Welcome to the Apolitical Art Fallacy

The phrase "keep politics out of (blank)" has been thrown around a lot since the advent of social media. Scratch that, it's always been thrown around. Social media has just made the phrase all the more prevalent in my day to day life.

But here's the thing, art has always been political.

Hear me out.

Before the 20th century and the push for high literacy rates, art was one of the only ways people could make grand statements for everyone to witness. It was a means of showing off wealth and power. Whoever had the wealth and power, got to decide what kind of art was made. Why do you think there are so many pictures of the Holy Mother with Baby Jesus in art museums?

Art was commissioned through paintings, sculptures, architecture, fashion, poetry, and plays and could be used to entertain, educate, and celebrate.

What about even further back in time? I'm talking about early recorded history and prerecorded history. Cave paintings often depicted hunts, what animals to eat and which to avoid at all costs. Other early works often held religious significance or denoted who held power in a society.  It was about making a statement to another person or group.

Art records history, or at least what the winners define as history. Art sets beauty standards, especially for women. Art reflects the idealization of a time period, often to the point of gross exaggeration. Art makes a statement.

Art is political.

One example I am most familiar with is Diego Rivera. He was an amazing artist, but his work always caused a stir in the United States. He was an outspoken supporter of Communism, but was commissioned to create several murals within the United States. I've seen his murals in the Detroit Institute of Art and can verify that they are beautiful works that celebrate the American worker. However, his talent couldn't save all of his masterpieces and one was destroyed soon after he started working on it because of it's political message (click here for information on Man at the Crossroads and why it was destroyed).

Diego Rivera mural at the Detroit Institute of Art 

Anti-war art in particular has been known to cause a stir. Pablo Picasso famously painted Guernica in 1937 for the Spanish Republican Government. It depicted the bombing of Guernica, a city in northern Spain, and the horror it brought to the city. It brought the Spanish Civil War to the world's attention at the Paris International Exposition of 1937.

Guernica

I could go on about different artists and their political messages, but that would probably take years. Plus I'm not an art historian, nor do I have much more than a passing interest in art history in general.

But I do have an interest in film history. And, yes, film is an art form.

One of my favorite film periods is 1920s German Expressionist films. These are movies like "M", "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", "Nosferatu", and "Metropolis". Most people probably wouldn't think of them as political art pieces. They were the equivalent of our modern day blockbusters. These movies were meant as an escape from the horrible economic situation the Germans found themselves in after World War 1, not political statements.

Yet, some film critics disagreed. In 1947, after having escaped from Nazi Germany, Siegfried Kracauer published a book called "From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film". In it, Kracauer analyzes the films and social attitudes in Germany that helped to lead to the rise of Hitler. Though I haven't read the book, I did watch the German documentary while it was still on Netflix a few years ago and Kyle from "Brows Held High" has a great summary video on the subject if you click here. It's a fascinating case study.

Actually no, totally watch Kyle's 16 minute video. It's a great explanation as to why art can't be apolitical.

And modern film is still very political. Hence why we have terms like "Oscar bait" that are constantly thrown around during award season. Or why the military will help out with the film industry (hint: it's a recruitment strategy).

Which is why I get really annoyed when people tell artists, athletes, actors, writers, etc. to "stay out of politics". Just because they entertain the masses, doesn't mean that they get to leave their personal opinions at the social media door. Often their work is very political in nature and can reflect or shape attitudes within a culture.

Where would we be socially without movies like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", "In The Heat of the Night", "Dr. Strangelove", or "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" ? How many English classes read "1984"?

Then again, I get annoyed with anyone who tries to silence a group of people. I'm not the biggest fan of authority in general, but that's a personal issue best left for offline.

So yeah, whether we like it or not, art is political. It always has been and it always will be. The work that gets the most notice will likely be the work that stirs up the most controversy and shocks the public.

That just seems to be our human love affair with art.

If you enjoyed this post (or it pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to Metropolis

I have made it my mission to see as many classic movies as I can. It took me a long time to appreciate older movies (basically anything that wasn't in color). There was a point in my life that I thought all films that weren't in color were boring and not worth watching. I used to hate it when my mom would put on one of her Betty Davis movies or when she'd have a Turner Classic Movies marathon going on all day. Thankfully I have since learned the error of my ways.

My preferences for older movies (or those made before my parents were born) tend to be along the liens of mystery noir, campy horror, and fast talking comedies (mostly starring Carry Grant). In recent years, I've been doing my best to branch out and see as many "classics" as I can. Silent films are my latest obsession, mostly because they are a lot harder to find*. They are incredibly interesting to watch since all of the acting is based on movement and facial expression. The ones that have survived helped set the standard for modern film making and created many of the cliches and tropes we know and love today.

The movie Metropolis is on many "must see movie" lists. It's a silent German Expressionists film from 1927 that is considered one of the first (and possibly most influential) science fiction film of that era, though I hesitate to keep it in the science fiction genre. By today's standards it feels like it should be neatly put in the steam punk genre. It can be viewed on Netflix right now if you have 2 and a half hours to spare. 

For those who are unfamiliar with Metropolis, it takes place in the  2026. The lower classes must toil away below ground, keeping the great city running, while the elites are allowed to spend their days as they please with lavish parties and gardens for them to enjoy. One fateful day, the son of the ruler of the city witnesses an explosion that kills some of the workers and decides that something must be done. There's also a pretty girl, a mad scientist who builds a "machine man", and an evil plot to destabilize the city. The everything is resolved by holding hands (no seriously this is how the movie ends).

I would call this movie cliche, except that it was created well before most of these tropes were considered cliche. For example the mad scientist has super crazy hair, which I think is how you know he's a mad scientist. He is hung up on his dead ex-girl friend, which is why he created the "machine man". There's also a lot of blatant religious symbolism that at times feels over the top at times. The tower of Babel is referenced quite a bit.

Then again there's a lot of things that are over the top in silent films. The story is told through the acting and facial expressions since you can't hear the dialog. There's a lot of exaggerated movements, heave shadows, and the makeup makes people's facial expressions really stand out. I couldn't help noticing how much eyeliner everyone was wearing and I definitely burst out laughing a few times when the film wasn't trying to be funny. There's a really trippy dream/hallucination sequence that I had a hard time following.

So much eyeliner

But please don't think I dislike this film. As over the top and cliche it is by today's standards, Metropolis is incredible to watch. The story is very entertaining to watch unfold and a lot of the major themes are still relevant to problems we face today. The special effects and stylized imagery are amazing. It's easy to see where a lot of modern cinema found its influence. 

Metropolis might seem better suited to the steam punk genre now, but there are a few things that I totally see in the year 2026. The mad scientist character, Rotwang, builds a "machine man" (exact text, I would have used the word mecha) who is supposed to look like his dead ex-girlfriend. I can totally see robots designed to look a specific way being available in less than a decade. There's also the issues and tensions between the working class and elites. The extreme wealth gap between the haves and the have-nots nearly destroys the city in the film. It's not that hard to see comparisons to the struggles people face today.

Metropolis isn't the first German Expressionist film I've watched. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was actually my first film in the genre and it's a lot of fun to watch. The eerie set designs and make up add to the creepiness of the story and would be extremely difficult to recreate for today's audiences. It also has a twist ending that no one will see coming. If you enjoy horror movies, it's a great movie to watch.

Cinema is a recent addition to the human narrative. There have been a lot of innovations and advancements in film's story telling, special effects, and visual devises since people first started making movies. But that doesn't mean that we can't appreciate the movies that started it all. I 100% recommend seeing Metropolis at least once to appreciate what its done for modern cinema.

Story telling is a universal constant for human societies. They have helped reflect and shape culture. It can be amazing to read or watch something written nearly 100 years ago and see that it still applies to modern audiences. What types of story telling experiences will be available in the future? Will virtual reality and gaming be the next great innovations for story telling? 

I have no idea, but I'm excited to find out.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Until next week.

*Hugo is an excellent film that goes into why a lot of older films weren't preserved and why the few that are should be treasured.