Conservatives complain that Hollywood is "out of the mainstream." I propose that the qualities which make a successful artist contribute to the artist's greater awareness of reality and of similarites between people of all backgrounds, in a spiritual sense, which makes them more likely to support liberal causes. Further, because artists spend more time in contemplation and reflection than the average person, their opinions should be valued rather than decried.
For years, conservatives have complained that artists, usually referred to within the American context as "Liberal Hollywood," too often step outside of their profession and take advantage of their celebrity to spout political opinions. They argue that these people are no different than ordinary Americans, that they should be free to create art and to market that art during appearances on talk shows, but that they should keep their political leanings to themselves.
Indeed, some artists overstep the bounds of appropriate behavior and share their beliefs at inappropriate times. Artists deserve criticism for that. However in arguments of this nature, conservatives often acknowledge that in many cases, artists do a great job of expressing the human condition.
Some art is meant to express nothing, some art is transcendental in nature, and some is a reflection of reality through a prism. There is a different mindset needed to create good, meaningful art, and that is a mindset foreign to people in business or in other lines of work. It involves the channeling of impulses and inspiration, leaving oneself open to influence, and in the case of poetry or lyrics which represent reality, it requires a keen form of observation and of soaking in one's surroundings like a sponge.
Ultimately, I have to wonder whether the mindset of an artist makes him more likely to espouse liberal causes, particularly social ones. Modern conservatives generally argue for market solutions to social problems, whereas liberals often argue that systemic solutions are really the only way to ensure these problems are corrected. Artists, due to their study of the human condition and recognition that everyone goes through similar experiences, are more likely to view the people of the world as one family. This is a viewpoint which is shared in common with Buddhism and with Universalism, and which leads to arguments against nationalism, against warfare, and for peace.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hilberto
And here I thought the answer to the question in the title was just that they're dumbunnies who are out of touch with reality.
2 - RogerMDillon
"they're dumbunnies who are out of touch with reality."
How can they be out of touch, dumbunnies when they make millions of dollars selling product that America eats up? They've got their finger on the pulse and react to what works. If you have a problem with what Hollywood sells, blame the rest of America.
3 - ryan
You don't know what time the Democratic Party stood on the wrong side of moral issues? Hmmmmmmmmm.... 1850's rings a bell for some reason. Oh yes, and then 1945-1989.
4 - ryan
Artists are more liberal because they have free time? Did you read your article before you wrote it?
Hollywood is liberal because its completely isolated from reality.
5 - TA Dodger
Did you read your article before you wrote it?
Did you read that question before you posted it?
6 - RogerMDillon
Obviously, ryan doesn't watch movies or television, or listen to music. Nice life.
7 - Sean
I propose that the qualities which make a successful artist contribute to the artist's greater awareness of reality and of similarites between people of all backgrounds, in a spiritual sense, which makes them more likely to support liberal causes. Further, because artists spend more time in contemplation and reflection than the average person, their opinions should be valued rather than decried.
So that's why Britney Spears sells so many records and has so much important insightful stuff to say.
8 - Dave Nalle
Roger, you KNOW the answer to the question you asked in #2.
How can they be out of touch, dumbunnies when they make millions of dollars selling product that America eats up?
And of course, the answer is - because they're selling dumbunny chow to other dumbunnies.
Dave
9 - nugget
Hollywood = artists????
I missed something.
10 - nugget
I am an artist. I am now a Microsoft engineer. I went to Julliard, have seen all the fartsy movies, and had plenty of theatre/musician friends. I've composed numerous works and my family is inundated with art. My sister goes to the New York Art Academy and my parents were both classical pianists.
I'll say this about artists. We ARE out of touch with reality. My parents were, but luckily they weren't super ambitious or arrogant.
There is a distinction. People in Hollywood are your less talented, arrogant artists. That is, they are not content being artists. They are exhibitionists.
11 - nugget
Juilliard...i know i know.
12 - JELIEL³
Gee someone takes time and effort to make a thoughtfull article and right at comment #1, the namecalling begins. Which only brings up the issue of credibility.
Great article JP and despite what these guys are saying, I think you hit a lot of nails right on the head.
Here's a little something I wrote on my blog about art. Check it out
13 - RedTard
Maybe it is exactly the opposite of what you propose. You say hollywood stars are closer to 'reality' I say they are much farther away. The Hubris generated by the constant ass kissing they receive makes them truly believe that they are better and smarter in every way than the 'average' American.
As far a social wrongs, liberals are on the wrong side of Affirmative action. Welfare and the great society set off a massive increase in single parent families increasing poverty and crime.
14 - Rodney Welch
I don't know about artists in general, but there's a very obvious and oft-cited reason why Hollywood celebrities go for liberal causes: guilt.
They make assloads of money, too much money, sometimes for doing something, sometimes for doing nothing at all. Blather all you want about art and the "human condition," art very often has little to do with it. People sometimes get paid for movies they don't even make.
You write "One of the rewards of fame is more free time (although actors may not agree!) - and this gives them more time to consider the ramifications of actions."
Oh, please, that's just nonsense. I always like what Katherine Hepburn said: "These actors who complain in interviews about 12 hour days. You sit there for 11 of them! It's not as if we're carrying sacks of feed all day. Let's face it, we're prostitutes. I've spent my life selling myself, my face, my body, the way I walk and talk. You can look at me but you must pay me for it."
I doubt there are many self-respecting Hollywood types who can look at themselves in the mirror and honestly "I've earned my money" or "I'm worth it," although I'm sure they try.
They know what you and I know: there's a deep inequity between the piles of money they make and the money other working Americans have to struggle for. They know they are extremely lucky, too lucky; they know their liquor bills could feed a family for a year.
Giving to liberal causes is a way of assauging that guilt. They can crawl into their silk sheets and think "At least I've used my money, time or celebrity to help the less fortunate." Voting Republican would just remind them of what they are: filthy rich pigs.
15 - Mark Saleski
wow! ...and i thought i was cynical.
ps. interesting post. too bad the spew-mongers surfaced so early.
16 - Dave Nalle
And let's not run down the artists unfairly. They aren't born dumb or ill informed. The truth is that being a successful artist is incredibly hard work in most cases - certainly for most actors. You work incredibly long days and basically disappear from normal society for weeks and months at a time doing something which is highly immersive. It's not a lifestyle which is compatible with reading 3 newspapers every day or even sitting down with the evening news and a beer.
Dave
17 - NR Davis
Why are so many artists liberals? Hmm... perhaps because there is a limited market for velvet paitings of Jesus and St. Christopher medals? And anyone with the slightest interest in seeing the Left Behind films and The Passion of the Christ has already done so? (Ah, but wait until the sequels...)
'
(I kid because I love...)
18 - Dave Nalle
Multiple sequels to Left Behind are already out, featuring the fine acting skills of Kirk Cameron.
Dave
19 - ryan
Good one Roger, make fun of me for not watching tv.
Even if that were true, it doesn't matter. I do agree that Liberals tend to make better art, I just happen to think it for different reasons.
I think the secular aspect frees them from many of the constraints facing conservatives. I don't like that, in fact I think its ridiculous, but that's reality.
I actually wrote about it: Not all the mistakes are Hollywood's fault
20 - JP
Thanks Mark and JELIEL³ for your support, I realized in writing this that it would be quickly pounced upon by the closed-minded, so that was not cause for concern! :)
I do see one clarification I should have made--that between "Hollywood" and true artistry, at least in my view where "Hollywood" could be defined as pure garbage created simply because it will sell (formula films, as an example) and artistry defined as thoughtful moving pieces created without regard to how many tickets will be sold (low budget art films, as an example). Maybe someone can help me nail that down a little better.
And in that framework, a Britney Spears would fall into "Hollywood" while a "Good Night, Good Luck" would be somewhere in between, but closer to the "Artistry" side. (see it before you judge)
Rodney, your guilt piece is interesting. Maybe it's oft-cited, but I hadn't read it before. Still, I'd buy that with regards to a "Hollywood" type--as in uber-successful, rich beyond imagination, non-creative--but not as much about a true artist.
21 - Sean
If there has been any "namecalling" it started with the initial article. The author implied that if you are not liberal, you are detached from reality, spiritually unaware. I know many liberals who are detached from reality and who are spiritually bankrupt. I also know many conservatives who are the same. You have described the human condition, not ideological traits.
You wrote:
Some art is meant to express nothing, some art is transcendental in nature, and some is a reflection of reality through a prism. There is a different mindset needed to create good, meaningful art, and that is a mindset foreign to people in business or in other lines of work. It involves the channeling of impulses and inspiration, leaving oneself open to influence, and in the case of poetry or lyrics which represent reality, it requires a keen form of observation and of soaking in one's surroundings like a sponge.
I mostly agree with this, but I don't see how that would not apply to T.S. Eliot, or Jimmy Stewart, or J.R.R. Tolkien (all of whom were deeply conservative philosophically) and I would stack the body of work of any of those men against that of George Clooney. Also, you should not discount the creativity and energy of someone who starts and creates a business. Someone who identifies a need and provides a service or product to fill that need should be applauded.
The main difference in business and art is that in business judgment is immediate and merciless. A buisiness that fails to make money is a failure. In art, making money is not necessarily a sign of failure (Some may say it is a sign of artistic purity), and the critical assessment of a particular work or artist may rise and fall over time.
I was a bit too flippant in my Britney Spears comparison, but my point was that commercial success does not equate to art, or depth, or anything other than moving units, whether they be compact discs, books and/or movie tickets. Lack of Commercial success does not mean lack of artistry, while at the same time if a work of art is commercially successful does not mean it is not art.
22 - diana hartman
good article...
i'm not sure what the issue is for those who think little of those in hollywood (whether or not one regards them as artists)...
they aren't leaders unless we the people make them leaders...they're not spokesmen unless the leaders of the cause for which they speak has made them as much...
those who bemoan actors and actresses are essentially giving them what they (the bemoaners) thing they (actors) deserve the least: attention
no one in hollywood is going to make a difference unless they reach someone through word and action...while that has often meant a redistribution of a very small part of the wealth, it's rarely meant a change in law or an additional law...
i only had to be homeless with my children once to know how it felt and to have a fair idea of the changes i would make if ever afforded the opportunity...i do what i can with what i've got to better the world, but if someday i find myself famous and filthy rich from writing, you can be damn sure to find me at the forefront of that cause, using my celebrity and my money to bring about a better world...
the question is not whether "artists" have the right or are appropriate when stepping outside their fields of expertise and into the realm of social causes; the question is "why do the bemoaners care if someone else is taking on a social cause?"...
i'd much rather hear the beating drums of the give-jobs-to-the-unemployed camp than to hear shots fired by those who think we don't have enough guns...
the only thing that really separates liberals from conservatives is that conservatives think things should be done this way and no other regardless of the other ways they're aware of, whereas liberals not only know the other ways but are willing to utilize those means and resources...conservatives don't seem to have much stomach for anything homeless, starving, or cold, but they sure can't get enough wounded
23 - Dave Nalle
the only thing that really separates liberals from conservatives is that conservatives think things should be done this way and no other regardless of the other ways they're aware of, whereas liberals not only know the other ways but are willing to utilize those means and resources...
This may be true of actual liberals, but remember that the kinds of 'liberals' talked about in this article are not really liberal, but rather dogmatic leftists who are as closed minded as the most bible-thumping conservative is.
conservatives don't seem to have much stomach for anything homeless, starving, or cold, but they sure can't get enough wounded
Excep that they are overwhelmingly the ones who give to and volunteer for charity work, raise money for veterans causes and promote legislation to actually help the poor advance themselves.
Dave
24 - Rodney Welch
I've never read the novelist Mark Helprin, but a lot of people consider him one of the prime literary artists of the day. He also wrote speeches for Bob Dole and unapologetically hated Clinton. When I tell thast to fans of his books it always ruins their day.
25 - Dave Nalle
A lot of the best writers tend to be conservative to libertarian politically. I think they work in a different environment from hollywood 'artistes', which has significantly different values and a lot less peer pressure to conform to some left-wing ideal.
Dave