The Artist and the Duty of Patriotism
One question that emerged from our conversation with Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana was: Does the artist have a duty of patriotism during a time of national crisis and emergency? “Strip Search” is a cautionary film about the consequences of the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties. Yet, doesn’t the artistic community have a responsibility to assist in the war effort; indeed, must they be patriotic so that the reasons behind the Patriotic Act–the defense of this nation from the threat of terrorism–not be undermined or trivialize?
Lumet and Fontana did not, in any sense, believe that they had a responsibility to support a war that they did not believe in personally. Fontana, in fact, believed that the most important obligation of the artist is to expand the conversation and the scope of public debate, to “keep people talking,” which is not unlike the overall purpose of our Forum– why we sponsor these events and maintain this blog.
Artists supported America’s involvement in World War II, although it is true that artists tend to be on the left of the political spectrum, and are drawn, politically and personally, to messages of anti-violence and anti-war, even through Hollywood is better known for mass produced images of violence and glorified depictions of war. While artists appreciate the struggles of the radical, not all radicals are deemed righteous or redemptive. For instance, anti-abortion protestors who chain themselves to abortion clinics are not depicted in our cultural landscape in particularly heroic terms, and yet their means are decidedly radical.
Yet, President Bush, and Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana, are in one sense advocating the same thing, but ultimately drawing different conclusions. Everyone believes in American freedom–the far right and the left, and everyone in the middle. Freedom is the cornerstone of American democracy and exceptionalism, yet both sides can advance the cause for freedom and yet leave all sorts of contradictions on the cutting room floor, and the West Wing.
The presumptions and premises of the Patriotic Act is that American freedom will end unless we vigilantly and valiantly prosecute, interrogate and punish those who have brought terrorism to America. Lumet and Fontana, in “Strip Search,” suggest that American freedom is itself compromised by depriving us of the very liberties that ultimately make America free. What is America without its freedoms, and yet what would America be if it were left unprotected against those who value neither America, nor the promise of its freedoms?
In the film, the interrogator proclaims, in an effort to both lament and rationalize what he is about to do: “I can’t help it that we don’t live in a perfect world.” And the woman about to be strip searched says, in response to his desire to have his child live in a safer world, which presumably requires that he resort to these interrogative techniques: “Safe but not free; alive but not human.”
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Says:
9/11 was not, as was without comment stated to be, just another attack on New York City (and the Pentagon) - instead, it was the first time that a sovereign state was attacked by the devotees of an eccentric multimillionaire with a profound ideological agenda. This might be a lesser point were it not for the fact that an enemy that is a nation or a state is, at least in theory, defeatable - Al Qaeda and its clones might well be a different problem entirely. And so we might be looking forward to years of various attacks that are extremely difficult to prevent.
Secondly, civil liberties will, unfortunately, always suffer in times of war and terror - that is how governmental and military minds work. Of course, limiting civil liberties is unlikely to deter anything, unless draconian rules are applied, with infinitely more bite than the Patriot Act. What we are witnessing now is a series of shallow, grandstanding gestures by our government. The Patriot Act pales into total insignificance when compared to losses of liberties encountered elsewhere in the world. I don’t think this country will ever stand for seriously totalitarian losses of liberty such as practised by Russia, various communist countries during the second half of the last century, not to mention North Korea and the Middle East.
This is not, I believe, a “slippery slope” argument. As Walter Laqueur ponted out some time ago, the West is fighting for its life. We are busy trying to figure out how to deal with situations never envisioned before, trying to develop sane and intelligent responses - legal, moral, and so forth - to unprecedented threats. Since our government seems unable to do this - well, I am sure you can figure out which way I am heading. Good luck, and may God bless us all - we’ll need it.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Says:
9/11 was not, as was without comment stated to be, just another attack on New York City (and the Pentagon) - instead, it was the first time that a sovereign state was attacked by the devotees of an eccentric multimillionaire with a profound ideological agenda. This might be a lesser point were it not for the fact that an enemy that is a nation or a state is, at least in theory, defeatable - Al Qaeda and its clones might well be a different problem entirely. And so we might be looking forward to years of various attacks that are extremely difficult to prevent.
Secondly, civil liberties will, unfortunately, always suffer in times of war and terror - that is how governmental and military minds work. Of course, limiting civil liberties is unlikely to deter anything, unless draconian rules are applied, with infinitely more bite than the Patriot Act. What we are witnessing now is a series of shallow, grandstanding gestures by our government. The Patriot Act pales into total insignificance when compared to losses of liberties encountered elsewhere in the world. I don’t think this country will ever stand for seriously totalitarian losses of liberty such as practised by Russia, various communist countries during the second half of the last century, not to mention North Korea and the Middle East.
This is not, I believe, a “slippery slope” argument. As Walter Laqueur ponted out some time ago, the West is fighting for its life. We are busy trying to figure out how to deal with situations never envisioned before, trying to develop sane and intelligent responses - legal, moral, and so forth - to unprecedented threats. Since our government seems unable to do this - well, I am sure you can figure out which way I am heading. Good luck, and may God bless us all - we’ll need it.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Says:
The artist has a duty of patriotism when it comes to national atrocities. There is a degree of reverence that we should all adhere to when it comes to certain topics. That isn’t to say that there is no room for criticism of the Patriot Act, just that there is a proper time, place and manner. Get your message across, but don’t denegrate what for many people is “the” defining moment in their lives.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Says:
I think it’s appalling to censor an artists’ work during a time of national crisis or emergency, and it clearly goes against the Constitution’s right to free speech. I can’t think of an instance where an artist must be held to a higher standard than an individual, but maybe you can provide me with one and I can chew on it…
April 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Says:
The artist does not have a Patriotic duty during a time of war, neither does any other citizen. People have a right to speak their minds, especially if it goes against the majority. During the vietnam war many
people spoke their minds and it lead to the government abandoning the war. Imagine how many more lives would have been lost had people not used whatever mediums were available to them to have their voices heard.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Says:
This is in response to ilee. You should consider the case of Wilhelm Furtwangler, Germany’s great conductor of classical music, and the conductor for the Berlin Philharmonic, who was subject to a de-Nazification proceeding in 1946.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Says:
It might be dangerous to suggest that anyone has a “duty of
patriotism”. Many objectors to the war in Iraq, have been unfairly
labeled unpatriotic. A more clear definition of patriotism might be
needed to answer this question, however - insofar as any artist is
inspired by the national discourse about security vs. safety - then
hopefully they find ways to represent their perspectives through their works.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Says:
Everyone has a duty of patriotism and an artist should not be insulated from that standard. However, part of patriotism is upholding the Constitution. Because the Constitution allows for freedom of speech, respectfully offering an opinion is certainly allowed. However, like SHarrigan said, I feel like there is a time and place and a way to be respectfully opinionated.
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Says:
It seems to me that there’s a medium-picture argument and a big-picture argument intertwined here. At least, that’s my way of looking at it. To unpack:
The medium-picture argument boils down to whether an artist with vision X should compromise that vision in a time of war, assuming that the original vision X wasn’t inherently patriotic (or if it expressed views that some would consider unpatriotic). Whether or not people agree that an artist has an *obligation* to make patriotic art during wartime, I think it’s fair to say most would agree that *any* compromised vision is inherently less powerful than its undiluted equivalent. In a vacuum, consequently, people who appreciate art would rarely suggest that any artist compromise their vision in the name of nationalism.
Which leads us to the big-picture argument, a debate over whether, in Thane’s words, “American freedom will end unless we vigilantly and valiantly prosecute, interrogate and punish those who have brought terrorism to America.” Under those conditions, there are those who believe that aesthetic concerns aside, an artist has an obligation to support the state, whether or not that position aligns with his or her original, intended vision. It’s an artistic compromise, but one that in theory perpetuates the artist’s freedom to continue making art in the future.
Not really sure where I personally fall in either case. While it’s naïve to assume that just because the U.S. has survived a civil war, Pearl Harbor, and the 50-year-long threat of a nuclear attack during the Cold War, we will also emerge from the shadow of domestic terror attacks, I do feel that artists aren’t necessarily the class with the greatest burden to bear in that struggle, and so maybe they should just keep creating good art without compromise. Because if we do make it out of this and all the art from our era amounts to diluted propaganda, then have we really achieved a meaningful victory?