Hello.
During our trip this summer we listened to audio books and speeches to pass the time...and to keep our brains from turning to mush.
We found the time went very fast and my wife and I had some very interesting chats and debates.
Our fare ran the gamut from Goldie Hawn, to Thomas Friedman to Alan Alda to Lewis Black to Bill Bryson, Bob Newheart and so on...
We also discovered THE CITY LIGHTS BOOKSTORE in San Francisco...(the sister store to SHAKESPEAR AND COMPANY in Paris)...we love both book stores.
At City Lights we purchased a CD with a talk by Howard Zinn.
He spoke one month after 9/11 (before we were ever in Iraq) on the topic of the Artist Role in times of War...or conflict.
What do you think artists, animators, people in the arts should be doing during times of war. has anyone done anything for Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan or any conflict or issue.
Should our work reflect the times or is it too chancey???
What do you do along these lines?
Thanks
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
I think it depends on one's personal politics.
If one supports the war effort then their work can be thrust in support, if they have questions, concerns or outright condemnations then they should fairly express themselves in that vein.
Unfortunately, artists often bear the brunt for such expressions ( from either point of view) because of all the small-minds that surround us all.
In the end, I think it depends of the the circle of people around and the extent of the circle your own work influences.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I value the escapism many movies, comics and books provide. Not that I'm "afraid" of reality. I watch the news and read the papers every day and I've got the life right in front of me to deal with as well. However, it's good to have a way out of all that.
I like good parodies of historical and actual events and I find old wartime cartoons very interesting because I see them as contemporary documents. The problem that's inherent especially to those, however, is that they offer somewhat one-sided views at times.
As I see it, artistically portraying current political events in an illuminating yet inoffensive manner requires a great deal of knowledge and maturity. Not every pencil-wielding maniac should attempt it.
I think other avenues have far more importance in times of war than art. Art can provide moral support or inspiration, but art alone will never change things. Real political involvement has far more impact than creating an artistic expression. In the end, the work gets judged soley for its artistic merits anyway, message aside. Artists against war should keep making art, but get involved politically on a personal, and not on an abstract, level. Making beautiful works of art while making personal statements in a real political environment carries true weight. Sitting in your studio and churning out anti-this anti-that works and letting others protest and campaign comes off as shallow. If artists want to make statements they should be directly involved in what they're protesting. But their actions will always speak louder than their art.
It's the artist's responsibility to portray their viewpoints on the society, world around them, and current events. The artist's role is that of sharing their life experience with the rest of the world through their creative expression. To limit that expression to only trivial or pretty/petty facets would be to minimize their voice and scope of expression.
To limit expression would give politicians and leading monied interests the only power to effect the shaping of the world and society.
Literature, music and the visual arts have always played a role in the shaping of societies. Think of how Chopin's Polonaise, Opus 22 was a major inspiration for the Polish resistance, Picasso's Guernica (a statement against the horrors of the war), Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath illustrated the desperation of the dust bowl. The list of great works could go on forever and illustrate the importance of the artist's influence in shaping society.
For the artist to shirk that responsibility and only focus their work on the pretty or petty would be cowardly, and only serve the motives of the rich and powerful that attempt to mold the world to their vision without opposition.
Art should not be viewed simply as a recreational diversion, but an intregal part of all human life experience. Modern society has tried to compartmentalize it into something that isn't necessary but is optional in the development of an individual or society.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I completely agree with phacker. He has already said most of the things I wanted to. Film like graves of the fireflies, is one of the examples I admire as an effort to portray what's the other face of war.
=~My Animation Blog~=
Hello.
Great comments!
From what folks have said, it seems the social circles in which the artists metriculates has a great influence. Few artists defy the masses or what can be mistaken for the masses.
The DAILY SHOW and THE COLBERT REPORT and COUNTDOWN with KEITH OBERMAN seem to be the only programs which dare hold up a mirror. Note that folks in the States would more readily agree because they know of these TV programs (okay, so I am assuming that TV is art). In Europe, CNN shows a watered down version of the DAILY SHOW on Sunday night.
I guess SOUTH PARK and the SIMPSONS handle current topics in pop culture...have either had shows directed at say Iraq since 2002?
It seems when it come to MASS audiences- safer seems better for most artists.
Opps, I forgot the JIB JAB folks and their political skits.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
I think the way (and tone) in which humorous social criticism is tackled has changed quite a bit during the last decades. Humor has gotten loud and hip and borders on polemics much too often. There were humorists like Jerome K. Jerome, Ephraim Kishon and René Goscinny who were wonderfully elegant observers of human nature and their times, but who, for all their hidden criticism, saw the whole of humanity as, well, human, which was - forgivable.
I guess the Simpsons recently did. I didn't see it but there was a review of it here:
http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=6059
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I feel like programs such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report don't really critique the mainstream opinions, as much as they reflect another side of them. The shows tend to have political affiliations of their own, which, you know, fall into predefined camps. I think there's a tendency for people to associate themselves and those around them with "left wing" and "right wing" sides, in effect limiting their own beliefs and values to a certain media-made construct. Shows like the Daily Show seem to support "left wing" ideals, politicians, and activists. The way they justify themselves as a source of culture critique is by saying that the masses are all "right wingers". In reality, these shows are simply a part of the media, defining a value system for the masses. I mean, they discuss the exact same issues that their opponents address (but from a different perspective), giving their audience the impression that those issues are the important issues of our age. Most of the issues in question are very America-centered issues, and American value systems (I'm not talking about Judeao-Christian ethics, but about the more vast, far-reaching ethic of post-modern capitalism which ultimately is at the heart of both left and right wing politics) define how we address those issues. For that reason, I don't know that the artist is being especially relevant to his/her times by addressing political issues. I'm not saying that every political issue is actually irrelevant, but I'm just saying that political debate doesn't automatically legitimize an issue's importance. I think the artist's role is constantly one of observing and (depending on your philosophical views) defining humanity by the sharing of those observations in creative ways. That may or may not take the form of political art, and it may even be labelled "escapism" at times, but in order to be relevant, I think art must, in some way, address core ideas about what it means to be human. Sorry for the length of the post.
I agree Spartacus, I think the examples Larry gave are in most part media/market driven.
I think the Jib Jab brothers though were working on their own particular message, and in the process found a market.
It's hard really at this time to find anything that is really truly art motivated that speaks to todays issues. Perhaps that's due to the present political climate, or maybe the fact that most of us are exposed to these things through the popular public media. I am sure down the road time wise some will rise to the top as speaking for popular/unpopular ideas. But I think we are all too close to it right now to really say. Haven't heard a song produced lately that will have the effect that say Bob Dylan's Blowing in the Wind did. But I have hope. Swimming to the Other Side struck a note with me, but none of my friends have ever heard of it.
I've personally done some small works based on my feelings on the issues, just because I felt compelled to, but they will probably never gain wide exposure.
Swimming to the Other Side
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
You know, I think that's probably one of the main obstacles keeping another Dylan from coming up. The whole issue of exposure is such a complicated thing. I mean, nowadays there are maybe one or two giant corporations that either own or heavily influence the majority of the popular media. Because of this, most of the entertainment that is produced has some direct marketable quality to it, or it isn't released. There are bands like Pearl Jam who have tried to boycott these companies, but to no avail... I wonder if a modern Bob Dylan would have to mask his/her message under some marketable issue in order to really be heard.
With the internet, the little man should be able to overcome these hurdles. But I see preteens now over emphasising marketing data, and analysising their choices as to what industry to enter based on monetary outcome. When did that become the guiding light in the world? There should be other motives besides profit guiding the artistic light in the world.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Should be and Can be are two different things, though. It's hard to not to at least consider the monetary aspect of your field when the schools that offer a quality art education cost around 40,000 per year. Without the silver spoon, practicality has to govern the artist's choices, so that a person needs to see the possibility that their loans will be able to be paid off in order to validate their career choice. In other words, living in a capitalistic society, there's a level of reaction that's dictated by money issues in the mind of every artist. I think you're right that money shouldn't be the basis for choosing an art field, or a direction in life, for that matter, but I also think that with the importance our culture has given money, it's hard not to let financial issues control at least a part of the basis for a person's artistic guidance.
Realistically I know that's true, but in many ways it's also very sad. Because it means inspiration can in short be bought. It cheapens and quantifies the whole life experience.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Yeah, but I think that's where apperception comes in. The challenge for the artist is to enter whatever chosen field of art he/she chooses on the terms of the industry, to speak the language of the industry, but to convey a message that really addresses relevant human issues. I think you're right that it's a sad situation, but I think it's also stimulating to our creativity, as artists. The problem offers us a unique chance to convey a relevant message in an environment that's not conducive to any sort of meaningful communication.
If you are basing your creatitivity on return for investment, I am glad I am in the last quarter of my life. I hope it wasn't my generation that started this trend because it speaks to the ethic that the only valuable expression is that which is compensated for in a measure that is deemed valuable to those that are in power or popularity.
To try and modify your expression for the greatest gain is to sell out or prostitute your art. To speak your heart and soul without benefit of recompense is to create real art.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I agree. I'm not saying that the only valid creative expressions are those which fill a person's pocket. I am saying, however, that a creative expression loses its validity if nobody hears it. Due to the sad state of affairs, the people who control the mass media are profit-driven, and don't typically allow meaningful communication to be made, on a large scale. The artist who wants to make something that communicates from the heart doesn't have to whore out his/her work, but, rather, has to become something of an Odysseus, finding original ways of expressing him/herself in a way that "fools" the executives into producing it. I don't know. Maybe that's idealistic.
I've always found this concept that you're either an "artist" or a "sellout" ridiculous. Everyone needs to earn a living, or they won't be creating art for long. Creative expression isn't one of the lower levels on Maslow's hierarchy. Food, clothing, and shelter are, and those generally require a source of income.
The great masters of the past all had patrons, sought commissions, or sold their work in salons and galleries.
Dylan had a recording contract when his most influential work came to people's attention.
If someone likes what I do and wants to pay me to do it for them, I'm more than happy to cash the check. I gotta eat too, and their money spends the same as anyone else's. If they want me to do something I feel compromises my work and we can't find a middle ground, I'm free to walk away and sell my services to someone else.
QUOTE:
... Titled “The Day the Earth Was Stupid,” the segment recalls the panic caused by Orson Welles’ 1938 radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, only this time aliens Kang and Kodos capitalize on the confusion by invading Springfield. At one point, Kang says, "Well, the Earthlings continue to resent our presence. You said we'd be greeted as liberators!" Kodos replies, "Don't worry, we still have the people's hearts and minds." He then holds up a brain and a heart.
The extra-terrestrials continue to debate the decision to launch “Operation Enduring Occupation” and make references to “weapons of mass disintegration." And if all that was too subtle, Kang, looking over the ruins of Springfield, delivers the final line: "This sure is a lot like Iraq will be."
http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=6059
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/simpsons-pitch-tent-in-antiwar-camp.php
Thanks for the wonderful insights...and not "incites".
As Harvey pointed out with the Simpsons example, animation can make a contribution to the debate. The "debate" can include both sides of a topic. An artist can comment on all sides of an issue (again, as the DAILY SHOW has-).
My sense of it is that I have my work I do "for hire" and other work I do to express feelings, thoughts, etc. on different issues.
I do feel artists and animators have a bit more responsibility to the public. Folks may not agree with me on this - but I feel that way.
Two of my films, ANIMAGIC and OUR WORLD provided a visual forum for animators to contribute their thoughts on specific topics. In both films, the animators decided what they wanted to express. Their thoughts and visuals and stories were what they wanted to portray. The films just provided a framework for them to express themselves.
In a few instances, I have to admit, I wouldn't have made some of their creative choices- but that was okay- because I did want their ideas and choices- even if they differed from mine.
In both films, the choices the animators made sparked thoughful debates and that further enhanced their participation on the projects.
They were fun projects to be a part of.....
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
It takes courage to take a stand. Here's an example of a fifteen year old girl that put together some video presentations of her stand and what sort of nasty responses she got from her detractors. I realise her work isn't true animation, but she went out on a limb and got lambasted for her efforts. Makes one wonder why all the vile comments. Must have threatened some. And perhaps they were afraid her expressions would cause some to change their viewpoints.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc042406
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I love it when people use [sic] to highlight the fusion of ignorance and stupidity. There could be 500 comments, but it builds the case for "Aw, poor widdew girl can't accept all facets of life" when they quote the people who struggle to spell basic vocabulary of the topics they supposedly feel strongly about.
Not sure I follow you Scattered.
But I admire the fact that she has produced the amount of work she has and mounted it to the net in an efficient manner. At fifteen not sure I would have known how to do that.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
No worries, just commenting on the way the article was written.
Usually "sic" is used to quote someone accurately without it appearing to be a typo.
Oh yah, I'm familiar with the usage, I was saying that there might have been quite a few comments about her pieces where the people had no issues with spelling, mechanics, grammar or the like, but that if I were writing an article to build sympathy for her I might include only those comments which struggled through basic use of language so as to reflect poorly on those who might act as detractors. I was implying that using two [sic] comments was deliberate in order to set a tone.
Hey!
where did the "ARTIST AND POLITICS discussion go...
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Nowhere. That's why we're having this one :)
So there I was slipping my vote into the counting machine (which resembled a shredder...hmmmm), and the nice lady said I could then take an "I Voted" sticker.
So I took two, slapped 'em on my shirt and proclaimed "I voted twice!".
Didn't get a laugh.
Eh.
Splatman:D
SPLAT digital
Not sure he had the contract with Columbia when he wrote "Blowing in the Wind". Are you?
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Yeah, when John Hammond discovered him (in '61) he he only had a couple of originals--his first album with Columbia was mostly covers of traditional folk and blues songs. Dylan wrote "Blowin' in the Wind" in '62 and it was on the album Freewheelin' in 1963.
You're attempting to split hairs, and in the process missing the point. To start with, I'm talking about consumption, not creation. To refresh your memory:
Note "came to people's attention", not "was written." But even if it had been written prior to his contract (which it wasn't - thanks GB), that's still beside the point. People ultimately heard the song because of his record deal, not because it was a great song.
This is so true. Know more than ever!
Nogga News Cartoon
Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida is a private school with highly regarded art education, but it's less than 14 grand a year. Might wanna look and see if there are similar setups near you.
I am not sure how many of you have ever seen Spielburg's film Empire of the Sun, but for me it is one of the greatest anti-war films ever made. It touched me a lot more than Schindler's List, or Saving Private Ryan.
At least Spielburg takes the plunge and produces some true works of art. I personally think Hook is one of them also, although it pure escapism. His films speak to the human in all of us. We related to ET and Eliot. He's a true artist, hope he never sells out.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I don't see how you can tell artists and writers that they "should be doing" work about a particular subject, unless they're working for you.
Your question is one that determines the ethics of a persons' character.
Meaning that it is the individual who has the power to make a difference.
I am sick and tired if people and politics, rather justifying and adderssing issues that affects us as human beings; race,bigotry,lack of respect for gods sake, we should be focusing on the values and just principles that a lot of us seem to lack.
Animators have the the power to make a difference, maybe not a big one, but significant none the less, contrary to their motives and beliefs; (don't get me started) too many people defy basic principle based on their political or religious beliefs, I mean come on? do you really think conservatives are evil and that certain people of a certain religious system (I won't say who,) actually give a damn about us.
Okay, I may have digressed a moment, but the main issue is, yes we can make a difference, but it is based upon the idividual characteristics of our human values and principles, we people as an entire whole must band together to accomplish great things, one alone cannot quell a wild fire.
Talk more on this, but for now, I'm late.
Keep safe. DDA
He who seeks the truth, must first empty his heart of a false pursuit.
Diemeras Dark Angel
I admire artists who can make a political statement, especially those that can make a joke about it. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are my favs. I have no desire to work on anything political or about war. It's far too complicated. you need that one vision, one message and I start looking at all sides and lose direction. I get very cynical and sad rather than angry and feel the need to make a statement.
I've seen the 15yo girls website and I admire what she did. There's another part of me that gets a littl miffed that she's using all that amazing work by photographers and musicians -- but hey, she did something GOOD with it.
Susan Sontag wrote a wonderful book called "Regarding the Pain of Others". I highly recommend it. While it concentrates on photography and war I think many of her insights can be applied to other media. She not only looks at the artist, but at us, the viewer.
http://www.susansontag.com/regardingpain.htm
I agree B'ini, I had some concerns about her not giving the original creators of the photos and music credit for their work.
Sontag is great.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.