A recent New York Times article (reprinted here) raised the question in the title above and it should stimulate some thought and discusson. The opening paragraph captures the issue:
‘There are exceptions to every rule,” said the writer, director and producer Charles E. Sellier Jr. “But I’ve been at this 34 years, and I really, honestly, believe that the more creative you are, the more likely you are to be a liberal.”
Is there something about the liberal temperament that lends itself to greater artistic achievement? The infamous “Hollywood Left” is only one example of what seems to be a recurring pattern–people involved in creative endeavors are usually associated with a certain ideological bent. But once you start following that thread, you must ask just what is meant by the word “liberal,” a term that has certainly changed meaning in the last one hundred years. Here is the American Heritage dictionary definition:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
(Mmmm, makes you wonder how it defines its presumed antonym, “conservative.” It’s here.)
The Western idea of progress, of discovery as expressed in art has meant a willingness to avoid the rut of one received manner of expression; yes, there are times of stasis when one style reigns for a while but there is always a movement waiting to move from, for example, a staid classicism to an emotional expressionism, often the result of a rising generations of discontented youth. Whereas eastern traditions hold a firmer grip on artistic expressions, the Western tradition is to sooner or later overturn tradition (even if it means returning to an earlier tradition).
The question of a relationship between ideological/theological temperaments and aesthetic ones can be overgeneralized of course, but I think it tells us something when the preponderance of people in the arts and entertainment field seem to dwell in a liberal environment. This partly has to do with the unconventional lifestyles of actors, for example, who, classically, have moved from job to job playing all types of characters that do things most folks would never do– thus the theater has been historically notorious for the permissiveness of its players. And likewise, since its earliest days, Hollywood actors and other creative types have been known for wild parties and naughty behavior–coming to the west coast from whatever background, the only community they know is the rough and tumble of ambition, glamor, job insecurity and public adoration. This isn’t the mainstreet milieu of conservative attitudes associated with small towns, churches and neat suburbs. (And yes, I know there are exceptions to these patterns.)
There are numerous reasons for the lack of conservatives in the arts and this is not a recent development in western culture. Evangelicals abandoned any sizable involvement in the arts in the nineteenth century as pietistic attitudes forbad the participation in novel-reading, the theater and other “idle amusements.” Whatever formative influence evangelicals could have had on culture was lost by their near total neglect of it, so that when the flood of mass media in the 20th century washed through society, all the churched could do was protest loudly, leading Hollywood to shape movie morality to fit the audience (which through the Production Code shaped the content of Hollywood’s classic era of the 1930s and 40s.)
Also it seems that conservatism fits better with business acumen than artistic aptitude and thus you may find more practical conservatism in the studio executive suites where someone has to watch the bottom line on costs and content. These execs and producers may be committed Democrats in the voting booth but on the job they have to keep an eye on production budgets, schedules and making sure no unnecessary content cripples a film’s audience appeal. Thus the tension between conservative oversight of liberal artistic tendencies And thus liberal artistic impulses constrained by conservative oversight is merely the continuing principle of the eternal tension between art and prudence–what can be done versus what should be. This would indicate that the artistic/ideological liberal needs the conservative to balance and shape his art for public taste and consumption, and the conservative needs the liberal imagination to invent fresh stories, characters and ideas.
A couple of issues here.
First of all there is not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between creativity and working in the “arts”. I believe that equating the two artificially limits the idea of creativity. There are plenty of ways of being creative without being in the “arts”.
Second, there is really not that much creative even in the “arts”. If by creative we mean innovative or thought provoking. Most of what constitutes the “arts” these days is very derivative or boringly shocking. (Insert a crucifix in urine, fine I’ll put feces on the Virgin Mary–I’m more shocking than you. Yawn.) I’m not saying that there isn’t anything innovative out there or that by and large it may be being created by liberals but it is definitely not in what we by and large identify as the arts.
Overall I like your each side helps balance the other conclusion but in the main both sides tend toward the middle and the possibility of creativity from either side is ignored.
MAK
Comment by Mike Klein — August 7, 2006 @ 3:19 pm |
One other problem is that Kant’s definition of creativity (as I recall, doing something completely novel and unprecedented) is almost universally accepted these days. That excludes, for example, scientists and engineers — who are certainly creative from their own perspectives! Kant, in fact, categorically stated that scientists can’t be creative.
But engineers are famously conservative, with industrial scientists only slighly less so, and academic scientists and engineers often being political moderates (which puts them well to the right of their non-scientist colleagues in academia).
Kant’s definition of creativity means, for example, that (at least until fairly recently) bands that were excellent “cover bands” were forced to write their own, typically sub-par, material in order to get a recording contract. Often that meant that the bands failed.
Comment by Dan Berger — August 8, 2006 @ 9:36 am |
Mike and Dan, thanks for the input!
I glean from both of your comments that often, liberal artists aren’t as liberal, or as artistic as they’d like to think of themselves–indeed, doing something “completely novel and unprecendented” is rare and I think Kant overstates what creativity is. As someone as put it, only God creates “ex nihilo” (sp?) i.e., from nothing. Classical aesthetics would say that we attempt to find the best expression of a form that has beauty and truth. It may be a known genre, but a well-executed expression of that genre, whether tragedy, comedy, or something else. True and complete originality is rare if and when it ever happens (and the more you learn about any particular genre or medium, the more you see how works considered quite singular had some real precedents that you just didn’t know about at the time–hence the importance of knowing your history. IOW it’s better to do art well rather than doing “completely original” art. Usually the work we enjoy the most starts with something familiar and has a fresh approach or wrinkle to it that suprises and pleases. (Almost everything Shakespeare wrote had prior sources.) As to liberal and conservative approaches, this seems to confirm that classic forms (conservative) expressed in new ways (liberal) produces great art.
Comment by Alex — August 8, 2006 @ 10:11 am |
Dan, see my reply to your and Dan’s comments.
Comment by Alex — August 8, 2006 @ 10:12 am |