Let's Get Political

I understand where Berlatsky is coming from, in terms of aesthetics taking away from politics, but I think that he forgets some general ideas about the human race. There’s a reason politics isn’t straightforward, or black and white, and doesn’t use absolute language. That wouldn’t attract people or hold attention. If “Dead Poets Society” was completely realistic, it would not be as popular. The political critics in our class talked about propaganda, which has a huge aesthetic component. If propaganda posters and videos were realistic, they couldn’t have nearly the same affect. While propaganda (such as that from the world wars) is a bad example due to the hatred and spread of misinformation it causes, it is also an admirable example of the powerful combination of aesthetics and politics. Sometimes the public has to see something over-the-top to absorb the basic message, and this is true for both propaganda in general and productions like Dead Poets Society.

This discussion reminded me of a picture I’d seen a while ago:



if you can't read them, here's a link:
www.adventured.com/funny-facts/dr-seuss-covers/

Dr. Seuss is a very unique political critic in that he makes these issues into children’s books, but I do not believe that his choice of outlet diminishes the quality of either the issue or its message. Although he may have simplified the political topics, it is not done with the intention of oversimplification, nor with the intention of communication of concrete information. It is to draw attention to an issue. Dead Poets Society does the same thing. I defend these things against Berlatsky’s points because I think he is being too harsh, and that his eye as a political critic is analyzing things too deeply for their accuracy and specific, political value.

I love the way Lauren put it, that although an aesthetic/political product may not reach out to some people, it is possible that the same thing will cause someone else to rise to action. We are all different thinkers, which goes back to the idea of politics being tailored to touch the attention of humans.

A common trend in today’s society is the need to compartmentalize and simplify everything. For example, take the issue of voting. In our school we have many opportunities for students to vote. There’s ASB, winter court, etc. At first glance, it may seem like this encourages voting among the youth. The flip side is that we don’t understand the importance of voting because sometimes it is difficult to see the impact our vote has (to our school, in this case). The same phenomenon is happening with politics, or rather “mass politics” as the author refers to it. The idea is that quantity is being favored over quality. Aesthetic qualities are easier to consume than humanities. By this logic sometimes people will see only aesthetic elements concerning politics and fail to understand the greater significance as it relates to the human race.

The article warns about this “amateurish embrace of aesthetics.” I think it is important to understand that the aesthetics and humanities of politics are inseparable. Keeping this in mind, the way to adapt to the memes “eating” our politics is to have a sophisticated understanding of the purpose of aesthetics. In the modern era of mass politics, a central goal of many political parties is to garner the attention of the public. The easiest way to do this is to strike at people’s emotions and give them easily consumable information. I would have liked the article to go into more about how to combat this issue because it isn’t one that is going away. In my opinion, this issue involves humans going against their instinct to blindly follow what is put in front of them. This means fighting any laziness in attempting to analyze and understand an aesthetic element of politics. I think this will come more naturally if people start with an appreciation for the integral role politics plays on society. Politics is a force that can help and hurt people. When no attempt is made to delve past the aesthetics, politics will more often harm than help.

Art is as political as politics are artistic, is what I took away from the article. To me, there appears a fine line between being a skilled political critic, and over-analyzing an aesthetically masterful piece of art to the point that it loses its value. It's far easier to devalue a piece of high stature that add value to one that lacks it, and that is why heavy criticism, political or other, is dangerous. I love the last line of Berlatsky's article, "We need to understand the discipline of the humanities because, if we don’t, the humanities will continue to discipline us." This sentence can be twisted to fit a myriad of different topics, and I find it especially homologous with political criticism. We need to understand the powers of political criticism because, if we don't, it could overpower us, thus devaluing things that shouldn't be devalued. Going along with the Dead Poet's Society example, political criticism is a two-sided sword, and it's critical that we, as critics, wield both. I found the article to show only one side of the sword, in which a view of modern political issues is used to strip value from a piece created outside of the time frame for the issues being discussed.
However, the article did well to point out that "We live in a time when mass politics involves the continuous manipulation of aesthetics." In this case, devaluing the movie is done not for the simple pleasure of being highly analytical, but because, in a somewhat satirically aesthetic way, to point out that being an amateur aesthetic enthusiast "leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk." Politics and art are somewhat inherently entwined, with the right amount of aestheticism invigorating politics, and vice versa. My conclusion after reading has left me with the same, slightly more informed, opinion I had before: just because politics are a part of art, and art a part of politics, doesn't mean they cannot be enjoyed separately. It is up to the individual to decide whether separate or together leads to more meaningful experience.

I feel I cannot adequately respond to this article because I have never seen "Dead Poets Society," and all of Berlatsky's main arguments are centered around events from said movie. Perhaps if I had seen the movie, I might agree with Berlatsky that it lacks the political correctness that he claims is so crucial to our society. Yet, basing my judgments off of Berlatsky's biased descriptions of different scenes from the movie, I feel that Berlatsky's ultimate assertion--"Inspiration without analysis is a recipe for gullibility, for cruelty and for an unthinking reaffirmation of prejudice as the self-actualization of the powerful"--lacks the depth necessary to make a convincing argument against "The Dead Poets Society," or the relationship between aesthetics and politics at large.

One of my greatest qualms with Berlatsky's assertions about intertwining politics with aesthetics is that his evidence is not upsetting to a reasonable degree. Berlatsky argues that "Dead Poets Society"'s attempt to bring politics into its plot ultimately weakens the enormity and importance of such issues by pairing them with humor or distasteful characters and incidents. His most emphasized example has to do with the portrayal of gender equality in the movie, and specifically, how the movie undermines the importance of the issue by making the main male characters interested in allowing women to attend their academy for the almost sole purpose of their teen sexual impulses. Yet, as a self-proclaimed feminist, I venture to say that Berlatsky seems more aloof about the issue of gender equality than does the movie he is so quick to indict. The reality of any socio-political issue is that being politically correct is often more detrimental than useful to the cause.

We talked briefly in class the other day about why we read "Huck Finn" instead of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." I believe it is because, although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" might be more politically correct for modern readers, its political correctness blinds its readers to the truth of the time--as much as we'd like to believe that most white people realized their sins and finally awakened to the humanity of African Americans after reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin," the bloody Civil War which soon followed the book's publication proves otherwise. On the other hand, it seems much more plausible that some white people--like Huck--had inklings that slavery wasn't right, and slowly but surely began to evolve out of their society's beliefs and into holding their own beliefs about race.

But back to Berlinsky's dissatisfaction with "Dead Poets Society"'s portrayal of the importance of gender equality, his inability to accept notions of gender equality that are perhaps a little unsettling or twisted is quite problematic. Although I have never seen the movie, I watched the trailer, and feel I can deduce that "Dead Poets Society" is hardly different than any other teen-male-bonding movie, like "Superbad." Sure, they have completely different storylines, but the emphasis on relationships between males and their adolescent lusty longings always prevails. Hence, for "Dead Poets Society" to use innuendo and sexual references while also advocating gender equality is no surprise, nor is it disturbing. To pretend like teen boys are truly mature enough to separate their concerns about the female species from their sexual attraction to women is unrealistic, and would not make for a good movie. Thus, the politics of gender equality in the movie is not perfectly satisfying, but it represents a general truth about one demographic's view on the issue, no sugarcoating required.

Lastly, a quote of Berlinsky's that makes me laugh reads, "When Charles draws a (supposedly) Native American potency symbol on his chest and begins to call himself “Nuanda,” the exoticism stands in for any actual discussion of race or colonialism, or of the fact that Keating’s Romantic curriculum excludes, not just the realists, but all non-white males, not to mention any discussion of Whitman’s homosexuality. Political differences and exclusions are transformed into the aesthetic accouterment of a feel-good pageant." Berlinsky evidently has no sense of humor; he needs everything to be a serious discussion of serious issues. But the thing is, "Dead Poets Society" is supposed to be "feel-good." Certainly, it is important for people to be aware of socio-political issues, but it is also important that we can escape once in a while to somewhere where we don't have to think so hard about everything. When I sit down to watch a comedy/feel-good movie, I don't look forward to being lectured about Walt Whitman's homosexuality or colonialism. I look forward to letting go, relaxing and being a "tired reader"--as Flannery ' Connor would put it.

As the famous song "Turn, Turn, Turn" puts it, "[There is] a time to every purpose under Heaven." So it goes to say that God won't be frowning down on me for taking some time to escape from the constant chatter of my brain and let an imperfect but fun movie lead me away from all the heavy issues we deal with in reality. It's all in the plans.

I have never read or seen "Dead Poets Society," so my comments are purely based off the article and mainly address the general topic of politics being combined with art.

The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with mixing politics and aesthetics in art, but we need to be aware and learn to differentiate between the two in a piece of art. The issue is when we as readers or consumers of art confuse the political message with the aesthetics and accept one only because of the other. As Berlatsky says, "That’s why amateurish embrace of aesthetics, which Dettmar warns about, is dangerous —it leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk." I do not have a problem with using art as a means to popularize a political message, but I only hope that we as consumers can distinguish between political messages regardless of the art they are combined with. In the article, it sounds as if Keating is not a very good teacher just as biased memes or propaganda are not good teachers. They do exist, however, and we should know how to deal with such art when we come across it.

Art is a fabulous, efficient vehicle for political messages, even political messages we don't realize we are sending out into the world.

That being said, sometimes people enjoy vehicles for the sake of vehicles. There are car collectors who just let cars sit there being pretty and are satisfied with the knowledge that the vehicle once had the ability to drive around. They don't need to drive the vehicle, though. It is not used for transportation.

Art is an efficient vehicle for political messages, but vehicles don't always have to be driven. That's where this article's author, and maybe all political critics, think differently than I do. Maybe Dead Poets Society does suck for the reasons listed in this article, but I don't necessarily think it's fair to be so broad about the "takeover of America" because then you aren't talking about one car, you're talking about cars in general. The article has some valid points, but the author should watch the scope/scale of the argument, because it becomes a question of whether art should exist for art's sake, and there isn't really enough evidence in the article to argue that issue.

I agree with Naomi that art and politics can be mixed to create an effective message. I believe that the aesthetics and political message must be examined and critiqued separately to ensure that both are interesting and thought-provoking by themselves. If a piece of art is held up under two different lenses, it can only add to its effectiveness. If a piece of art is both aesthetically pleasing and politically motivating, its "double trouble". It has the ability to question the human experience from two perspectives. This article questions whether or not a piece of art can accomplish that effectively and posits that it cannot be done.

Initially, I had no doubt in my mind that it could be done. As I began to think more about it, however, I realized that I cannot think of a work that has had great political impact, but is equally great in terms of aesthetics. In order to be politically effective, the work has to reach a large number of people. If the work is incredibly aesthetically pleasing with complicated nuances and intricate language, its doubtful that the work would be enjoyed by lots of people. If people are unable to fully understand the work, its unlikely that they would rally behind it. BUT, if the two elements can be combined it would create a masterpiece and aid readers in understanding the human experience from different lenses at the same time. Perhaps combining two lenses would eliminate the limitations and allow the work to explore many more aspects of the human experience or perhaps the limitations would be multiplied. Unfortunately, we may never know until, as a whole, we are able to understand the joy of reading a long, complex work, rather than seeking immediate gratification.