And the controversy continues. Ben Kepple, in his usual articulate way (I particularly enjoy his use of the royal "we") responds to what I wrote yesterday about conservatives. It has frustrated him - and he is not alone. I've received quite a bit of mail.
So I'll respond to the gentleman from New Hampshire - and say what I said in the comments to my post yesterday - and in various emails to people:
I really was only ranting at the anti-art conservatives, and the "Stop change" conservatives. I say it numerous times in my original post. That was the focus, for me. Not all conservatives, not at all. If the shoe fits, wear it - If it don't fit, then don't wear it.
The faction of conservatives who think Harry Potter is evil ... who are rabidly against gay marriage - Those are the people I have the beef with. I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW that not all conservatives believe these things. The "religious right" has co-opted a lot of these issues - and this is the constant struggle of any political party - to deal with the extremists in their midsts.
I am talking to the very loud extremists.
Many people out there make huge blanket generalized statements about the general stupidity of actors and actresses - and I must struggle within myself to not take those statements personally, to not include myself in something which, to my view, does not "fit".
My essay was a personal statement for me: that I do not wish to look at art through a political filter. That's it. Many people do, and that's fine for them - but it's not for me.
And to clarify what I meant about art for art's sake: Of course there is bad art out there. And I do not clap and cheer when hacks make bad art.
But my point is: NOBODY claps and cheers at bad art. We cannot stop the "bad art" from coming out beforehand. "Art for art's sake" to me means - my photographer friend who takes a month off every year to go to some remote area, and work, and ruminate on what she wants to create, and take pictures ... Maybe they'll end up in a gallery, maybe they won't - but she must go and do her thing REGARDLESS. This is the position of the artist. She's not making money yet, she is doing her art for the sake of doing her art.
And there are many people out there (and I am not pointing fingers at all conservatives - liberals do it on their side too) who need art to reflect their political beliefs. Or moral beliefs. They only enjoy art that they "agree" with - that reflects their own view of the world.
That's not how I look at things. It's also not how I look at my relationships with other people. I have people in my life who have all sorts of views - but we bond about things other than our like-ness of politics.
I was declaring myself separate from those who think that A Wrinkle in Time is an evil book. If you are not one of those people, then this is not for you.
But if you deny that there is a faction of conservatives who are anti-art - then I don't know what else to say.
There is also a faction of liberals who are anti-art and who want to control the way we depict women, minorities, life in general.
I'm against that too.
Going out to enjoy the snow now.
One thing more, before I join the blizzard: Ben Kepple is one of my favorite bloggers and writers - I respect him very very much. I figured that with all of the comments, and all of the emails, I should clarify what I meant in the original rant.
Posted by sheila