« Jewish-Israeli Blog Awards | Home | Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Sot »
February 10, 2006
The measure of artistic risk
From Kesher Talk contributor "Ben."
As the cartoon story fades away, I find myself thinking of the consequences. More than a few veils have been stripped away, and not all of them have to do with the West vs Islam civilization clash.
For instance, the concept of bravery as it pertains to the arts is now redefined.
Courage, when considered of an artist, can mean one of several things, but it is the sense of risk that defines it.
It can mean a willingness to try what has not been done before. A chef may display courage, and risks the possibility that diners may gag on some brave new creation.
It can mean a willingness to risk the sacrifice of one's own career, like a pop musician being drawn to some other genre of music.
But it can no longer mean merely being offensive, engaging in political or social mockery, save in the case of a few certain targets, because now we all know where the risk is.
There is no risk in mocking politicians, now matter how intensively the abuse is served. There is no risk in mocking any establishements of American or Western culture- no harm will ensue. Performing the "Vagina Monologues" isn't an act of bravery, unless one does it in Saudi Arabia, perhaps. Every artist alive today now knows the limits: you can do this, which is as brave as taunting a stuffed teddy bear, or you can do that, which amounts to taunting a very hungry very uncaged bear.
Bravery, to an artist, is now an all or nothing thing. Leave the repressive regimes alone, and all your efforts, no matter how avante garde, provocative, or just plain offensive your work is, and you are just pretending at courage. Cross the line and say something about Islam, and your life is one the line.
All the gray areas have vanished in a week. It's as if mountaineers were to suddenly be faced with only two choices: Everest, or the plastic rock climbing wall. Long after this dies in the news, its going to echo in the heads of every writer, poet, standup comedian and performance artist- go after any target but the big one, and you're only faking it, playing it safe. It doesn't matter whether they admit it or not, whether they rewrite their material or not, it will be there, in their minds, and it will affect things. Even Margaret Cho knows she can curse Bush all she wants, but she'd better keep her mouth shut about you-know-who if whe doesn't want to bleed to death in the street. Speaking Truth to Power is only a heroic act if Power chooses to make an issue of it.
I have this rather demonic thought that if I were the Emcee of a comedy club, I'd make the situation plain as can be and start the evening with a warning: "We certainly don't want to see anyone hurt, or worse, so please, comedians, you are forbidden by the management from saying anything offensive about Islam. --well, umm, no, Sarah, a release form won't do it-- But all other topics are okay."
I asked Ben:
I thought that would be the case after Salman Rushdie but nothing changed. What do you think?
Ben:
I think there is a big difference- this time, the threat and warnings are not directed against an individual, but a civilization and everyone on it, very clearly. This is nothing less than an order given out to the artistic world of the west: You are hereby ordered not to mock us- and we have the power to enforce this ruling.
levyben | 02/10/06 at 04:23 PM | Categories: Competing narratives
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/4549
Blogs which link to The measure of artistic risk:
» The new meaning of "taking artistic risks" from Winds of Change.NET
From Kesher Talk contributor "Ben." As the cartoon story fades away, I find myself thinking of the consequences. More than a few veils have been stripped away, and not all of them have to do... [Read More]
Tracked on February 10, 2006 05:12 PM
» It's easy it be mean when your target won't strike back. from Milblog
You've seen them, I've sure. OpEd cartoons creating the printed equivalent of a frothing rant, spittle flying against Bush&Co, and Cheny, and anyone who dares say that the ideas of the right aren't wrong. (Ted Rall, Mike Lukovitch are two... [Read More]
Tracked on February 12, 2006 09:01 AM
Comments
Sounds thoughtful, but hard to understand what the author means.
Dimitri | February 10, 2006 05:14 PM
This is, of course, true...but those who consider themselves as "transgressive artists" won't face up to their own lack of courage. Instead, they will convince themselves that by knuckling in to the terrorist threat, they are actually showing a higher level of courage, because they are poking a stick in the eye of the American people...whom they despise above all else.
David Foster | February 10, 2006 05:49 PM
It won't penetrate their bubble.
Robert Schwartz | February 10, 2006 07:18 PM
Ben, well put. I was feeling discouraged by this weekend that only 2 or 3 American editors ran the Danish cartoons but your perspective set me right. All artists are now put on notice that they are poking sticks at a pet dog if they think Bush-bashing revolutionary. Good job. You might like this:
Seattle art mandarins censor controversial work< / a>
Das
| February 11, 2006 10:32 PM
DRAW ME CARTOONS
Draw me cartoons of men being flogged, of women stoned to death, of others murdered for apostasy.
Draw them so I may go and show them to the scholars, to the mullahs and the imams, and to such others as are suited to pronounce.
And ask them this: "Are these also not offensive in your sight?"
George Junior | February 13, 2006 10:25 PM












