On the occasion of this:
“… as an artist I consider myself obligated to avoid politics.”
Neal Stephenson
(From his website in response to the question Is Neal Stephenson a cypherpunk? – in the context of his novel Cryptonomicon)
It’s not as if “artist” were a vocation, its practitioners attending to a kind of Vatican where a sort of Pope issues edicts and commands concerning proper protocol, nor are they like government employees required to follow similar requirements. In fact, being rarely in anyone’s employ, least certainly as someone making art, an artist has no obligation peculiar to that role. They may not even have the obligation to make art.
Indeed, who would they answer too, if they did shirk their duty, other than themselves?
Well, if they are in the employ of, say a publisher, and they have contractual commitments, then yes they do owe an obligation to their employer. But the terms of that agreement, and its consequential obligations, are not general or universal.
The job or role “artist” then, is fundamentally meaningless because it is essentially unbound by any a priori statute that is generally applied. So to say that it’s an obligation for an artist to avoid (what, exactly: Speaking? Writing about? Depicting? Exploring?) politics is akin to saying that it is the obligation of a poet not to speak of bread.
To issue edicts of this sort is contentious always, because there is no bible, no rule book, no official etiquette that could support such a claim (and even if there were, it still could be contested). It is therefore, an idiosyncratic, perhaps moral, personal decision, and hence, an obligation only to oneself, and not to say, a professional association of artists and/or poets (at least not one that is evidently eminent).
So then, why make this claim? Only speculation can ensue as some kind of a response. This, of course, can be rather entertaining. And so I offer this:
To make such claims, to start with an analysis of “voice,” and given the obvious inability to locate “artist” and their “obligations” in any way that’s meaningful beyond individual contractual requirements, is to occupy the position represented by the phrase “the royal We.” In other words, it is a singularity in the guise of a plurality. I would like to suggest, therefore, from the start that the sentence might have been more genuinely stated simply as: “I consider myself obligated to avoid politics.”
If it had been rendered thusly, then there would be little to contend with. Of course, any person might still consider to ask him why Neal Stephenson felt so obligated, and if he condescended to reply “because I am an artist,” then it would not make a difference as far as this consideration is concerned. But if he did reply, “It is a personal decision,” then pressing the issue further might seem rude and itself a bit “political.”
His reply to a question which does not explicitly refer to politics, but rather to identity, and to, I would assume, some sort of practice, is framed with regard to membership in another group, wherein he draws a line between their group and his own by way of their respective relationships to politics. But I surmise that there is an investment, on the part of Neal Stephenson, in the practice of an artist as representative, then, of some association (i.e. a society or guild), or simply a community, whose practice is discernibly reflective of its ethics.
I shan’t bother to conflate ethics (i.e. principles, rules, regulations, obligations, etc.) and politics, although it would be easy (and facile perhaps) to do so. But the contradiction is apparent. Still, it is perhaps a more complicated matter because of the specifics, yet to be determined, of the verb “avoid,” that modifies the subject “politics” inside of his reply.
Could it be that the obligation that celebrity writer Neal Stephenson has as an artist to avoid politics, is like the obligation that a rock star may have as a musician to avoid groupies? That is, is he is obligated to avoid it because it is so present, and is inviting to him too? Or might politics, and its allure, be stalking Neal Stephenson as an artist, tempting him like a “fatal attraction” towards some regrettable encounter?
Of course I couldn’t say, nor even reasonably infer, but I wonder just the same, does he actually fulfill his obligation? I don’t mean, has he had some secret affair with politics, but rather, is it evident from his art that he has successfully avoided politics?
It would take too long to sort that out by example. Certainly there is politics in his novels, so maybe the point again is membership. Which is to say that perhaps he meant to say that as a member of the artist’s group, he is obligated to avoid the politics of any other group?
Could this be a matter of a certain group fidelity? Or is it simply just the case that Neal Stephenson is diplomatically avoiding the political consequences of a political association with a group whose politics may be construed as radical, and could he be taking an account of how prudent it might be to avoid upsetting such a group with an unqualified rejection?
I don’t know. But such a specific contextualized remark might be better readdressed in a different context elsewhere in the interest of some clarity. And then again, maybe not.
As a personal note, and as a sort of signature to this, I will say that I am in fact a huge fan of Neal Stephenson’s work, and of this novel to which he magnanimously responds in particular (i.e. Cryptonomicon). I think it is a good idea to say so because this sort of an analysis can be construed as being mean spirited, and it can be difficult to discern otherwise in a practice (i.e. criticism) often prejudiced as characteristically cold, abstract and cutting, if not itself pugnaciously self-serving.
I wish therefore to state outright that my motivation, although certainly open to question, is at least in some measure predicated by an interest to sort such matters out as someone who also likes to think of themselves as an artist – despite the fact that I don’t really know what exactly that might mean – and also as someone who does not feel obligated to avoid politics, although I think that it’s a good idea to avoid politicians if I can.
So it is meant then, to be taken in the spirit of the very community I challenge the official existence of, but to which I do feel some affection for the possibility of membership or friendship with in either case. Perhaps this contradiction makes me touchy, but I do not intend to be mean or to make sport.
It is, I think, a fair conundrum, (the questionable relationship of art and politics) and one that has been often addressed before (especially in music), and this is not meant, either, to be a foreclosure on such discussion. Rather, it is meant to be a contribution to it. Forgive me, if I did not do so well.
No comments:
Post a Comment