Audra McDonald responds to those who say 'artists should shut up about politics'

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 4:32pm

Hiya -- chatted with Audra McDonald about the pointed messages she's sending on her new album, which recently came out in digital formats and hits the street on CD this Friday (has anyone given it a listen yet?)

"You don't just pull something off a shelf that's been manufactured. As an artist, it has to come from you. It has to come from some deeply creative and emotional place in you. People who say 'artists should shut up about politics,' I always say, 'OK, Chopin and the "Revolutionary Etude." Talk to Chopin.' Art has been used as a means and form of protest for centuries, for forever. Art has been used as allegories, as fables, as cautionary tales. It's a form of the art form itself."

Agree?

Full story here, if anyone is interested - we also discussed why she can't sit still during revivals, her visit to "RuPaul's Drag Race" and more!

Audra McDonald: My music sends a powerful message

Updated On: 5/30/18 at 04:32 PM

[Oak2]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 4:43pm

Of course politics should be allowed in art - as long as it's both ways. Too many times such views turn into something closer to "Art should be allowed to be used to express political views - as long as they're MY political views", while arguing that art expressing the opposite political view should be banned or censored. Either both sides are ok to express through art or neither is.

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 4:48pm

Oak2 said: "Of course politics should be allowed in art - as long as it's both ways. Too many times such views turn into something closer to "Art should be allowed to be used to express political views - as long as they're MY political views", while arguing that art expressing the opposite political view should be banned or censored. Either both sides are ok to express through art or neither is."

For sure. I don't think "neither is" should be an option, but definitely any and all sides should be able to be expressed - and folks should be ready to withstand the consequences, if any. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from (non-governmental) consequences, and that's always a consideration. But actors, artists and anyone else should never feel as though only one side is appropriate to express.

 

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 5:12pm

Oak2 said: "Of course politics should be allowed in art - as long as it's both ways. Too many times such views turn into something closer to "Art should be allowed to be used to express political views - as long as they're MY political views", while arguing that art expressing the opposite political view should be banned or censored. Either both sides are ok to express through art or neither is."

This times a million. Censorship of certain ideas is a dangerous slippery slope that I can't imagine will lead to anywhere good in the long run, no matter how you feel about the specific things you want to be censored.

That being said, being allowed the platform to present your ideas doesn't mean you should be shielded from criticism by other citizens. Artists should be allowed to discuss and create work pertaining to their beliefs all they like, but that freedom also comes with the ability for audiences to critique and agree/disagree with what's being preached to them. (And yes, that includes middle/low class folks who grow tired of Hollywood elites preaching about the economy and social change when it's very evident that these actors/directors/producers live in a very sheltered bubble away from the realities of the working class.)

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 5:13pm

IlanaKeller said: "Oak2 said: "Of course politics should be allowed in art - as long as it's both ways. Too many times such views turn into something closer to "Art should be allowed to be used to express political views - as long as they're MY political views", while arguing that art expressing the opposite political view should be banned or censored. Either both sides are ok to express through art or neither is."

For sure. I don't think "neither is" should be an option, but definitely any and all sides should be able to be expressed - and folks should be ready to withstand the consequences, if any. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from (non-governmental) consequences, and that's always a consideration. But actors, artists and anyone else should never feel as though only one side is appropriate to express.

"

Absolutely. I believe art cannot be separated from culture, society, and politics. Therefore, artists should be free to express all sides, and no, this is not just "two sides" or "both" sides because every issue is nuanced and multi-faceted unless an opinion is simplistic and a blanket, sweeping statement. That said, if an artist takes that risk, then they are also giving people the right to respond to what is said. They are inviting conversation and debate.

What annoys me is how some play victim because they say something as a "free thinker" and then get mad when there is a mass of people who reply in opposition. Then they act like there's a mob or something when they're just mad that they actually received a critique because they are not used to people talking back to them or challenging them. They are also just mad that their opinion is actually unpopular with their audience and fellow community members. If you want to put yourself out there to express something that your fan base and community may not agree with, then expect a response.

I also think the way one expresses their opinion also matters if you care about the sort of responses you will be receiving. I also think fans need to be mindful that they should not expect a "respectful" response if they themselves are being rude or abusive to the artist. That said, some times the artist sets the tone, so they contribute to the vitriol.

ETA: And yes, my posts about welcoming critique and then acting like a victim, includes some of those who self-identify as being part of the middle/working class who are so used to acting as if only they represent THE REAL AMERICA and that their opinions matter more than anyone elses' when they actually live in their own bubbles away from other communities who have different life experiences and economic needs. They're so used to not being called out on their behavior or having their ideas actually be called out for what they are that any actual and reasoned critique they receive becomes an "attack".

Updated On: 5/30/18 at 05:13 PM

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 5/30/18 at 7:35pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I also think the way one expresses their opinion also matters if you care about the sort of responses you will be receiving. I also think fans need to be mindful that they should not expect a "respectful" response if they themselves are being rude or abusive to the artist. That said, some times the artist sets the tone, so they contribute to the vitriol."
 

You need to definitely go into this anticipating all kinds of responses, and hopefully having a game plan to respond to them. Anyone should be wary of responding in kind to those who are being abusive, but I do think it's an extra consideration for anyone in the spotlight who has chosen to speak out and interact with the public. It's wonderful, but comes with an extra dose of responsibility, for better or worse. Not that they should necessarily temper what they say or how they say it, but there should be careful thought behind it (like there should be with anyone, in an ideal world). I think the potential for more "damage" is there when you have a platform or following, so hopefully that is a consideration for words and actions. 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 5/31/18 at 3:29am

We have far more celebrities than artists in this country, although this might come as news to many celebrities. Celebrities may certainly take political stands, but their influence is virtually nil. Our culture of celebrity worship will follow their celebrities when they can sing, dance, act, or just look good in a swimsuit. But the public is not going to concede that these people are more intelligent or better informed than they themselves, and thus have opinions of more value than their own.

Few, for example, could have looked more foolish that Jane Fonda when she spoke at the Kent State demonstration in Washington in 1970. Her awkward and stilted "Right On!" with which she ended her remarks just drew ridicule from most of the crowd. The mostly students in the crowd did not believe that they had anything to learn from her.

Artists such as Audra McDonald are respected enough to at least be heard out when they express political opinions. But does she really think that she can make a difference. Most of the time she will be preaching to the choir, since the theater community is an offshoot of the liberal culture centers in the cities of the Northeast and the cities of the California coast. Not many of those who heard her in Geffen Hall had assault weapons stored in the basement.

To Audra's credit, and as you would expect from one with such extraordinary talent, she hit no one over the head with politics at that concert. She sang the songs with fervor and intelligence, but it was up to each member of the audience whether to take what she sang about to heart. No other way. Make a big show of your political views of importance and you will just turn people off, and most especially the ones you wanted to convince. 

[geoffreyC]

Posted: 5/31/18 at 6:50am

Yes, we must always present both sides: Slavery was bad.  Slavery was not bad.  See, Trumpsters?  We've got you covered.  -- Hollywood "elite".  

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/31/18 at 7:23am

OleBlueEyes - excellent post !!

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 5/31/18 at 2:13pm

geoffreyC said: "Yes, we must always present both sides: Slavery was bad. Slavery was not bad. See, Trumpsters? We've got you covered. -- Hollywood "elite"."

 

No one said that both sides MUST always be presented. The point is, you cannot restrict speaking out to one side or point of view. If someone wants to stand up there and say "slavery wasn't bad," in a truly free and open society, they can -- and then they can prepare to be lambasted for it, which they will be, and suffer any consequences from a job, the public, etc.

We may think what someone has to say is abhorrent and wrong and has no place in discourse, but we can't bar them from saying it if we want to be a society or country with free speech.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 5/31/18 at 8:40pm

geoffreyC said: "Yes, we must always present both sides: Slavery was bad. Slavery was not bad. See, Trumpsters? We've got you covered. -- Hollywood "elite"."

I love the implication that every single person who voted for Trump thinks slavery is okay. How tolerant and open-minded of you.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 6/1/18 at 9:01am

Elfuhbuh said: "I love the implication that every single person who voted for Trump thinks slavery is okay. How tolerant and open-minded of you."

That was hyperbole, of course. However, I can say for certain that every single person who voted for Trump voted for Trump, and that makes them all worthy of contempt. I have no intention of tolerating Trump voters, except in the very limited sense that I will not initiate physical force against them. They have no place in my life.