When Drama Becomes Propaganda

Why is so much political art so awful?

Here is a fascinating essay from Terry Teachout in The Wall Street Journal which asks the eternal question, "what is art?" while also looking at the effects of leftist politics on today's art world in general and theatre in particular. This is a somewhat long essay, but well worth the read. For it is interesting to note, as Teachout does, that much of today's political art is just plain bad. And this really comes as no surprise when we ask ourselves what great art is and how it functions.

Teachout comes close to answering the question, but does not quite name it. I think Rand's definition of art is still the best one I have read, and it is pertinent here so let's review it:

Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments: art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were perceptions.

Great art is conceptual in the sense that it holds a mirror up to some part of reality and says, "this is how a part of the world looks to me." Art eliminates the inessential and keeps what is important to the artist and shows it to us. It brings some specific concept to the front of our awareness, but presents it to us rather than explaining it. It condenses meaning into a specific form, allowing us to see the meaning of the artwork directly, with intellectual understanding that follows after our initial emotional response.

But as Terry Teachout also writes, one cannot assume that one's audience automatically sees the world the same way we see it. Indeed, the artist should understand that his art will be seen by many different people, not all of whom share the same outlook. And this is the problem for The Angry Left. As Teachout explains, The Angry Left no longer bothers to produce much art which is universal. An art which is based on universal truths of human nature would be one which portrays the basic nature of human existence while also recognizing how complex and difficult it is. But the left no longer feels the need to do this. Instead they create art with a pre-packaged political point of view which does not even pretend to persuade its audience. These authors simply assume the political views of the audience are of the hard leftist variety and create work which is little more than cheerleading for their side.

They don't try to address people who might be different than them because they think that "those people" in the red states are evil and stupid and not really worthy of being addressed. Thus they create art which is much less than it might be for a much more limited audience with a much narrower view of the world. And while it might be many things, such work is rarely great art.