Poltcans Versus Artsts Stefan Morawsk Few thnkers have forged as uch sze and clarty of vewpont wth respect to the central questons posed by ths ssue of Arts In Socety as has Stefan Morawsk, the outstandng Polsh aesthetcan and phlosopher of the arts. Hs "Poltcans Versus Artsts," unquely drawn fro personal observaton of the contradctons, abvalences, and dchotoes characterzng cultural aspraton on both sdes of the Iron Curtan, hghlghts n large socetal frae the ost fundaental poltcal queston of all: that of artculatng the needs and uses of power wth the needs and uses of creatve expresson. Over and over agan In ther coplex hstory, the arts have proven they are sgnfcantly dependent on poltcs. Let us dstngush aong three knds of ths dependence. a) Ideologcal eanng n the artwork. Latent Ideologcal sgnfcance s often prnted as an ntegral part of the act of artstc creaton. Soetes, t wll be unrecognzed untl explcated durng the aesthetc evaluaton. Yet an Ideologcal functon Is nherent to art In general. Because ths s so, strctly poltcal nterpretatons of art objects are perssble even when these were defntely not the artst's Intenton, b) Soco-poltcal cotents whch artsts seek to ake anfest. They are ephaszed In artworks In order to be recognzed by a conteporary publc. Soetes, but not always, later audences perceve these allusons and the correspondng cotents, c) Drect pngeents on art by socety. What s done by socety through Its offcal and nforal Insttutons, when these latent Ideologcal eanngs and these overt soco-poltcal cotents are encountered? Are the exstng avenues of artstc expresson left unpared, or are they closed? T o dscuss any sde of art's dependence In connecton wth poltcs wll deand that attenton be pad to all of these three sdes. All the sae, y ephass here wll be prarly on the last. Manfestly engaged art (the second category) wll generally provde the exaples that provoke controversy. In addton, wth regard to the thrd sde of poltcs and art (ths contextual aspect), I wll attend anly to the proble consttuted by the governng apparatuses whch possess defnte executve groups and offcal deologes. Looked at fro ths standpont, aong the coonplace edatons connectng art to poltcs Is a censorshp. By defnton a censorshp welcoes that whch asssts or at any rale does not antagonze the rulng power. It oves to block that whch Is probleatc for the antenance of the poltcal power. Every poltcal syste undoubtedly has ts censoral ar, whether offcal or unoffcal. The ethods and ratonales for the exercse of ts role are nuerous. The strctly poltcal functon of censors needs to be docuented and analyzed thoroughly, yet a full and close account has not been publshed. How very nstructve t would be to dscern just why and how through any centures, and In all cultures the alost unceasng poltcal control of the arts has been asserted! As for the 'how' of poltcal censorshp of art, t can be quckly explored as questo fact. What are th_e persstent recourses of the censor? These easures, we ay _ reasonably suggest, are organzed around a prohbton of specfed thees; an deologcal taboo on certan approved hero-types, certan canons of style and for, etc T h e 'why' of the censor's unrettng role s. a ore dffcult atter. A catalog of dffer 1 8 rexplanatons In dfferent trtes and places could be drawn up. Yet doesn't the eptoe 0f the all le In the concept of the Defn- ' tvely 0 r d e r e d S o c e t y? More or less, the executve strata of a gven socety ay * reason thus: "Our People and our Naton 4 coprse a hallowed, essentally postve coonwealth havng as Its ost lofty acheveent the Church or the State. Only f everybody boosts together shall we reap the benefts. What otve could anyone J possbly have for gettng out of lne?" It Is rearkable to what degree those n the executve sector do depct theselves frequently as the vrtual esslahs, as those who Ï can secure the endurng happness of anj knd f only they are aded to the hlt n posng the Defntvely Ordered Socety. Whether prests or kngs, ltary or party dctators, tyranny ay be practced whle the I perfect socal syste s proclaed and the glarng gap Is often never acknowledged.» "M 1 «. >; : *s % S I logjj'' by Nancy Grossan, I6V2" h., wood and e.b r 1 9 ' 7 1 - Courtesy of the artst. ^ The volence and represson whch shore up rather narrow Interests wll be cyncally dssebled; f requred or perhaps nduced to take publc responsblty for ther polcy In culture, they appeal wthout fall to glora De, vox popul, Blut und Boden and what have you. Glory and prestge, then, are extended to the securty polce and nqustors n solen covenant wth the eek In sprt and the "healthy-nded" artst, as aganst the artst who Is "decadent, corrupt and contagous!" On the bass of these prelnary rearks we can already see, nonetheless, how staken t would be to analyze the connecton of art to poltcal power as erely and solely one of forced coplance. Let us therefore state explctly three qualfcatons whch are portant: Frst, we shall gve our an attenton here to the authortaran poltcal context, but clearly others do exst. We tend to thnk for exaple of a deocratc context for the arts along the lnes (whch are sybolc of course) of free speech In Hyde Park, where adnstratve and polce controls do not stop the outh of the outspoken. It would be encouragng to thnk that progress Is constant towards a hgher cvlzaton, accordngly poltcal censorshp of the arts wll dnsh. How warng to Iagne that Hyde Park or rather, a correspondng dsposton of the arts polces throughout every aspect of the structures of culture wll eventually prove ebleatc for the cong era. But events forbd opts of ths order. We need not consult the centures of feudals and of slavery to justfy a sober expectaton. For our Englsh exaple, our paradg of unrestrcted expresson. Is a rare If not totally sngular phenoenon. And t Is worth ephaszng that the Hyde Park forula can be but a dssulaton for a poltcal power whch feels no absolute concern regardng what artsts say. No doubt, n such a set-up the absolute lberty of art becoes a yth: snce to be free eans also to be lstened to and reckoned wth. I'll coe back to ths pont In y concludng rearks. Another odern paradg was etched on our awareness by the Naz Thrd Rech: It establshed concentraton caps for errant artsts and Intellectuals. And of course, just as Fascst-
style represson was wdespread pror to 1939 so Is t stll today. Europe's caudllos, 'black colonels' and other tyrants conduct a conspcuous and often very effectve capagn aganst the poets, panters and coposers. The results are equalled and often surpassed elsewhere. Hat provdes an abonable nstance of throughness for the reander of Latn Aerca n breakng the huan nd, nor wll the passng of "Papa Doc" In tself releve the agony In Hat or elsewhere. Such natons as Thaland and Indonesa cannot cla any prase for ndulgng the soco-poltcal vews held by ther controversal artsts. And no survey of ths atter, however bref, can leave asde the socalst systes. If ther Marxst deology were to serve as the nor and test, the socalst countres should coe to stand as the fullest ebodents of artstc lberty. The theoretcal assuptons and deologcal proses however rean unfulflled. Second, we ust agan qualfy the Issue of art as coerced by ts poltcal context, by takng Into account the perods of revoluton. The phrase Inter ara slent Musae doesn't ft. Rather, a great nuber of artsts In such exceptonal hstorcal tes (Includng the best aong the) lend a hand to the soco-poltcal upheaval ether drectly In ther wrtng and deeds, or by gvng oral support. At such tes It becoes rdculous to speak of the connecton of the artst to poltcs In ters of the forer's subsson. Just the contrary occurs In these perods. Where the artst Is dedcated to the revoluton and has a sense of responsblty for the outcoe, hs poltcal stance s freely adopted. Here the artst's spontanety does not Iply an estrangeent fro the dynacs of poltcal power, but the opposte. Nor wll the cvl authortes have cause to apply coercon to the artst. And the poltcal power that eerges fro the uprsng however harsh t ay be on counter-revolutonares generally s bengn towards the non-revolutonary artst. Hs cooperaton s sought. The revolutonsts seek to wn h over, to ake h see hs partnershp n the struggle. Ths atttude bulds on the utual sypathes that predate the uprsng. For durng the te of the Stur und Drang ncubaton of revolt, any artsts of stature enter 10 the poltcal torrent, ether adng wth polt, cal acts or Indrectly through novels, poetry uscal coposton, theatre peces, poltcal anfestos. In the countres whch have feeble deocratc tradtons owng to ther hstorcal destnes (e.g., the Slavc and Balkan natons), the creatve Intellgentsa even tends to step In and assue the ssng poltcal functon. Where ths has occurred the revolutonary ardor and selflessness of the artsts can be extraordnary. Naturally n such crcustances, the eerg- Ing revolutonary governent wll seek welcongly aong the artsts for corades. It s reasonable to expect an art whch s poltcal n the sense that It Is eager for the vctory of the nsurgents and the establshent of a new socal order. Thrd, we ay cte another qualfcaton of the coerclveness of poltcal authorty. Lke the second, our thrd concerns a category of artsts whose response to that power s favorable, even enthusastc. We speak here of artsts who are cofortable wth the governents that resst socal ferent. Let's call the the adherents of the court. Thus, the slarty wth our second category Is superfcal. Ths s a dfferent breed entrely. The artst who s cotted to revoluton ust often run rsks. Hs cotent ay cost h sorely. The hstorcal tde ay suberge h utterly. The artst who adheres to "the court," however, runs no equal rsks. He fears only the contept of those n hs own te better than he s, and the III repute that posterty ay ark out for hs career. Does he even have oral scruples? The ore astute aong the revolutonary artsts wll ull over every last aspect of such Issues as revolutonary terror. They wll not abde t cofortably, but wll suffer wth each sufferng nflcted. Such artsts are ntrospectve about ther allegances. Where they agree to restrctons of lbertes, they wll say to every lstener that t s because condtons ust be prepared that wll pert the ore coplete deocratc exercse of freedos. The courter artst lacks such reasonngs; he does not reflect on eans and ends. The eans are what serve hs ends ost opportunely- He takes despots In hs strde and swallows sophstres wth hs dally tea. He seeks the vrtue In the "huan face" of hs desp "And so closely s the court artst Identfed wlth the prevalng order that the poltcal censorshp never coes up as a proble for h. We don't care whether hs coplacency s genune or fegned. It Is functonal. He feels no burden n lvng up to the expectatons of the poltcal power. And we ay add that the role of the coercal artst Is very lke that of the artst as careerst. The coercal artst develops an apathy or a skeptcs towards the poltcal authorty, and hs sense of dstance releves h of a gulty conscence. Because there s nothng of socal, phlosophcal, or ethcal convctons n hs work (whether or not hs "real" atttude Is shown), there Is nothng that can call down a dsapprovng response fro the powerful. Many authortaran reges open the doors to coercal producton no atter how junky; It Is a way to conceal the anacles placed on artstc Integrty. "Lberals" of ths strpe pays off, too. However, the artsts who lve under ths slate of affars and dssent aganst t ay take ther revenge. They ay enter the coercal art feld and use an Aesopan choce of words and ages to sabotage the I soco-poltcal oppresson. The affronted censorshp then grows hyper-cautlous; It treats sall scandals as ajor confrontatons. Ths s what happened when the Tsarst rege started to tyrannze over the character of cabaret and varety shows, advertsng placards, etc. II. We have portrayed a spectru wth the truly revolutonary artst (however few there ay be of these) at one end, and the sycophantc or the erely well-adjusted "court artst" at the other end. Yet there Is another queston that ust be asked n ths regard: shall we judge these artsts' works as genunely artstc? Or Is there soethng about the absence of conflct wth poltcal authorty n the that ust be traced to a non-art status of the work? We shall have to be bref In our answer. In y vew, no knd of content should be judged antthetcal to the character of art. Content Is not what gves art ts specfc propertes. Rather that character s essentally provded by astery and what generally s tered the foral structure. Both the revolutonst outlook and the cour- The I, "' II- " wmnyumnnk n rjv»^ml-l.yu.;ffwwmi&.j ^UblULt^: I IIIIIHII III 11 l'l I IH^-.T'taj»;<1T^I reart of the Matter, by Bernard Aptekar. Courtesy: Lerner-Heller Gallery, New York 11 Ï.
ter outlook are copatble wth acheveent of the basc artstc attrbutes. Those falar wth the hstory of art wll surely agree. Another dstncton ust be outlned, however, whch has bearng on the uncertanty that underles the above queston. I ean to draw a dfference between the craft, éter, of the artst and hs vocaton. Soe of y readers ay object. They ay urge that the true artst wants only to perfect hs craft, and that Is hs sole vocaton. I wll not deny ths Is often the case. Such artsts ay rase ther art, ther craft, to a vrtuoso ptch and even so, a depleton, a certan Ipovershent, and perhaps a dstorton of ther orgnal potental wll result. If artst 'X' or 'Y Is a true vrtuoso we can only adre and applaud that trat. However, to regard ths trat as the sngle vrtue of an artstc oeuvre would be deplorable. Isn't t true that we judge as rather decadent and perhaps second-rate those perods where the pure vrtuoso Is the ost lauded artst and a fnshed and refned style the ost prased? Well then, why? It s because the artst also has a vocaton and I concede the abguty of that ter to ncorporate hs craft wth yet other als. No doubt such purposes are Inconsstent fro ndvdual to Indvdual, fro era to era. Yet we could say that two very sgnfcant goals contnually recur. What are these as, set by the artsts theselves? One s the role of the Innovator In art the protean brcoleur, who seeks and dscovers new technques, fors, eans of expresson, and thereby also extends the possbltes of huan experence. The other s that of a volunteer n the socal conflcts a cobatant who seeks to brng the experence of lvng ore nto lne wth the huanstc deals. The second s an extra-artstc a; the frst sn't. As between the revolutonst's atttude and the courter's career as speces of the vocaton-optons of the artst, ost wll agree that the forer outlook advances the huanstc deals on the whole, whle the courter neglects f he does not betray the. The reader wll recall, I beleve, that we see no coplcatons or obstacles In respect to the standpont of craft. Snce artstc craftsanshp Is avalable to all contents, the ssue of éter or craft Is neutral n relatng poltcs and art. The vocaton queston does brng up a tcklsh relatonshp, however. It concerns 12 the pecular role of the artst n connecton wth the pecular role of the poltcan. Because there ay often see occason for overlap or abrason, leadng to antagons between the poltcan and artst, we shall want to explore ths atter closely. What about the "overlap" nto a poltcal role by the artst? We often hear t sad that the latter ay exercse ratonal dscplne but hs orentaton Is towards achevng Intacy wth the doan of the rratonal that the creatve process uses eoton, agnaton and Intuton as ts aterals. Very well. Yet doesn't the poltcan also orent hself to these resources of hs role? He too draws advantage fro rratonalty. He ust nteract wth subtle awareness wth the psycho-socal trats of those whose approval he requres. Intuton and agna^ ton aren't these qualtes as portant as practcal reason n effectve, successful poltcal work? And don't grounds accordngly exst for an "overlap"? But another objecton s heard. Many wll agree that an artstc process and ts product are characterzed n ters of a foral structure and ts gven sensory eleents of expresson. Very well. However, ths Is but to pont to a ateral-techncal dfference n the artst's partcular vocatonal role. We could also reark that a nuber of poltcans Cleenceau, Palerston, De Gaulle, Churchll, etc. have been dstngushed stylsts and spellbndng speakers. What reans to be sad In ths fraework about the pecularty, the dlfferentness, of the artst's sense of huanst vocaton? That the artst, rather lke a chld, fnds II possble to reconcle wth soe dstasteful yet nescapable socal realtes, whch the poltcan both understands and Is able to cope wth? That hs specal copetence s partly orented to an rreducble tenson between nature and cvlzaton? Let us try to ake ths proposton ore precse. Are we to understand that the artst jealously guards hs spontanety aganst attrton? That he harbors and nourshes a nave and open responsveness towards the realty both outsde and wthn? Perhaps that touches t. If so, then let's agree we have coe closer to soe ponts of essental dstncton between the artst and the poltcan. Let us put the atter thus: The artst fettles hself Into a stuaton In the world -nly wth soe apprehenson and dffculty, ujs "navete," hs spontanety, bars easy agreeent wth rules and dogas. The artst's bent s not to go along wth events l us l as they occur, but rather to assess the easure and the eanng of hstory to take. the world wth a coprehendng look. But the poltcan has to concentrate on the partcular pont that affars have reached. By patence, devoted effort and cunnng, he edges events forward just a lttle. The poltcan wll be neffectve If he s unable to adjust and coprose. The artst however feels splaced n ths settng, unable to create on the bass of ts pragatc wsdo whch he frequently vews wth scorn. For the poltcan the prncple queta non overe Is usually soethng lke a coandent. The artst (whether by Instnct or a) s nquet and often dsruptve. The two roles, then, are counterposed but n a dalectcal way. To the artst falls the long vew and the deep soundng; t s a responsblty. To the poltcan falls the responsbllly for graspng the events where they stand and as they can be grasped. To the artst, perhaps the future s ost real. For the poltcan, the present. Each "lves te" but how dfferently! The poltcan resolutely studes and wrestles wth the lvng oent so as to aster t. The artst experences the durée yet sets hs eye not so uch on the passng specfcty as on the coposton of the pulsng Heraclltean flux. The forer has pragatc purposes and he has to be obsessed over the workable eans and the Iedate consequences. The artst always takes a step outsde the actualty and seldo cares uch about the eans/ ends calculus. Artsts look to the "cty of the sun," the prose In lfe, and fnd the conteporary world an abrasve and dffcult habtat. The poltcan lkewse ay possess a vson perhaps the sae vson, encoura ged by the sae poltcal deology as has ; drected the artst's thoughts. But at every foent the poltcan ust be prepared to a bsent hself fro hs vson, as t were, a,1 d attend to the ultfarous detals of hs Wor k. ts tactcs and strateges. 'hus, and paradoxcally, of the two t fppears that the artst s the ore stubborn ln holdng to hs deology! He proves the,?,0r e adherent to gudelnes once adopted. he poltcan becoes upset If he falls to acheve a grp on the tasks confrontng h. The anxety of the artst s dfferent, t stes fro hs nherent ncapacty to ft Into the gong socal rules. Nor do the two entaltes vew one another wth the utuallyrelnforclve dalectcal relaton In nd. Instead they hold dstorted deas, generally, of one another's role. To the "realstc" poltcal nd the artst sees a Utopan a Don Quxote tltng at wndlls. To the artst, the confdent and treless poltcan sees lke a "crackpot realst," a yopc "specalst" who has a very superfcal Idea of the real world. Whle the truth Is that they are orented to and In effect are responsble for dstnct but equally sgnfcant aspects of realty. The poltcan would rather not encounter any ntransgent personaltes, any unweldy alternatve deas of the world, or probles too dffcult to dspel In the feld of operatons he coands. Where these crop up, the poltcan tends to thnk the unnecessary, extraneous. Perhaps persons not of sound nd have Introduced these obdurate eleents nto the poltcal feld; In any case, they dsrupt the route to fulfllent of the nterests and objectves of the slent, happy and cooperatve ajorty whch the poltcan regards as confded to hs charge. The artst, for hs part, s ost cofortable wth all that s least reconclable wth the exstng state of affars. He seeks out what Is awkward, brttle, "aganst the gran." He akes uch of what sees largely neglected by those responsble for the present. Hs vson Is nourshed by what the poltcan fnds unpalatable. He tends to want to dentfy those persons who walk away fro what he's ade hs an concern. If there's a censor on watch, he'll be a lttle dscreet. And another pont of nterest: the artst rather rarely ndcts the socal syste as a whole. More often t s those who Ipleent Its power, who he ndcts by hs art. 13 So the poltcan and the artst have dvergent ponts of vew, and dfferent personalty styles, They ay well see and treat the sae socal fact n opposed ways. And when the qualty of lfe In the socety suffers a declne, these tendences are accentuated. The artst sees to care lttle for the upbeat aspects and oens of Iproveent although just such eleents are a bg part of the poltcan's case In
14, r'-'v;; X K provng the credblty of hs polces. Is the foregong a scheatzed contrast of the two types? Yes. But not owng to a (jstorlon; due rather to y selecton. My "artst" Is a dstllaton of the roantc and lberal-nded tendences whch run a gaut fro the rather ld bohelan, to the poete audt, the surrealst who posts an art whch Is savage and convulsve, and the deternedly "outsder" artst of today. The "poltcan" by contrast s a clever fellow In hs lne, but not a fre-brand; he s a copetent professonal and soethng short of a professonal revolutonary. Well, does y selecton ake for a falsfed portrat? I thnk not, and for three reasons. Frst, consder even the ancent perod. Its artsts ay have beleved n dfferent aesthetc prncples, but on the whole they lkewse regarded the herarchal orders of ther day wth skeptcs, and they too tended to be nusances to poltcal tranqulty. They dssented less blatantly; ther orentaton towards the future was uffled and took a dfferent aspect than we are falar wth fro the roantc artst. Second, what f we look around for the poltcans In all hstory who have had the broadest outlook, the ost progressve Ideology. Isn't t a coonplace that the pressng, varous, overwhelng deands on ther attenton and ther as have the result that they bracket ther Ideals and put the at one sde whle gettng on wth the job of creatng expedent allances and "fghtng fre wth fre,".e., beatng the foe wth hs own ethods? To struggle for power In the state Is Iensely deandng of pragatc solutons; to then consoldate that power, even ore so. Adnstraton of goods, servces and persons ust be organ- zed, and to ths end one needs a odus vvend wth nuerous nterest and pressure groups; but the actve artst, whether he s foantc or classcal In atttude, can have lttle patence wth the fulfllent of these 6 ssentlal tasks. Thrd, and fnally, y r6 ader wll have notced how closely y Models of the artst and the poltcan do [eseble ther real counterparts of today, n the past century the tendency towards Ur eaucracy, hoogenety, anonyty n ocal relatons has Increased. In response "ere has been an augentng of anxety n d barely contaned frustraton, whch the "'sts often artculate. An ntransgence, a 15 developng of a counter-culture partcularly aong the young today. Is n one sense the broadenng of those atttudes long prevalent aong artsts. And what Is It ths counterculture protests and rejects, f not ths expedency and conforty whch long have been justfed In the nae of technology and progress, and long have spread such dsastrous "sde" effects? The "sde" effect n queston Is ore than a lttle the one to whch the artst s attuned. Ths has uch to do wth what we descrbed as the artst's sense of hs vocaton. The huanstc als In whose cause the artst enlsts are shared by any Intellectuals, and thus soe vocatonal partnershps are forged. Properly the coon concern should create actve allances or at least dalogue wth the practcal poltcans, too, and wth adnstrators responsble for pragatc solutons. Ther dscussons should be based on equalty and utual respect. We have sought to understand the two dlalectcally-connected ponts of vew, to see what otvates both the artst and the poltcal adnstrator. Does ths allow us then to consder the censor n a certan postve lght? Is there a bass for accoodaton wth h? No! But why not? We have so far concluded: a) The artst and the poltcan generally correspond to dvergent roles In socety; b) The roles have becoe ost exaggeratedly dfferent In recent decades; cj The dvergent vocatons usually have a bass n dfferent natural dspostons of personalty: restless, rebellous persons see at hoe wth the arts, and the Sancho Panzas are readly accoodated n poltcs. The basc role-conflct assures that the censor wll be kept busy f hs functon s legtzed by a governent In our era, wll have trouble wth the artsts, fro Its pont of vew. Yet the functonares who adnstrate and decde polcy should (optally) bear n nd that the "trouble" they're gettng Is not the result of soe natural perversty of the artst. The latter wasn't born wth a nettle In hs hand. Hs vocaton at the rsk of over-stressng the pont, let's say t agan has Its bass n the processes of a developng socety. We can only explan adequately the probles the
artst akes, f we coprehend the underdevelopent, the aturty, of socety and of poltcs. For s the artst truly a scandal and a enace to hs fellows? Rather, the condtons he Inhabts ake hs rebellon plausble. No; the artwork does not threaten socety. Instead "the world Is out of jont" and the creatve and crtcal nd regsters the fact. What s art's ost veheent, btter, deagogc appeal for deeds of destructon, as copared to the everyday brutalty and volence, the hypocrsy and Injustce of socal lfe? To be succnct: There Is nothng In the socal role perfored by the artst to justfy the Iposton of poltcal censorshp. Gven our conclusons to ths pont, the offce of the censor would be recoended f t could be proven that the arts ay corrupt and dstort the publc's values and knowledge so as to underne a socety. Ths, however, s a fantasy that never s enacted n realty. The ost extree nstances of creatve expresson fall short of ths effect. Consder an exaple antwar propaganda, carred out by artsts In a.jr te of peralst war preparaton. The broad publc already has Its nd ade up, we ay assue, and It stands wth ts governent "rght or wrong." In ths case, the artsts ay be attacked for "defeats" but can we serously beleve ther efforts wll be effectve n blockng the war effort? And where the foundatons of a socety are well chosen, where reason Is on the sde of a naton (or ts rulng or prevalng sector), then what could be feared fro art, that could justfy a censorshp? Of course, the opposte pont should be ade: the less well-founded a governent s, the ore rratonal and hypocrtcal and out of control, and the ore It les to ts people, the ore t wll fnd a censor "justfed." We ay farly conclude that where the vocatons of the artst and the poltcan see to collde, a heavy responsblty rests on the poltcan the powers he welds need no descrpton to reach soe knd of accoodaton, not wth a censorshp, but wth the artsts. Gven suffcent plannng and dscusson, a dalogue can be created. Not a tae one but councaton, whch wll nze sunderstandngs f not tenson. The ore the poltcan proves cau- A Trangle, fro Slenolo, Slenco sute, by Juan Genovés, 19% x 26", etchng, 1970 Courtesy: Marlborough Gallery, New York. 16, L. tous, tolerant and percepfve n dalogue, j^e ore he wll fnd the belllgerancy goes out of the artst's defnton of hs vocaton. n turn the poltcan's pursut of practcal results should actually grow ore effectve, and ore coprehensve. In contrast, f authortaran tendences of adnstraton are gven ther head, the conflct of vocatons wll be sharpened. The adnstrators of socety wll seze upon ths predctable outcoe, to "prove" to the publc that the artsts are prvleged troubleakers and deserve all the hulaton that can be heaped on the. Made torented and solated by the wdely-publczed charges of decadence, adness, foolshness, arrogance, etc., the artst ay reply by artculatng hs vocatonal sense n a wobblng cry of rghteous rage. He ay also rase hs ar aganst those who have rased thers aganst h. The tyranny wll probably be confred n ts severty by ether response. They are frghtened even of cally-told truths. They are founderng In the sea of propaganda whch the artsts denounce. They now prase the censorshp as vndcated by the hatred of ts partcular foes. They redouble the censorshp and laud It. The censorshp s the fery sword of the People. Or of God. Of course, the artst ay also appear very contentous under ore deocratc condtons. There ay see lttle value n councatng wth h. Under stern controls, he'll just shut up. So It appears. A "court" of deferental sycophants can be had by the show of sweet carrots and strong stcks. To these add soe "professonals," detached artstobservers of the scene, who wll wrte nothng to gve offense. Yet that s not the Whole result, as the censorshp learns. A double realty starts to eerge n the real: the offcal totaltaran realty, and the realty o f experence. Censorshp fosters the Idea o f an dyllc resoluton of conflcts between ar tlsts and the patron-functonares. Tyranny chapes In general the trats of the nterplay Nween offcal and lved realty, and the l^cultles whch ensue fro ths dscr epancy ust be faced In turn by the Seeng power. have touched on a nuber of ponts: the p0 tcal content of art, the stuaton of art 17 under poltcal control, the conflct of socal roles as between the artst and poltcan. These ponts were only tentatvely stated, and certanly they do not exhaust even the basc aspects of the proble. I have chefly tred to focus on the nterdependence of poltcal and artstc freedo. My conclusons have already been stated. Let e add here that n y judgent, the socalst syste wll, on the one hand, brng forth out of ffty years of panful experence n the counst governed countres the full possblty for a wtherng away of all censorshp (the poltcal censorshp, too) and on the other the condtons conducve to a role for the artst as an acknowledged, effectve dalogue-partner n soe knd of touch wth the executve poltcal body of socety. The process of achevng ths relatonshp ust stll take te for fundaental changes In cultural polcy can only follow after socopoltcal developents and changes. A fascst rege, an authortaran syste, cannot sply decde to agree to artstc lberty. Rather, Plato's solutons are appled: Those who thnk "dfferently" ay be done away wth (the extree s the Naz soluton of externaton) or they ay be controlled by censorshp. There Is surely also the exceptonal "Hyde Park" soluton avalable to the state: a polcy of allowng the artst to say what he wll, and perhaps then engagng h n debate, wth the ctzenry to draw Its own conclusons. At least untl the present ths plan has also had ts defcences. In as uch as It projects only a foral, bourgeosdeocratc lberty. The context of ths polcy has been captals, whch poses, as Lenn suggested n 1905, ts own deands and requreents, n short a knd of dsgused censorshp. In addton to that, the basc noton of the polcy In Its purest for requres questonng. An artst s allowed to speak and wrte wthout hndrance: yet hs effectve outreach s vrtually nl. The real vablty Inherent In the "Hyde Park" polcy would be brought out, f ths foral freedo of bourgeos deocracy were cobned wth the stature and attenton whch Is accorded the artst or scholar In the counst-governed countres. I do not refer to a purely echancal xture of the best cultural patterns now characterzng the socalst and captalst states. Rather, n the new genune socalst condtons the artsts and Intellectuals who had been heard
out, and who perhaps would have provoked Intensve publc stock-takng and dscusson, would acheve an Integrally substantal pact on the va actva of the entre socety. Censorshp would have no reason to occur. Before a stuaton lke ths can coe nto beng, however, the structure of socety ust necessarly undergo a profound deocratzng surgery. The developent towards a lbertaran socals sees to be rreversble. Yet ts acheveent s not reducble to a tetable. And any predctons about ts developent ust be left f ndeed, they should be ade to experts n socology and poltcal scence, who oreover wll want to take nto account the condtons of partcular countres. And untl the acheveent of ths fully eboded deocratzaton? In the eanwhle perhaps the sngle ost valuable otto to encourage would be non nocere. Inflct the least possble har. But of course advce of ths strpe s nnocuous, trte and of no earthly use: the thought s plattudnous, the possbltes of har are nearly unlted. Every dctator can ake stateents ebodyng ths knd of prncpled relatvs and then swear he solenly serves the otto n hs own best way. So, we shall not nvoke any "good advce n bad tes." It's superfluous. Realstcally consdered, no one can expect even the ost coherent arguents to alter the cultural polcy of rulers whose thought tends n a daetrcally opposed way. But the socal practce ay lead the rulers towards a gradual teperng of censorshp. In the end, the natonallygenerated, progressve "cunnng of hstory" can alone unburden the arts of ther poltcal yoke. We wll only after see an end to the ahlstorcal posng of the dlea, whch talks of art's "boundless freedo" but also of artstc "lberty forever In chans." Such Ideas, lke the predcaent they attept to ebrace, wll slowly be dssolved lke the set sle on the face of the cat In Alce n Wonderland. 'The edtors offer the followng lberal translaton of the Tactus quotaton: Unquely felctous are those tes when one ay experence what one chooses and speak what one thnks. 18 In concludng hs artcle attackng the latest nstructons to the Prussan censor, Karl Marx cted Tactus: Rara teporu fentty ub quae vels sentre et quae sentas dcers lcet.' Yet he was convnced a happy te would coe when ths joy would be ordnary The future depended on soco-econoc practce and the character of poltcal adnstraton, prarly. But ths vew should not be taken as negatng the nfluence n socety of self-awareness: the role of the artculated conscousness. Conscousness ay be decsve for the acheveent of socal practce. It ay deterne whether the poltcans' drectves are carred out sply n a techncally specfed way, or f on the contrary a populace deands oral accountablty of ts poltcans, and exerts ts judgent over at least the long range choces of polcy. Where ths latter does not occur, t s far to say that a ode course of developent ust go astray. Another quote fro Marx, ths te fro "Debatng the Freedo of the Press," ay be useful. // any for of lberty s destroyed, the whole foundaton of lberty s n Jeopardy and freedo wll then exst only as ts own shadow. For t s erely accdental n whch doan the slavery wll entrely govern. Slavery here becoes the rule and freedo only an excepton, an outcoe of an atttude both arbtrary and casual. Nothng need be added to Marx's own words. Let the strke wth dsay those counsts, who, ore catholc than the pope, broaden and extend the poltcal censorshp over the arts Into a sacred covenant. And, too, let these words arouse all of the fghters for cvl rghts and artstc lberty who are actve n countres where fascs s donant or on the threshold, whether n Greece or the Iberan pennsula. In the Aercas or n Asa, encouragng the to a decsve vctory. /Kr. Schwartz s an author, poet, lecturer on Huans and Culture, and Drector of the Cultural Alternatves Network. Poltcs and Art: ACasecr Cultural Confuson Barry Schwartz Durng the late sxtes and early seventes, the artst, long consdered a Prnce Charng, got turned nto a frog, and threatened to croak. Not only dd soe artsts choose for socal art, the anathea of foralst aesthetcs, not only dd others nsst on creatng conceptual art, whch doesn't serve as saleable decor for hoes and offces, but any, any artsts organzed to an unprecedented degree and hordes of the descended nto the bowels of prevously coplacent nsttutons, where they engaged n protest and general ayhe. The artsts' protest was otvated by a potpourr of ssues and causes. As ctzens, artsts joned wth ther conteporares across the country to procla abhorrence of the war n Vetna, outrage at the kllng of students, ndgnaton at racs and sexs n the arts, and frustraton at the encroachng nhuanty of the tes. As artsts they were specfcally vctzed by what they protested In general. A labor force of ncalculable vtalty and talent, they were unhappy wth the conventonal arrangeent ot Poverty as copensaton for freedo. These creatve doers wanted also to be cr eatve lvers; a goal whch requres adequate housng, reasonable fnancal Se curty, and a far cut of the large pe of ar t nvestent and art busness. So they ar gued and deonstrated for refor, n the ^ tural nsttutons, the governent agen- Cle s, and the coercal enterprses responsble for turnng ther creatons Into ' Tla 'ketable coodtes. Ther cause was 19 just, ther eans outrageous, and ther poltcs, confused, n short, they behaved n ways that confor to socety's age of the artst. Ther goals, ther deands, ther nsstence on change were not realzed. Instead, they drew attenton to the arts and created a new playthng for the eda whch provded the ratonale for what has now becoe known as arts adnstraton. Yet, they cared, and t s to ther credt that those artsts nvolved n art protest are, to date, the only organzed group actng n behalf of the soul of the art world. Typcally, whle the artsts reonstrated about the cres of socety, the cultural nsttutons were dstracted by ore teporal concerns, specfcally oney. Aganst the background of artst protest, useus and other cultural nsttutons were expandng and gong broke. Whle ther brochures and grant applcatons claored about the powers of the arts to enrch the lves of those drectly exposed to the, the useu drectors, boards of trustees and cultural brokers were deeply preoccuped wth balance sheets. In 1968 the Aercan Assocaton of Museus coughed up the Belont Report whch, though unrelated to the racetrack, dd suggest that adnsterng cultural nsttutons was lke runnng horses. There would be wnners and losers. The prvate patron was no longer the lfe support of cultural prograng. Wth a rsng econoy, the Report argued, the stakes of culture would have to be pad by soebody else, f the nsttutons were to survve. As s the cultural nor, by the te the