays but plays must not be about ideas.
Why take my word for it? Because my opinion is backed up by the history of art — and by common sense. It’s fine for people to get angry about ideas and promote them; but art is not a soapbox. If we make it into that kind of place, then we lose what art is and should be, a special, sacred, holy communication with the human spirit.
I know that sounds high-falutin’.
Sorry.
It is.
However, the government does not need to get involved in actual censorship, either officially or unofficially. The notion of prioritising ideas over form has been internalised by artists — and specifically by critics — and is now treated as de rigeur. We now create and judge art only for its content
Unfortunately, it no longer matters how a play, novel, or poem presents itself; beauty is dismissed as a bourgeois value. Now all that matters is the clearly communicated message that the work of art contains. Tragically, this notion runs contrary to the very nature of art, which since the time of the Greek sophists, has been more concerned with creating imaginary worlds than with teaching a moral or political lesson.
Adorno (a 20th century Marxist philosopher) was once famously paraphrased as saying that ‘there can be no art after The Holocaust.’ This statement has been widely misquoted and misinterpreted. What Adorno meant was that a play or novel that dealt with extermination of the Jews did a particular disservice to that horror if the play or novel was explicitly about The Holocaust — because the resulting art would be merely ‘sad’ or ‘horrifying.’ This would be an inadequate response to the human capacity for evil. Does that mean that artists should not, or cannot, respond to wrongdoing? Does it mean that art should not be political? No. It means that art must make it’s statement through form. Adorno spoke of Beckett, in this respect. He theorised that Waiting for Godot — through it’s poetic dialogue, and hopeless, aimless characters — says more about The Holocaust, than any play which refers specifically to the events of World War II.
It’s great to come out of a musical humming the title song; but I’m afraid it is not so great to come out of a play with a clearly articulated message for changing the world. Why? First of all; just because you ‘saw it in a play’ doesn’t mean you are going to do anything but repeat the ideas in tweets and Facebook posts that constitute a self-perpetuating, self-congratulating ‘virtue signal.’ But, frankly, preaching is best left to the pulpit — and the pulpit does it much better. These days the pulpit has been replaced by social justice speeches and political platforms. Plays, novels, poems, and paintings should — instead of telling us how to change the world — raise questions and stir emotions. I mean contradictory emotions and contradictory ideas; difficult emotions, and difficult ideas. Ideas must be in plays but plays must not be about ideas.
Why take my word for it? Because my opinion is backed up by the history of art — and by common sense. It’s fine for people to get angry about ideas and promote them; but art is not a soapbox. If we make it into that kind of place, then we lose what art is and should be, a special, sacred, holy communication with the human spirit.
I know that sounds high-falutin’.
Sorry.
It is.
