Shut up and Scream
When the CBC interviews a passing Hamilton steelworker on the sidewalk
on their opinions of same-sex marriage, do viewers say "Shut up and go
to the plant"? When CNN visits a Carolina housewife to ask her what her
views on Roe v. Wade are, do viewers tell her to "Shut up and
tend the house"? Generally not -- because the steelworker and the
housewife are citizens of the democratic nations in which they live,
just like everyone else; they account for part of the populous. In a
system of democracy, politicians do not have a monopoly on the
right to speak on political issues (though they've tried to drill that
into citizens' heads for generations). Rather, their purpose is to
voice what the constituents they represent feel is important to them.
So
why is it that when a musician takes a political stance that so many
onlookers so quickly say "Shut up and sing" as though somehow an artist
is less of a citizen than the plumber or the doctor? Seemingly the days
of Leonardo and Michelangelo, the great artists and philosophers (who
were also commercially-viable entities) have long been erased, or
romanticized, in Western consciousness as relics of an age passed when
art was far from commodity, and artists themselves were often the first
to comment and observe cultural and political dynamics; their cultural
criticism was held in high regard for its unconventional wisdom and
insight.
Admittedly I'm the first to cringe when anyone
speaks publicly on sensitive political issues, musician or otherwise,
because of the stakes involved in advancing the position amidst
generalized public perception. However, I can't help but wonder what it
is about musicians specifically that warrants "Shut up" calls from
onlookers with so much more frequency. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Stipe
are both in the business of entertainment, so why should one's
political stance be elevated over the other's due to their so-called
"legitimate" claim to speak on political issues. One wears a tie, the
other has a mic stand -- they're both still citizens.
Historically
speaking, art (and music in particular) has been intricately connected
to political resistance and counter-revolution, from the days of slaves
passing esoteric messages of liberty through song, to Bob Dylan
delivering messages of change through folk songs, to Public Enemy
warning us to "Fight the powers that be." Artistic revolution is almost
inherently politically subversive; it becomes a catalyst, or a
subsidiary of cultural change which does not bode well for those
invested in, or standing to benefit from, the maintenance of the status
quo. Fittingly, any artist, like any other citizen, would be demonized
for challenging the dominant political position -- it is merely the
relationship between art and powerful cultural revolution that inspires
a more heightened opposition to their voice.
I highlight that an artist who challenges
convention, for the right-leaning Arnold Schwarzeneggers and Ronald
Reagans of the world are rarely instructed to "Shut up and act." Yet,
the left is constantly at war with its public image and the legitimacy
of its position when art and artists go political.*
Few words
have ever rung more true than Joe Strummer's adage: "You have the right
to free speech, unless you're dumb enough to actually try it!"
Bigger cages, longer chains?
Should
artists "Shut up and sing," or "Stop whispering, start shouting" -- as
any citizen in a democratic system is entitled to, whether we agree
with their position or not?
Be well,
Robb
* An
obvious exception to this would be Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil, who
is now Australia's Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
-- but Australia has proven again and again to be the progressive black
sheep of so-called "Westernized" nations.