Artistic integrity?

I am an artist. I'm a writer and a photographer, and I feel compelled, like most people here, to talk about horrific things in the world today. It's a choice I've made. It's a choice to keep hearing of all the terrible things going on in the world today, and by sharing the knowledge of these things with others, a chance to "lessen the load" even if it's by an iota.

I know other artists in the world. Some of them are very opinionated, but others really don't give a crap about politics, regardless of whether they are left or right. And that's fair, to a certain extent. But I want to raise a voice to talk about those artists in the past who saw horror and never did anything about it.

There are some artists who cited their "neutrality" when World War II brought the awful accounts of the Holocaust. There are those who shrugged, but did little else during the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the current war, and oh, so many other conflicts and outright war actions.

These are people who could have made a huge difference in contributing their voices to those who spoke up about the atrocities perpetrated. These are people who, instead of making that difference, chose to consider themselves "outside" of the equation and stay "uninvolved."

People get angry all the time at some artists who DO speak out about things in the world that are wrong, but I would rather have someone say something--anything--than sit quietly without weighing in on an issue.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who have absolutely 0 interest in politics. Me, included. Well, I didn't until GHWB ran slimy ads about Michael Dukakis, and then I found I had deep hatred for the people who would campaign as negatively as Poppy did. It also bothered me a long time ago when Thomas Eagleton was forced to resign as a vice-presidential candidate in 1972 because the media went running with the shit-storm that Eagleton had seen a psychiatrist. There was, and is, nothing to be ashamed of--in fact, people who see psychiatrists or psychologists are far more healthy than those who refuse to see one, even though they know they should. Yes, there are things he was wrong about, but hindsight is 20/20 as it is said, and absolutely NONE of us are perfect.

But this world must have participants, and not just observers. We are all here only for a limited time, and those that CAN do something should at the very least make an attempt. If there is someone who is able to influence people to act, is it integrity if they do not?

Would people listen? I don't know. Would it make the difference if an artist spoke up? In the here and now, we are blessed with the internet, and widely diverse opinions are present--enough to guarantee we get different points of view, and that's all well and good, but such richness in reaching the public eye was more limited during the past, and unless you were otherwise "important" in some way, you didn't get the opportunity to let your voice be heard. Any major artist--painter, photographer, actor, author, musician--who could lend their voice to a cause would have been respected enough, I hope, to give their opinion. But it didn't always happen, and I have found I have far worse opinions of even the best artists who refused to speak up.

So I ask all of you: should artists lend their consciences to the causes that would likely be helped by them? If I saw things like the Killing Fields, the Holocaust, or the wholesale slaughter in Serbia, Croatia, or the injustices of any other war or police action, I would not be able to be quiet. I have no problem lending my voice to causes that focus on things that I have seen. I do it now--as someone who loves animals, I do what I can to help raise public awareness about some of the things which go on.

Did the artists who failed to become vocal lose integrity because they failed to speak up? Or should they have been allowed to continue on without speaking about the outrageous things they witnessed?

Let me explain one thing, though. I'm not talking about someone risking certain death by speaking up. No, their silence is different--THEY were the victims. But during a time when every able-bodied man was sent to fight during WWII, you have someone like John Wayne, trying to swagger around like he owned the place, who ran like a chicken when others signed up to fight. Or other cowards who talked their way out of reporting for duty. Or writers who suddenly went mum when their associates were reporting from the front line.

Some people like to complain about Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and other more outspoken performers, but I have to say I'd rather have them out there, reacting to the world around them, than someone who conveniently was absent the day that others went to war.

:kick:

should speak up or not. You are raising thought provoking and opinion provoking questions. I'm thinking that Leni Rieffenstahl would probably not have been able to make some incredible (artistic, ground-breaking, phenomenal) films had she not kept her mouth shut.
But then, what do I know about what she saw and perceived about Hitler's Germany.

I think artists are people, along with the rest of us. And if they are magnificent humans like the ones you mention
LOL
then they will speak up.
If they are not too bright, they don't catch on or stay in ostrich land, then they don't.
Their talents do not give them special brain power, they just made them famous.